Sounds like a really good bill.
NR landowners get to hunt their own land, R lose nothing, NR landowners can transfer the licenses to their family.
If someone who owns 2500+ acres of land cannot hunt it on a regular basis, that is a bigger problem in my eyes than some random person who wants to hunt.
That is how they are selling it.
Doubtful thats how it will work in operation.
This is a backdoor way to the privatization of wildlife.
Seems like a good idea as long as the tags must be used on said private property.
MT never has ideas THAT good.
These tags will be good anywhere, I'm betting.
Some of y’all are exhibiting an unbelievable poverty/victim mindset and it is very unbecoming. Y’all aren’t looking at the big picture and just you’re just crying about the “wealthy”.
The “wealthy” nonresidents are keeping these huge tracts together and not splitting them up. The “wealthy” nonresidents are paying insane amounts of money in property taxes for something they don’t get the full benefit of owning as a resident would. The “wealthy” nonresidents bring more insane amounts of money into the state when they visit or vacation. All of that money stays in MT and is lost to their home state.
Maybe quit crying about what you think you don’t have and be grateful for what you do have.
I own zero out of state land and diy most of the time and I have absolutely no problem with this proposal. A huge reason some of my friends and family have NOT bought land in MT is because they can’t hunt it even though they would own it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
You act like these "weathly" landowners didn't buy into the system with the rules already in place. You want to talk about victim mentality, imagine buying land with full knowledge of the rules and then complaining about it.
Also, you clearly have no idea what is going on with farm and ranch land in the west. All of these "huge tracts" that the wealthy NR keep from "splitting up" are only together because they are in the middle of nowhere. If its near a populated area, its getting eaten. Period. Everyone has a price, and NR have no connection to the land they purchase. You might hear of an old family that refuses to sell when the prices skyrocket because its 5th generation or whatever, but you never hear that line coming from a NR. If the ROI looks good, then its GONE!
Fragmentation is not the problem in 90% of the state. Instead, large corporations, Hutterite Colonies, and NGOs like the American Prairie Reserve are buying up lots of property. Its getting to where the local farmer/rancher just can't compete in the bidding war between NR or INC. agriculture.
Agreed..seems like MT has an issue with game holding up on private...if allowing landowners to hunt their own property helps with this problem I don't have issue with it.
All it takes is ONE landowner with a sizeable piece of property to cause a problem. And there will be at least ONE holdout everywhere.
Even if there is not a holdout, shooting a handful of animals won't fix the problem. Think of it like osmosis: to keep a proportionate amount of animals on public land, the private land will have to have an equal amount of hunting pressure. Animals and water molecules will always follow the gradient. So a little bit of pressure on private will still result in a pile of animals gathering there during the season because it is significantly less pressure than on public land.
OR has landowner tags for a lot less acreage. NR landowners in WY can draw every single nr tag for a given hunt unit, leaving zero for nr public. I see nothing wrong with MT landowners getting 1 tag for 2500 acres min, 5 tags max, family only.
With all due respect, whatever Oregon does is probably the wrong way.