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

[sneaky]

Montana isn't sticking it to anyone because no one is forcing you to hunt here. Go hunt other western states if you feel this strongly about how awful Montana is. I can promise you no one from this state is going to come knocking on your door to coerce you into applying here.

Like it or not, our goal is get less crowded public lands to hunt. The easiest and fastest way to do that is to reduce NR opportunity. If that bothers you...oh well. Hunt elk in your own state!

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Lol. It isn't going to reduce crowding at all. Eliminate 2550 diy NR hunters all you want. They'll just be replaced by 25,000 new resident hunters who piled into Montana and are competing for that same slice of the pie.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Do you think I should be upset that "wealthy landowners" who own property in unit 380 get to hunt the Elkhorns almost every year? I could apply for that tag every year for my entire life and never draw it, but because these folks have property they can hunt it every year... should I be outraged about that?

Because I'm not.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

I know a guy who owns 25k acres in the Bear Paw mountains. He draws a tag about once every 5 or 6 years to hunt his own place. He lets family members hunt on years that they draw and he doesn't. He said that's the way the draw works, he doesn't bitch and whine that he needs a tag every year because he owns property and is a resident

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

don’t want or need anyone else moving here already enough of that going on!

I hope the Californians branch out from Bozeman, Missoula, and Kalispell. Spread the wealth. Maybe the APR will buy up the rest of the ranches and lock them up forever. Howl can try to rally the tribe and email form letters to the good ol boy legislature up there.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[handwerk]

Thanks for the info gents.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Yeah, we do see things differently. You see people who have access to things you don't and you claim victim status. I say good for them and wish them the best.

If I had the money to buy up land in 380 I would do it in a heartbeat and I'm guessing if you had the money to buy 2500 acres in Montana (or some other state with NR landowner preference) you would take advantage of that as well.

This is why I don't have much sympathy for the folks complaining. How many of you, if you were in a position where you were one of these "evil wealthy landowners," would oppose this bill? I'd bet my retirement on the honest answer to that question being exactly zero.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Anyone know if it had to to be 2500 contiguous acres? Does it all have the acreage have to be on the same parcel?
Looking for details...

 

[mtnkid85]

Anyone know if it had to to be 2500 contiguous acres? Does it all have the acreage have to be on the same parcel?
Looking for details...

This is the bill. It states contiguous. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billhtml/HB0635.htm

 

[Trackerbacker]

It's funny how many here believe the state owns the wildlife.

If you believe the state owns the wildlife, you MUST believe the state owns you.

That thought logic is the same as believing you even own land.

"If by the law it's outlawed and the penalty is a fine, it's legal for a fee."

The Indians probably made out better in the long run than "we" did.

 

[Gutshot007]

Really then , as a US tax paying citzen I should get a tag every year because I'm "part owner "of the millions acres of FEDERAL land that supply habitat for those elk even if I'm not a resident of Montana

 

[bsnedeker]

Do you know someone who gets to hunt the Elkhorns every year? I'm not very familiar with the program, but I was grossly misinformed if you can actually draw an Elkhorns tag every year with landowner preference.

I just looked at the draw statistics for resident landowners and last time I checked they had a 40-50% odds of drawing with zero points, and like 80% if they have 1 point. I was shocked! It might be every 2-3 years honestly, but it's still pretty amazing they get to hunt it that much.

Edit: I was curious so I checked the most recent draw statistics: 0 points the LO has a 33 percent chance, 1 point is 57%, and 2 points is 66. Everything above that is 100 percent odds. Looks like a grand total of 20 landowners applying every year for 12 tags so the odds are pretty good.

 

[bsnedeker]

Lol. It isn't going to reduce crowding at all. Eliminate 2550 diy NR hunters all you want. They'll just be replaced by 25,000 new resident hunters who piled into Montana and are competing for that same slice of the pie.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

As I've said repeatedly in this thread: It will be an insignificant decrease on public land...this issue is not even close to the top of list of things that will effectively reduce public pressure. But it absolutely WILL decrease public pressure. Even if it's 1 less hunter on public that is still a decrease.

 

[S.Clancy]

I know a guy who owns 25k acres in the Bear Paw mountains. He draws a tag about once every 5 or 6 years to hunt his own place. He lets family members hunt on years that they draw and he doesn't. He said that's the way the draw works, he doesn't bitch and whine that he needs a tag every year because he owns property and is a resident

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

He also gets ~8-10x better draw odds than you or I as a function of being a landowner. It's called landowners preference and it is a way to compensate landowners for providing wildlife habitat. His preference takes away tags from Resident hunters in the draw. I don't see a difference between this bill and the above except it is taking away NR opportunity instead of R.

 

[Valsport]

Agree with that Clancy

 

[Trackerbacker]

Really then , as a US tax paying citzen I should get a tag every year because I'm "part owner "of the millions acres of FEDERAL land that supply habitat for those elk even if I'm not a resident of Montana

If it's federal, and not state, I don't see why the opportunity does not exist separately of the state.

(Insert .gov ineptitudes, deficiencies and general behavior towards screwing something up worse than before)

 

[DanimalW]

I really feel bad for all those poor nonresident landowners that only own 2500 acres that can only be guaranteed a NR big game combo every other year. How will they put meat in their freezers to feed their families? How can they be expected to afford a big game tag in a different western state? Especially when their property taxes are so high? I'm all for helping out these poor souls. They deserve it.

 

[goathunter]

I don't feel completely educated on this bill, but it rubs me the wrong way.

I ask myself - "how would this change encourage opening up more access to regular hunters?"

The answer is it wouldn't, it actually would encourage "non-resident landowners" to NOT allow hunters access.

The idea someone had of requiring block management participation for those tags is an awesome idea. Historically, big landowners (ranchers/farmers) in Montana would have no problem allowing access. That's how it used to always be. These "trophy" properties are sold to a non-resident that wasn't raised with that idea, and this bill seems to reinforce the "mine mine" mentality. Fence the land. Shut down the historical easement. Sell outfitting rights. Why do we owe them tags?

To me people who participate in block management today, are those that still embrace the idea of giving hunters access - they were raised that way that's why they do it. Or, they are land rich/money poor and actually could use the money.

As far as reducing pressure, that sounds like an entirely different topic. I think one of the more noticeable pressures comes from all the new Montanan residents who just swapped out their license plates.

 

[goathunter]

He also gets ~8-10x better draw odds than you or I as a function of being a landowner. It's called landowners preference and it is a way to compensate landowners for providing wildlife habitat. His preference takes away tags from Resident hunters in the draw. I don't see a difference between this bill and the above except it is taking away NR opportunity instead of R.

Good point, I didn't think about it this way. I still say make them open it up to block management for preference, both RES and NONRES. Same for the "bulls for billionaires". Why give it away?

 

[S.Clancy]

Good point, I didn't think about it this way. I still say make them open it up to block management for preference, both RES and NONRES. Same for the "bulls for billionaires". Why give it away?

They already do that with the 454 tags, but that is for special draw permits I believe. They are trying to restructure that program to make it more beneficial to the public.

 

[S.Clancy]

I don't feel completely educated on this bill, but it rubs me the wrong way.

I ask myself - "how would this change encourage opening up more access to regular hunters?"

The answer is it wouldn't, it actually would encourage "non-resident landowners" to NOT allow hunters access.

The idea someone had of requiring block management participation for those tags is an awesome idea. Historically, big landowners (ranchers/farmers) in Montana would have no problem allowing access. That's how it used to always be. These "trophy" properties are sold to a non-resident that wasn't raised with that idea, and this bill seems to reinforce the "mine mine" mentality. Fence the land. Shut down the historical easement. Sell outfitting rights. Why do we owe them tags?

To me people who participate in block management today, are those that still embrace the idea of giving hunters access - they were raised that way that's why they do it. Or, they are land rich/money poor and actually could use the money.

As far as reducing pressure, that sounds like an entirely different topic. I think one of the more noticeable pressures comes from all the new Montanan residents who just swapped out their license plates.

People are leaving Block Management at a fair clip, moreso due to poor hunter behavior than anything else. From people I know, those that leave block management to lease to outfitters poor hunter behavior is the #1 factor, as the money is similar. It's just with an outfitters there is always someone patrolling for trespassers and they have someone to directly blame for shitty hunters (the Outfitter).

 

[Schaaf]

So make it if your a Non-Resident (not a citizen of that state) and pay property taxes on land in that state you get a tag to hunt your property if you own 1 acre or a million ? I asked above where the magical 2500 acre number came from . Does anyone know ?

I can try and shed some light on that. I’m on the Policy and Leadership Councils for the Citizens Elk Management Coalition that wrote the bill. 2500 came from the idea of having large enough parcels that are likely still being used as a working landscape and potentially being one more reason for a landowner to NOT subdivide their ranch into smaller parcels.

We were also very aware of the fact that we’ve seen landowners purchase places in Montana that are exactly 640 acres to get into the LO preference system MT has had since for Permits since 1973. By keeping it at 2500 acres we felt we skirt that. I’m not so sure that 2500 might be too high but I definitely think anything less than 1,000 is too low.

The bill’s not perfect by any means but combined with our other efforts, we’ve made some real progress and I think this bill will help.

It’s also worth noting that as a result of our efforts, the Coalition has gotten a commitment from PERC to no longer pursue transferrable tags in Montana for the foreseeable future.

 

[Flyjunky]

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.

I don’t live in MT but that is a lot of excess hunters. Problem is, once a state gets a taste of all that extra revenue generated by the extra 48,500 hunters it’s tough for them to go back.