- [Jackie] Happening now on "The Rundown."

Another week complete of the 67th legislative session, and the halfway point of session is moving closer.

♪ And now make my home place ♪ In the house of the Lord - [Jackie] Meanwhile, governor Greg Gianforte makes good on a long held promise.

- The mask mandate will expire on Friday.

- I'm Jackie Coffin and "The Rundown: Capitol Report" starts now.

"The Rundown" is made possible by the Greater Montana Foundation.

Encouraging communication on issues, trends and values of importance to Montanans.

"The Rundown: Capitol Report" takes place primarily in Helena, which is the original land of the Salish, Pend d'Oreille, Blackfeet, Shoshone, Bannock and Pcelica people.

(gentle music) Hello, and thank you for joining me again in the Capitol, where it may be frozen outside but it's still very busy in here.

This week, we'll take a closer look at COVID-19 related legislation and a handful of bills related to one of my favorite topics, fish, wildlife and public lands.

Let's begin.

(dramatic music) Starting in the governor's office with the biggest news of the week.

- I will provide a directive on Friday morning that will allow the existing statewide mask mandate to expire.

- [Jackie] With a swish of the pen, Montana's statewide mask mandate is removed.

What you're seeing the governor sign here is Senate Bill 65, the COVID-19 death and illness liability shield for businesses, schools and more.

It was the first bill out of the 67th legislative session that Gianforte signed into law and a crucial step in his plan to remove the mask mandate.

- On January 5th, I laid out a clear path to rescinding the statewide mask mandate.

First, we need to start getting the vaccine to our most vulnerable.

We have done that.

Second, we need to protect businesses, nonprofits, places of worship and healthcare providers from lawsuits if they make a good faith effort to protect individuals from the spread of the coronavirus and follow clear public health guidelines.

We have done that too.

- Gianforte signed SB 65 into law on Wednesday, accompanied by Republican leaders from both chambers, who carried the bill at the governor's request and moved it through the legislative process very quickly.

On Friday, on a trip to the Flathead, Gianforte signed the actual proclamation removing the mask mandate effective immediately.

An important thing to know about this, is local health departments still have the ability to put in place and enforce mask mandates within their jurisdictions, and so do schools.

Private businesses can also put in place their own mask mandates, much like Walmart did in the early stages of the pandemic.

It is also still the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health experts in Montana and nationwide that masks be worn, people maintain social distancing and avoid large crowds or gatherings.

Right now, a super variant of COVID-19 that is more contagious and more aggressive has been found in the US and even in Montana.

- As I've said, we will continue to provide incentives to protect the health and safety of Montanans, and we will emphasize personal responsibility over mandates.

Since we're not out of the woods yet, I will continue to wear a mask and I encourage all Montanans to do the same to protect themselves, their loved ones and their neighbors.

When it's my turn to get a vaccine, I'm gonna get one.

And I encourage all Montanans to do the same.

Because when it comes down to it, I trust Montanans.

And together we can combat this public health and economic pandemic with personal responsibility and by looking out for one another.

- SB 65 takes effect immediately and expires on January 1st, 2031.

There have been a handful of other bills related to COVID-19 filed this session.

Some try to limit the power of local health boards.

Some try to limit the power of the governor and declaring state of emergencies or a state of disaster and move more of all of that power over to local health boards or even this legislative body.

And they've generated a lot of discussion and some disagreements.

- And what we're doing here is this.

We're making it so that after 60 days, the legislature has a vote to whether it continues.

So if you look at page two, a state of emergency may not continue longer than 60 days unless continuing conditions of the state emergency exist, which must be determined by a declaration of the legislature, by joints resolution or a poll of its members, of the legislature.

The whole purpose of what I'm trying to do with this bill is I'm trying to bring the legislature, the people's house, both Senate and house into the process so that their elected officials, other than just the governor, get to choose whether we continue an emergency or disaster situation.

- [Jackie] On the topic of COVID-19 restrictions and regulations, a bill came up this week, arguing churches and religion should be considered essential workers and exempted from lock downs like we saw during the early stages of the pandemic.

- If you're going to place restrictions on churches, then they must be the same restrictions that are placed on any other entity out there.

Churches should not be treated differently.

Thank you.

- If the governor, if we're using the COVID example here, were to say that no matter who you are, whether you're business, individuals, a church, couldn't have a gathering of more than 30 people at one place, or that everyone had to practice social distancing, everyone had to wear masks, would that apply to churches within the context of this bill?

- Within the context of this bill, yes, it would.

Now, there could be broader constitutional implications that could be addressed through the courts, but through this bill that would.

I would argue that hardware stores are not on the same constitutional footing as churches.

They're not mentioned in the constitution, but churches are.

And so I think the protections from my point of view for churches go far beyond the protections for other normal businesses, but that would be something for the courts to decide.

They have to at least be treated equally.

- Mr.

Chair, a follow up.

- Go ahead.

- So, Mr.

Chair, Mr. Lazarov, I just wanna be super, super clear about this.

Within the context of this bill, if we were to pass it, if there were limitations like the ones that I listed that were not saying that essential businesses or these other sort of groups have to follow different prescriptions, if everybody was required to do the same thing, that would apply to churches as well in the context of this bill, if we were to pass it.

- That's correct.

The problem was with the the way that the pandemic limitations and restrictions were rolled out, there were entities out there that were treated far differently than churches, and we were picking winners and losers.

And churches should never be on the losing end.

So it's important to understand that the bottom line is, if you're gonna treat an entity one way, you cannot restrict a church to a greater degree than the way any other entity is being treated under a disaster or pandemic.

- Thank you.

- On that note, there have been more cases of COVID-19 in the Capitol.

This week, two more legislators tested positive for COVID-19.

Representative Becky Beard, Republican from Elliston, and representative Brian Putnam, a Republican from Kalispell.

They did not have contact with each other and are both at home working remotely.

Legislative leadership and staff did get a letter this week from the Lewis and Clark Public Health, asking legislators to use better COVID-19 prevention behavior in the Helena community.

I got a copy of that letter sent by Drenda Neimann from the health department saying, "I am emailing to inform you that we have had several businesses call, frustrated and concerned regarding actions of some legislators.

Reports include entering businesses without a face covering and disregard for business staffs polite requests to don a mask while in the business per state directive and local rule."

Republican leadership did respond to this and told me, Senator Jason Ellsworth called Drenda and gave her his personal cell phone number, so she can reach out to him directly.

Which businesses and which legislators are related to these incidents was not specified.

Moving on from COVID to a topic I've been following closely this legislative session, but haven't had a chance to report on much yet, which is fish, wildlife and public lands.

Starting with a hearing last week that packed the halls of the Capitol with cowboy hats.

Here were dozens of Montana packers and outfitters ready to support Senate Bill 143.

A bill that would allow a certain percentage of non-resident elk and deer tags to be reserved for outfitters.

SB 143, carried by Senator Jason Ellsworth, a Republican from Hamilton, would set aside 60% of each of the class B10 and class B11 licenses for non-resident hunters who were going with outfitters.

It would also increase the number of B11 licenses sold every year from 4600 to 6600.

Some of the funds from these non-resident tag sales would go to conservation of public lands.

I talked to an outfitter who traveled from Cascade to Helena to support the bill.

- My name is Skip Halmes.

We have a business we've had for 28 years called Lepley Creek Outfitters.

My sons guide fishermen on the Missouri River mostly and a little bit on the Dearborn River.

And then we've taken elk hunters and muled their hunters in the mountains south of Cascade, mostly towards White Sulphur Springs for the last 28 years.

What happens is there's 17,000 non-resident licenses given in the state of Montana and they're in a lottery system.

And sometimes there's more people apply for those licenses, non-residents, than there's licenses available.

And so what happens, just say that somebody scheduled to come on a hunt the first week of the hunting season the last week of October, and they didn't draw the license.

We don't have an opportunity at that late time to refill that spot.

And so what they used to have, is they set aside part of those licenses for outfitters and so that we could schedule and it was of course better for the hunters.

And this bill would support that.

It wouldn't take away all the non-resident licenses, but it would give some stability to the industry.

And those of us in the industry, we feel like it's a great way to bring outside money to the state of Montana.

My wife and I ran cows.

We both also work in Great Falls besides our outfitting business.

And I'm a native Montanan and all native Montanans know, you gotta have a lot of jobs if you wanna make a living here in Montana.

This is one of ours, and my sons are about to take over the business.

And of course, I worry for them because they get these leases ahead of time.

And these hunters and fishermen book their flights.

And if they don't have, can't get a license, it really causes a lot of problems.

And so I feel like this is the best answer.

Like anything, it's not a perfect answer.

It's not all things to all people but it seems like a very fair compromise.

Something similar to this was in effect before.

We felt that worked well.

- [Jackie] While Senate Bill 143 is supported by outfitters, it's historically not been supported by other Montanans.

- And I rise today in opposition of Senate Bill 143.

I'm here representing myself as a fourth generation Montanan.

- [Jackie] It used to be that outfitters had a certain number of big game hunting tags reserved for them like this bill proposes.

But in the 2010 election, Montanans chose to end that system.

Montana voters passed I 161 on the 2010 ballot, which increased fees on non-resident big game licenses and abolished the privileges for outfitters.

- But I stand in opposition because, number one, it overturns the will of the people in 2010 when Initiative 161 passed in November of that year.

I oppose the bill because it eventually gives outfitters over 14,000 licenses for the express reason of profit for those businesses.

Not that I disagree with profit for businesses, but I see that as being subsidy or a some type of subsidization.

And it comes at the expense of the common man and woman.

- This issue has been put to the voters of Montana.

A similar bill passed in 1987 was ultimately repealed by ballot initiative approved by our citizens and funded by a thoughtful Montanan who took out a second mortgage on his home.

Doesn't get more grassroots than that.

I ask that you join me in looking ahead, not back.

Please join me in opposing this bill.

- So in 2010, there was a ballot initiative out there and it was getting rid of outfitter sponsored licenses, and that did pass.

Over the past 10 years, things have changed.

And that's what this bill is trying to address.

I have heard arguments from people that we should then do a ballot initiative to solve this problem, but we are charged here in the legislature to solve problems here and not to push everything to the citizens.

So it's interesting on that ballot initiative and what the proponents were claiming, was getting rid of those, would actually increase the access to Montana residents and to non-residents alike.

And the facts are that actually it is not.

It has decreased.

So back in 2011, we had 8.2 million acres that were in block management.

Currently today, we have 7.2 million acres that are in block management.

So that's a substantial decrease of our lands that we're able to hunt on.

What's interesting too, and statistically, is our non-resident use for those lands.

Back in 2008, it was 16%.

So that's the amount of non-residents that were utilizing that land on block management.

And it has now gone up in 2020 to 22%.

So not only did we lose a substantial amount of land, but our out-of-state residents are now having to congregate on that land.

And obviously this is probably affecting success rates and for both Montana residents and non-residents.

- It's the fourth largest industry.

I mean, there's of course agriculture's in the lead, but instead of just trading dollars with each other, it brings on average, over $10,000 per non-resident into the state and all of us guys, I mean, we spend money in our communities.

It doesn't stay with us.

We don't fritter it away in some account.

We just use it to pay our bills.

We hire at least five or six people through the season.

That's five weeks and we pay well.

Of course, we go through a lot of equipment, a lot of food and a lot of supplies.

And we pay taxes, you know, I mean, I feel it's important.

We can't just all trade money with one another.

We can't live off a CRP payments or something like, you know, in this time of difficult employment, it's just an important industry.

And we bring a lot of joy to a lot of people.

Even if they don't come and shoot something, we give 'em such an adventure and we givin' 'em experience and you cannot believe the blessing we've been to so many people.

And we have more people wanna come than we could take.

We manage our game and our time very carefully.

We don't take more game than there should be.

And we turn down hunters.

We don't just capitalize on all the money.

We have strong feelings about doing it well and doing it honorably.

- [Jackie] This bill passed committee on Thursday.

On the angling side, a bill increasing the costs of non-resident fishing licenses was brought in front of the house appropriations committee by representative Seth Burghley, a Republican from Jolliet.

This bill would increase the cost of a non-resident fishing license from $86 to $100.

It would also change the licensing type so that instead of buying a two-day permit, a non-resident fishermen can only buy a one-day permit, though they could buy as many of these one-day permits as they like.

Two other bills that drummed up a lot of discussion lengthens the wolf-trapping season, and allows for the snaring of wolves in Montana.

House Bill 224 and 225 were introduced by Representative Paul Fielder, a Republican from Thompson Falls and were heard on the house floor this week.

- The intent of the bill is to simply allow snaring of wolves as a wildlife management tool to protect deer, elk, moose and livestock.

Wildlife management tools can include things like season length, season timing, bag limits, size restrictions, either sex seasons and allowable equipment.

Presently, Montana does allow snares for the taking and harvest of fur bears, predators and non-game animals, but they don't allow the use of snares for taking wolves.

So this would just add wolves to the list of things that are legally snared in Montana.

Snares are legal for the taking of wolves in Idaho to the west of us and Alberta and British Columbia to the north of us.

And they've proven to be a very good wildlife management tool for controlling wolf populations.

The wolf population in Montana is estimated with the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks population model to be about 1156 wolves as of the last year.

The wolf management plan for Montana calls for a population, minimum population of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in Montana.

So if we've got 1156, we're over that target.

But the 15 breeding pairs is a restriction that actually bumps up the minimum number of wolves needed by the wolf management plan.

'cause wolf packs, only about 27% of the wolf packs have a breeding pair in them.

So if we extrapolate out the number of wolves that we need to have 15 breeding pairs, we come up with a requirement of 282 wolves in Montana.

As I said, the population estimate is 1156, approximately four times the population level required or called for by the Montana wolf management plan.

- As a rancher here in Montana, we have to start calving our calves earlier every year because we summer our livestock up in the mountains and the wolves are a huge issue up there.

They take out our calves and we lose money when it comes to sale time in the fall.

So, I know we've been talking about the elk population but we also need to be concerned about the industry of our farmers and ranchers.

And when the wolves attack, they also attack our cattle.

And so let's keep into consideration that.

And with that, I encourage a green vote.

- I've been involved in wolf and elk issues for many, many years, and I'm an avid Hunter and I've long thought or long said that on the back of your hunting license in very small print, it says, "The bearer of this license is an expert in wildlife management, and his opinions or her opinions will be regarded as such."

And that's to say that hunters and anglers are opinionated about their sport.

And they speak often about how the Fish, Wildlife & Parks department isn't managing the way it should.

And that's just the nature of the trade.

I do wanna remind this body or tell this body that these claims of wolves impacting elk have been made before, will be made again, I have no doubt.

The one place where the Fish, Wildlife & Parks department really settled into studying the question was in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana.

Sportsmen there, regarding their small print and being experts, said, "Wolves are killing our elk."

And after three years, the department biologists reported back that wolves did indeed kill some elk, but so did bears.

And by far the biggest predator on elk calves were mountain lions.

And it just illustrates that we can't jump to these conclusions about the biology of our wildlife species based on hearsay, that we really do depend on our experts.

And at the Fish, Wildlife & Parks department, the commission has turned down a season extension based on the recommendations of their biologists, based on input from other hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts around the state.

And I just think that as others have said, these kinds of decisions are best left to the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks commission relying on the expertise of their department of biologists to sort out where the real facts lie and to make the recommendations with public comment to the commission to make these decisions.

- [Jackie] Another bill from Representative Fielder proposes making changes to FWP itself, specifically changing the number of representatives on the Fish and Wildlife Commission from five to seven.

The Fish and Wildlife Commission is made up of appointments from the governor representing five regions of Montana.

Representative Fielder's bill would change this to appointments from seven cities in Montana, giving an extra seat to the Flathead and an extra seat to Eastern Montana.

- Currently, the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission consists of five commissioners from districts.

And the districts can be comprised of groupings of counties.

And some commissioner districts have nine counties in 'em, some have as many as 13 counties in 'em.

Currently, the commissioner districts overlap as many as four different regional offices, administrative areas.

So there's a lot of overlap in there.

House district 163 would ensure that each fish and wildlife region, which has its own unique biology concerns and priorities would have a representative on the commission that resides within that region and is in tune with the issues that that region faces.

For example, commissioners that would represent region one in Northwestern, Montana, doesn't deal with wild bison very much.

And the commissioner in region six in Southeastern Montana, he deals with sage-grouse and that isn't an issue for region one.

So each commissioner would be able to be in tune with the issues that are specific to that region.

- This bill, House Bill 163, passed with strong support through the house and is onto the Senate.

(dramatic music) That's all the time we have this week on "The Rundown: Capitol Report."

Is there a topic you would like to see covered in my show?

A bill you would like to learn more about or a public official you would like to meet?

Please send me an email and drop me a suggestion at jackie@montanapbs.org.

Public media is your media, and I would love to hear from you.

Thanks for joining me.

I'll see you next Sunday.

"The Rundown" is made possible by the Greater Montana Foundation.

Encouraging communication on issues, trends and values of importance to Montanans.