Thursday, March 23, 2017
Hunter Recruitment in the Outdoors with our very own Joelle Selk! Great Job.
http://www.themeateater.com/2017/hunter-recruitment-in-the-outdoors/
Monday, March 20, 2017
MBA Legislative Alert Oppose HB 568
March 16, 2017
MBA Legislative Alert
Members-
HB 568, a bill sponsored by Representative Kerry White and being brought for MOGA, will be heard in front of the House Fish Wildlife and Parks Committee on Tuesday, March 21st.
This bill seeks to divide the archery season in the Missouri breaks for nonresidents in to two separate seasons
Additionally this bill seeks to require that a full 10% of Missouri breaks archery-only permits to be issued to nonresidents.
If enacted this bill will take some of the FWP Commission’s authority for establishing hunting rules, specifically season setting authority, and give that authority to the Legislature. This is a dangerous precedent. Our concern should be will the legislature seek to set other seasons in future sessions.
At present the FWP Commission sets seasons through the tentatives process which allows ample time for public comment and study. This process works, let’s not change it.
Also by requiring, rather than allowing, 10% of fully subscribed permits to go to nonresident’s opportunity will be taken from resident archers. The total number of permits will be established by the biologists, so, if 10% go to nonresidents, instead of up to 10% of nonresidents Montana residents may have fewer tags available.
Though the impacts may be small it nonetheless will impact some resident bowhunters.
Please ask the House Fish Wildlife and Parks Committee to table this bill.
Rep.Bob.Brown@mt.gov
brownformontana@gmail.com
vcourtforlegislature@yahoo.com
Rep.Kelly.Flynn@mt.gov
Rep.Tom.Jacobson@mt.gov
Rep.George.Kipp@mt.gov
Rep.Casey.Knudsen@mt.gov
Denleylogehd14@gmail.com
jeanbigskybigwin@gmail.com
Rep.Matt.Regier@mt.gov
Atomicrosie@gmail.com
Rep.Ray.Shaw@mt.gov
repbsmith@gmail.com
Rep.Sharon.Peregoy@mt.gov
Rep.Sue.Vinton@mt.gov
Twelch1213@gmail.com
winwithwhite@gmail.com
MSA ALERT: Oppose Hb 568 Just another Moga Entitlement bill
Montana Sportsmen Alliance
HB 568 Comment: Please Oppose
The Montana Sportsmen Alliance was founded to protect our prized Montana traditions like hunting, angling, trapping and conservation of such. We founded to help protect the Montana resident hunters and anglers from the overreach of the Legislature when bills to privatize and/or commercialize those prized traditions are brought forth.
In 2007, Montana FWP held numerous public meetings throughout the state to deal with the Missouri Breaks Elk Archery issue. At issue were that resident hunters were being outnumbered by outfitted non-resident hunters. The allocation of unlimited tags was wreaking havoc on our elk and the quality of the hunt for sportsmen/women.
At those public hearings, where everyone was given the opportunity to comment, Montana hunters spoke loudly & clearly; they wanted those Breaks tags to be put on a drawing basis so the scales would again allow the residents to participate more equitably in a quality hunt.
HB -568, unfortunately turns back the clock on that democratically decided issue by Montana hunters. It is just one more of many Moga, self-serving entitlement bills. It is a waste of legislative time and slap in the face to the resident hunters who participated in 2007 and have continued to oppose these kind of commercial interest bills.
The mandatory 10% allocation for Non-residents is another attempt to bypass the public. The current “up to 10%” is plenty. What is broke?? Why aren’t we considering eliminating Non-Resident permits where the drawing odds for residents is horribly low??
This bill is another attempt to legislate game management over FWP Commission Authority. These attempts leave the public out of the process (the goal). It is with these reasons the Montana Sportsmen Alliance strongly opposes HB 568.
Please include our comment into the official record. Thanks a bunch for your time.
Respectfully submitted,
MSA Leadership Team
Joe Perry, Conrad
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Robert Wood, Hamilton
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena
JW Westman, Park City
HB 568 Comment: Please Oppose
The Montana Sportsmen Alliance was founded to protect our prized Montana traditions like hunting, angling, trapping and conservation of such. We founded to help protect the Montana resident hunters and anglers from the overreach of the Legislature when bills to privatize and/or commercialize those prized traditions are brought forth.
In 2007, Montana FWP held numerous public meetings throughout the state to deal with the Missouri Breaks Elk Archery issue. At issue were that resident hunters were being outnumbered by outfitted non-resident hunters. The allocation of unlimited tags was wreaking havoc on our elk and the quality of the hunt for sportsmen/women.
At those public hearings, where everyone was given the opportunity to comment, Montana hunters spoke loudly & clearly; they wanted those Breaks tags to be put on a drawing basis so the scales would again allow the residents to participate more equitably in a quality hunt.
HB -568, unfortunately turns back the clock on that democratically decided issue by Montana hunters. It is just one more of many Moga, self-serving entitlement bills. It is a waste of legislative time and slap in the face to the resident hunters who participated in 2007 and have continued to oppose these kind of commercial interest bills.
The mandatory 10% allocation for Non-residents is another attempt to bypass the public. The current “up to 10%” is plenty. What is broke?? Why aren’t we considering eliminating Non-Resident permits where the drawing odds for residents is horribly low??
This bill is another attempt to legislate game management over FWP Commission Authority. These attempts leave the public out of the process (the goal). It is with these reasons the Montana Sportsmen Alliance strongly opposes HB 568.
Please include our comment into the official record. Thanks a bunch for your time.
Respectfully submitted,
MSA Leadership Team
Joe Perry, Conrad
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Robert Wood, Hamilton
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Jeff Herbert, Helena
JW Westman, Park City
Fielder gets 100 Grand
Huh,
Jennifer Fielder CEO of the American Lands Council (ALC) and Montana
state senator is breaking the law and the Montana legislature has the
gall to approve $100k to defend her. Hmmm, break the law and get backing
from our elected officials with tax payer dollars. Sounds like we need
to make some adjustments to who's in the Montana legislature.......
For those of you unfamiliar with the ALC, it is a group of elected officials and others who want to see our public lands privatized. Educate yourself on who's involved, it could mean the difference in your children and grand children's ability to hunt, fish or camp on our public lands in the future.
For those of you unfamiliar with the ALC, it is a group of elected officials and others who want to see our public lands privatized. Educate yourself on who's involved, it could mean the difference in your children and grand children's ability to hunt, fish or camp on our public lands in the future.
Montana Sportsmen/women under Attack
Montana sportsmen/women are again under attack in the legislature. Read through the aticles.
montanasportsmenalliance.com website Please sign up.
https://montanasportsmenalliance.blogspot.com/ Blog Please sign up.
Folks,
We are fully engaged in the legislature. As such, we are reading bills, contacting legislators, writing position statements, and driving to Helena for meetings and testimony. We could really use a few donations to offset expenses. We are all strictly volunteer. I know everyone has their hand out, but as most of you know, MSA stands pretty tall on legislative issues. Please consider a donation???
http://www.msapac.com/contribute.htm Contribute
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/Montana-Sportsmen-Alliance-PAC-123400691088041/?ref=bookmarks
Please help us to make a difference for Montana sportsmen/women!
Joe Perry, Conrad
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Robert Wood, Hamilton
Jeff Herbert, Helena
JW Westman, Park City
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
montanasportsmenalliance.com website Please sign up.
https://montanasportsmenalliance.blogspot.com/ Blog Please sign up.
Folks,
We are fully engaged in the legislature. As such, we are reading bills, contacting legislators, writing position statements, and driving to Helena for meetings and testimony. We could really use a few donations to offset expenses. We are all strictly volunteer. I know everyone has their hand out, but as most of you know, MSA stands pretty tall on legislative issues. Please consider a donation???
http://www.msapac.com/contribute.htm Contribute
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/Montana-Sportsmen-Alliance-PAC-123400691088041/?ref=bookmarks
Please help us to make a difference for Montana sportsmen/women!
Joe Perry, Conrad
John Borgreen, Great Falls
Steve Schindler, Glasgow
Robert Wood, Hamilton
Jeff Herbert, Helena
JW Westman, Park City
Sam Milodragovich, Butte
Montana Sportsmen Alliance ALERT: Oppose SB 170
OPPOSE: SB 170
SB170 is another in a stream of bills that have come before the legislature during the last few sessions due to the rising popularity and use–recreational/hobby, commercial, government and military –of drones. Most of these bills have been put forth as a means of guarding privacy and the unregulated use of UAV’s for law enforcement. The only Montana law currently on the books regarding the use of UAVs is 46-5-109MCA, Limitations on unmanned aerial vehicles (2013.) The law places restrictions on the admissibility of enforcement evidence gathered through the use of a UAV for criminal prosecution.
Although Montana law speaks to being able to control airspace (67-1-202 MCA, State sovereignty in space) the Federal Aviation Administration has ultimate authority over all things airborne (Title 49 CFR, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Chapter 401§ 40103 Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.) This establishes the right of a safe, unified and coordinated use of airspace over the United States. Interestingly, FAA regulations exist regarding the use of hobby/model aircraft (Title HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl" 14 CFR HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterI.tpl" Chapter I, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14CIsubchapF.tpl" Subchapter F, Part 101.) These rules were put into place to limit conflicts between model (and rockets) and “real” aircraft operating in the airspace. Because of the huge growth in use of UAV’s and the need to integrate their use into the aviation “airscape”, the FAA developed an entire set of regulations regarding their use. These regulations are found under HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl" Title 14 CFR, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterI.tpl" Chapter I, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14CIsubchapF.tpl" Subchapter F, Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, or FAR’s. This new section that was adopted in 2016, and defines UAV’s- now officially referred to as Unmanned Aerial Systems or UAS – and establishes a series of regulations for their use and the qualifications of those who operate them. Generally, they are divided into two classes- commercial and recreational/hobby. Commercial operation requires a “certificate” (pilot’s license) and hobby use does not. Airspace regulations restricting places where UAS can be operated (such as within a stated distance of an airport or airway) are set out as well as a host of other regulations. For hobbyists (non-governmental or non-commercial operators) the regulations limit, among other things, the altitude and proximity to structures that they can be operated:
§107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.
(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.
SB 170 has a number of inherent, surface problems. It establishes UAV overflight without landowner permission as an act of trespass (45-6-201 MCA) but with a civil penalty. This would seem to be a mixing of metaphors between civil and criminal acts, providing a pretty vague sense of what such an act really constitutes. It also fails to state who exactly would be the entity or person to pursue the “civil action.” It infers the landowner. But that is unclear. Further, the bill speaks to “damages and injuries” a connection that’s peculiar.
There is a burgeoning UAV industry in Montana. Companies are starting up to accommodate a quickly growing market for use in a wide range of purposes, both commercial and governmental. These businesses should be concerned that this bill conflicts with FAA flight regulations and as such, complicates the legalities involved in both production and use of UAV’s. The FAA strongly urges states to work with them in drafting of UAV laws to ensure that they are synchronized and avoid conflicts. Simply by the contradiction in altitude regulations, it appears that the authors of SB 170 did not take advantage of those resources but rather, chose to include the disclaimer: “…The unmanned aerial vehicle is operated for government or commercial purposes in compliance with authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration…” The FAA offers a wide range of legal resources to assist states in drafting such laws. ( HYPERLINK "https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulation_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf" https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulation_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf).
SB 170 literally extends property boundaries to 500’ above ground of the physical land. By codifying the law under Title 70 of the MCA, it establishes the air above a piece of property as a property right. This harkens back to arcane old English law which established “…For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.” This concept has been left far behind with the advent of aircraft, a national airspace system and contemporary property case law that defines limits of ownership.
Landowners should be concerned with SB 170 because as one of its “exceptions” it grants authority to fly over their property without permission to “… a mineral rights owner or the owners ‘lessee off the mineral estate…” In Montana, the surface owner is often not the owner of the minerals beneath the ground. That is an accepted fact and for the mineral owner to inventory or survey their mineral holdings is not uncommon. UAV technology has provided a whole new dimension to the ability to do this and other kinds of work normally undertaken by a person actually being on the ground. Yet, to excuse someone from going on to one’s land to do so without contacting the surface owner grants privilege that most surface landowners would not want. A simple knock on the door or, as in surveyor law, a letter stating intent is the least that should be expected.
But why should the general public- particularly recreationists- be concerned about SB 170? Because by establishing the airspace above a piece of ground as part and parcel of a property right, it essentially makes “corner-crossing”, the stepping across a piece of private land to go from one piece of public land to another at the intersection of the parcels, illegal. If, the air above a parcel of land is too, private property then to pass through that air to access a piece of public land- without physically landing on privately-held terra firma- would constitute an act of trespass. What SB 170 does is short-circuit and back-door the on-going discussion regarding the legality of corner-crossing, one that is yet to be resolved either by the courts or in the halls of the legislature. It makes that decision without the necessary open public discussion and ultimately, common resolution that the issue demands. Why that fact has never been directly stated by the bill’s sponsors is a fundamental question regarding this bill.
SB 170 is a poorly-crafted and questionable effort, ostensibly to solve problems that we never knew existed and create greater ones that need to be publically discussed.
SB170 is another in a stream of bills that have come before the legislature during the last few sessions due to the rising popularity and use–recreational/hobby, commercial, government and military –of drones. Most of these bills have been put forth as a means of guarding privacy and the unregulated use of UAV’s for law enforcement. The only Montana law currently on the books regarding the use of UAVs is 46-5-109MCA, Limitations on unmanned aerial vehicles (2013.) The law places restrictions on the admissibility of enforcement evidence gathered through the use of a UAV for criminal prosecution.
Although Montana law speaks to being able to control airspace (67-1-202 MCA, State sovereignty in space) the Federal Aviation Administration has ultimate authority over all things airborne (Title 49 CFR, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Chapter 401§ 40103 Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.) This establishes the right of a safe, unified and coordinated use of airspace over the United States. Interestingly, FAA regulations exist regarding the use of hobby/model aircraft (Title HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl" 14 CFR HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterI.tpl" Chapter I, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=1&SID=2275e6577647aec22cafc480ab912203&h=L&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14CIsubchapF.tpl" Subchapter F, Part 101.) These rules were put into place to limit conflicts between model (and rockets) and “real” aircraft operating in the airspace. Because of the huge growth in use of UAV’s and the need to integrate their use into the aviation “airscape”, the FAA developed an entire set of regulations regarding their use. These regulations are found under HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl" Title 14 CFR, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterI.tpl" Chapter I, HYPERLINK "http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=836eb501a0fef129840c73135ae75912&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14CIsubchapF.tpl" Subchapter F, Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, or FAR’s. This new section that was adopted in 2016, and defines UAV’s- now officially referred to as Unmanned Aerial Systems or UAS – and establishes a series of regulations for their use and the qualifications of those who operate them. Generally, they are divided into two classes- commercial and recreational/hobby. Commercial operation requires a “certificate” (pilot’s license) and hobby use does not. Airspace regulations restricting places where UAS can be operated (such as within a stated distance of an airport or airway) are set out as well as a host of other regulations. For hobbyists (non-governmental or non-commercial operators) the regulations limit, among other things, the altitude and proximity to structures that they can be operated:
§107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:
(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.
(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.
SB 170 has a number of inherent, surface problems. It establishes UAV overflight without landowner permission as an act of trespass (45-6-201 MCA) but with a civil penalty. This would seem to be a mixing of metaphors between civil and criminal acts, providing a pretty vague sense of what such an act really constitutes. It also fails to state who exactly would be the entity or person to pursue the “civil action.” It infers the landowner. But that is unclear. Further, the bill speaks to “damages and injuries” a connection that’s peculiar.
There is a burgeoning UAV industry in Montana. Companies are starting up to accommodate a quickly growing market for use in a wide range of purposes, both commercial and governmental. These businesses should be concerned that this bill conflicts with FAA flight regulations and as such, complicates the legalities involved in both production and use of UAV’s. The FAA strongly urges states to work with them in drafting of UAV laws to ensure that they are synchronized and avoid conflicts. Simply by the contradiction in altitude regulations, it appears that the authors of SB 170 did not take advantage of those resources but rather, chose to include the disclaimer: “…The unmanned aerial vehicle is operated for government or commercial purposes in compliance with authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration…” The FAA offers a wide range of legal resources to assist states in drafting such laws. ( HYPERLINK "https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulation_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf" https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulation_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf).
SB 170 literally extends property boundaries to 500’ above ground of the physical land. By codifying the law under Title 70 of the MCA, it establishes the air above a piece of property as a property right. This harkens back to arcane old English law which established “…For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.” This concept has been left far behind with the advent of aircraft, a national airspace system and contemporary property case law that defines limits of ownership.
Landowners should be concerned with SB 170 because as one of its “exceptions” it grants authority to fly over their property without permission to “… a mineral rights owner or the owners ‘lessee off the mineral estate…” In Montana, the surface owner is often not the owner of the minerals beneath the ground. That is an accepted fact and for the mineral owner to inventory or survey their mineral holdings is not uncommon. UAV technology has provided a whole new dimension to the ability to do this and other kinds of work normally undertaken by a person actually being on the ground. Yet, to excuse someone from going on to one’s land to do so without contacting the surface owner grants privilege that most surface landowners would not want. A simple knock on the door or, as in surveyor law, a letter stating intent is the least that should be expected.
But why should the general public- particularly recreationists- be concerned about SB 170? Because by establishing the airspace above a piece of ground as part and parcel of a property right, it essentially makes “corner-crossing”, the stepping across a piece of private land to go from one piece of public land to another at the intersection of the parcels, illegal. If, the air above a parcel of land is too, private property then to pass through that air to access a piece of public land- without physically landing on privately-held terra firma- would constitute an act of trespass. What SB 170 does is short-circuit and back-door the on-going discussion regarding the legality of corner-crossing, one that is yet to be resolved either by the courts or in the halls of the legislature. It makes that decision without the necessary open public discussion and ultimately, common resolution that the issue demands. Why that fact has never been directly stated by the bill’s sponsors is a fundamental question regarding this bill.
SB 170 is a poorly-crafted and questionable effort, ostensibly to solve problems that we never knew existed and create greater ones that need to be publically discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)