A bill to set aside 2550 tags for wealthy nonresident landowners is being proposed in Montana

[bsnedeker]

Allocating access to wildlife based on landowner status, especially nonresident landowner status is in direct violation of the stated principals of how we should manage wildlife in this country.

Well, in that case nearly EVERY SINGLE state violates the NA model because nearly EVERY SINGLE STATE offers LO preference in some way. We have had LO Preference tags here in Montana since forever. This is simply a proposed legislative change to how that LO preference/tags works.

You should probably take this up with every single state in the country if this is a real concern for you.

 

[TheTone]

This is literally an example of democracy in action. Our state congress is going to debate the bill, and based on what their constituents want, they are going to either kill, or pass the bill.

I fail to see how this goes against the NA model in any way. Remember the other key aspect of the NA Model: Animals are owned by the STATE and it is the STATE's responsibility to manage those animals in the way that benefits the citizens of that state first and foremost.

And so why a bill to give special treatment to people that aren’t citizens of MT?

 

[Rifleman86]

Well, in that case nearly EVERY SINGLE state violates the NA model because nearly EVERY SINGLE STATE offers LO preference in some way. We have had LO Preference tags here in Montana since forever. This is simply a proposed legislative change to how that LO preference/tags works.

You should probably take this up with every single state in the country if this is a real concern for you.

You’re moving the goal posts.

This violates the tenets of the NAMWC. Period the end, there is no argument.

I never stated that every state follows those tenets. Clearly they don’t. But it’s my opinion that we as hunters should collectively fight tooth and nail that those principles should be followed. Nonresident and resident alike.

If we don’t, I don’t like where we are headed.

Do you agree with the NAMWC or not? If you don’t, that’s fair, but again, don’t move the goalposts.

 

[bsnedeker]

And so why a bill to give special treatment to people that aren’t citizens of MT?

1. NR Landowners pay property taxes in this state. In my book that means they at least get a seat at the table. If we can give them something back without negatively impact residents I see no problem with it.
2. While pretty insignificant, this WILL decrease the number of NR's hunting public land, which benefits resident hunters.

 

[Gutshot007]

Shouldnt the NR with 100 acres be able to hunt his land just like guy with 2500 acres ? Wait , i was told earlier that the residents and state own the game , well now if your a non- resident with a huge chunck of land theres a different set of rules . Im confused . Bend the north american nodel to make it fit

 

[Elk97]

I can see both sides of this, I'm NR but both my sons have lived in MT for a long time. I hunt in MT every year with them, or at least I used to, and for awhile I qualified for the "Come home to hunt" tags which never made any sense to me because I have never lived in MT. I have noticed some increased pressure, mostly in the last 3-4 years (I'm talking elk here) but not enough to change where we hunt or how. The 17,500 NT tags never used to sell out, and I'd pay for the NR combo and be assured of a tag every year. That's changed in the last few years and now I'll probably only get a tag once every three years (2?) if I buy preference points every year. Most likely I don't have a lot of years left that I'll be physically able to hunt elk so that's unfortunate but even without a tag like last season I can still go and be the designated caller so I still get to spend time with the boys.

From my sons perspective I am all for the bill if it gives them a better shot at killing an elk every year but I doubt that the small reduction in NR tags will really pan out to make any difference for the average MT resident hunter. I'm strongly against the pay for play route that seems to be the direction everything is taking these days: special lanes on the highways for those that can pay, no repercussions for illegal activity that we are seeing every day, extremely wealthy NR landowners getting preferential treatment, etc. As others have mentioned, it's a slippery slope when you start using wealth as the determining factor for things, they tend to escalate and the wealthy have the money to usually get what they want and to hell with the peons.

Bottom line is that I don't see this as making much of a difference one way or another, it's not going to significantly reduce the number of elk on private and it's not going to significantly reduce hunting pressure on public. I just hope that if it passes that the LO are strictly limited to only hunting on their own property.

 

[Rifleman86]

How about this instead. Landowners with more than 2500 acres get tags (even LO tags) if they open 90% of their property to block management after the first two weeks of the archery or general season.

Still a violation of the seventh tenet of the NAMWC, but it actually does something to help with pressure on public land/private land access, instead of just being a handout to wealthy nonresidents. The landowners get their tag and the first crack at the wildlife on their land, and it helps with public land pressure.

How about you residents fight for that amendment? It might actually help all of us instead of just screwing the NR DIY guys once again.

 

[sndmn11]

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.

What language within the bill leads you to believe that it is nefarious?

 

[sneaky]

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

Where in that bill does it specifically say these tags would only be valid on the property that they own? MOGA supports this because there's no such restriction in that bill. They know the wealthy landowners are going to get guaranteed tags and will be a steady source of income. The fact that people can't see this is disturbing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Because residents couldn’t have bought that land, right? And the sellers couldn’t have sold to a resident, right? Your words implicate that nonresidents are forcing y’all to sell and/or stealing your land. Face the reality and the truth of the matter; no one is assaulting anyone.

I know all of the out of state landowners i personally know are definitely in full assault on residents and small communities and want to bring you all down one by one.

I never said they are doing y’all a favor. I said the fact that they are spending money and putting it into MT is a good thing.

When did private land owner wildlife become public? Owned by the state, yes. But pretty sure no one can hunt that land without permission so public access to those animals that live there is out of the question. Out of state land owners don’t affect public lands in any way shape or form.

If you REALLY a want to make an impact, appeal to your fellow residents to refuse to sell to out of state buyers. Problem solved if all land is kept in residents’ hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So, you're saying publicly funded wildlife that holes up on private should be utilized by said private landowners through exclusive set- aside tags that come out of the NR pool?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[t_carlson]

I wouldn't expect them to change anything, it just seems foreign to me that they wouldn't be able too hunt on property they own. They are potentially providing the states game animals with habitat, food, etc. and I am solidly in the camp that there should be some benefit from that. I don't want to see transferable LO tags or unit wide landowner tags anywhere but the ability to shoot a deer on the back 2.4k should be a given.

If the NR wants to become a citizen of MT, they can hunt their land all day long. You see, that's the real trade-off here. If you want to live out of state, then you'll be treated like an out-of-stater. If you want to live as a resident, then you'll be treated like one. Sometimes, you have to make a decision. I'd love to live in MT and make NYC money. But, I can't. So, I choose to live in MT. Others may choose to live in NYC. If they do, that is their choice and they should have to abide by NR rules.

I'd also love to live in a state where I don't have to deal with -30* temps. But again, I can't keep my MT residency and do that. So, I choose to live in MT.

I'd also love to live in Maine and get fresh lobster whenever I want....

I'd also love to live in Alaska....

I'd also love to live in a state where I could hunt chukar....

And quail...

And Coues deer...




I could do this all day. I'm sure you get the point. You can have your cake or you can eat it. Why do people have so much trouble with that concept?

And so why a bill to give special treatment to people that aren’t citizens of MT?

Because while you can't vote in MT elections if you're not a resident, it doesn't mean you can't make healthy campaign contributions that influence legislation.

1. NR Landowners pay property taxes in this state. In my book that means they at least get a seat at the table. If we can give them something back without negatively impact residents I see no problem with it.

Washington DC city council recently tried to give non-U.S. citizens voting rights on the very same premise.

The 17,500 NT tags never used to sell out, and I'd pay for the NR combo and be assured of a tag every year. That's changed in the last few years and now I'll probably only get a tag once every three years (2?) if I buy preference points every year.

"Never" is not correct. The demand on NR MT tags has fluctuated over the years depending on how they are handed out and the economy. When they had the outfitter allocation, I don't recall any leftovers. Then the outfitter allocation was eliminated and there was a surplus for a few years, as the price of a BG combo was pretty high in comparison to what you could buy in other states. Then the Rinella/Newberg campaign started and the demand has been high ever since.

 

[sneaky]

This is literally an example of democracy in action. Our state congress is going to debate the bill, and based on what their constituents want, they are going to either kill, or pass the bill.

I fail to see how this goes against the NA model in any way. Remember the other key aspect of the NA Model: Animals are owned by the STATE and it is the STATE's responsibility to manage those animals in the way that benefits the citizens of that state first and foremost.

Yes, to benefit the CITIZENS of that state. Not landowners, CITIZENS.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[bsnedeker]

Yes, to benefit the CITIZENS of that state. Not landowners, CITIZENS.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Right, and this benefits citizens by reducing pressure on public lands. Won't make a huge difference, but it will have a net positive impact to public land pressure.

 

[Lawnboi]

As with many things in life it appears we just throw our integrity out the window when something benefits us, even very little.

 

[S.Clancy]

Call me a pessimist but I don’t see any of the proposed benefits coming to fruition.

In states that hand out land owner tags, do the hunting land owners push the game off their properties or work harder to attract and keep game on their properties?

In states that give LOP tags, how many allow the sale of those tags?

I expect soon enough folks will be lobbying for more LOP tags and the ability to sell them.
I don’t expect they will be pushing game off their lands onto public hunting 1 to 5 tags.

I think they will lobby for transferable tags, but not because of this particular legislation. They have lobbied, and failed to implement transferable tags previously, I don't see that stopping. However, I think with the relationships there are now between the landowners and the Elk Coalition will moderate those efforts in the future. Hopefully

 

[Rifleman86]

Right, and this benefits citizens by reducing pressure on public lands. Won't make a huge difference, but it will have a net positive impact to public land pressure.

Let’s say right now for sake of argument approx 1300 nonresident landowners draw a tag and only hunt their own land. With this bull that number of hunters goes up to 2550 and thus there would arguably be 1250 fewer nonresident public land hunters.

There are over 30,000,000 acres of public land available to hunting in Montana.

Do the math of 1250 into 30,000,000. That’s 0.026 hunters per section.

You can’t argue with a straight face that this bill has anything to do with addressing public land crowding.

 

[bsnedeker]

Let’s say right now for sake of argument approx 1300 nonresident landowners draw a tag and only hunt their own land. With this bull that number of hunters goes up to 2550 and thus there would arguably be 1250 fewer nonresident public land hunters.

There are over 30,000,000 acres of public land available to hunting in Montana.

Do the math or 1250 into 30,000,000. That’s 0.026 hunters per section.

You can’t argue with a straight face that this bill has anything to do with addressing public land crowding.

Lol....your math is spurious at best! The biggest thing that sticks out is 30 million acres you are using as your baseline....how much of that 30 million actually has elk on it?

Not that it even matters. The point is this WILL decrease pressure on public. I agree it won't be a significant decrease, but it absolutely will decrease.

And I also want to be clear....I'm not in favor of this bill. I'm also not opposed to it. I really don't care one way or the other whether this passes. What I DO care about is the 66 thousand NR deer and elk hunters we had last year in this state when we intended that number to be no more than 17.5K. Since you like math so much that works out to 3.8 times the number that we agreed to allow into this state through legislative action.

Once that issue is addressed I'll start worrying about this stuff for you DIY guys.

 

[Gutshot007]

Nothing to do with public land crowding . Basically if you are a NR with more than 2500 acres you " cut in line" for your tags over the rest of the peasants. No dealing points schemes, draws etc. If they're complaining about the elk herds safe harboring on their land join a Block program to allow public hunting at least part of the time . NR land owners will be selling high dollar bull elk tags before no time.

 

[william schmaltz]

As with many things in life it appears we just throw our integrity out the window when something benefits us, even very little.

That sure is true. Same could be said about ones morals and political beliefs. People that claim to be "conservative" and libertarian minded sure seem to talk to talk in 2A and economic threads, but their inner Bernie sure comes out in force in these NR allocation and private landowner threads.

We can all have it all, we just can't have it all at once - at least not without sacrificing political consistency and stepping across our moral and ethical boundaries. I particularly don't like the assumption that we're only talking about rich landowners here. Someday I will be a landowner of family ranch land in a state I'm not a resident in. Under the current regulations I will likely never hunt big game on that land. I certainly won't be able to hunt a few species on it. That's fine in my book if that's how the state wants to do things. But it sure begs the question that if NR tags are available in the unit why someone from Florida has the same process and odds of getting a NR tag as me while I'm providing habitat and tax rev and they're just showing up for a week to never come back until the state once again gives them something in return.

 

[elkbowhuntr]

I don't have a problem with it - truth be told they are probably paying more property taxes than 90% of the residents.