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

[Alder_]

Don't understand Nonresident entitlement attitude to tags in other states.

 

[Red Letters]

Don't understand Nonresident entitlement attitude to tags in other states.

How about federal land expectations

 

[Gutshot007]

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.

Not particularly fond of the bill , but what about adding some type of "time requirement " like after initial purchase of the land 10 years ( or whatever timeframe) must pass before the non- resident qualifies for the program ? Just a thought

 

[Schaaf]

Not particularly fond of the bill , but what about adding some type of "time requirement " like after initial purchase of the land 10 years ( or whatever timeframe) must pass before the non- resident qualifies for the program ? Just a thought

in addition to the 2500 acre requirement or in lieu of 2500 and subsequently lowering the acreage requirement?

 

[Gutshot007]

In addition at least . Personally have mixed emotions about the number of acres . Maybe others will chime in

 

[Schaaf]

In addition at least . Personally have mixed emotions about the number of acres . Maybe others will chime in

I just don't think the addition of 1 General tag is going to be the reason someone buys a 2500+ acre ranch when you can get the general tag almost every other year or every third year at the most as it is.

I just don't know if that would be necessary to include.

 

[Gutshot007]

Would be nice to see maybe some type of reasonable block management stipulation

 

[dreamingbig]

Do you expect all 2500 tags to be used?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshot007]

I just don't think the addition of 1 General tag is going to be the reason someone buys a 2500+ acre ranch when you can get the general tag almost every other year or every third year at the most as it is.

I just don't know if that would be necessary to include.

I would imagine someone looking to take advantage as a NEW NONRESIDENT landowner that would be quite an investment for a yearly tag

 

[Erict]

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.

Where can I find factual data on this 66k number that I keep seeing? Thanks.

 

[406huntermt]

Where can I find factual data on this 66k number that I keep seeing? Thanks.

Google works it’s all over the internet

 

[jacobnicholas18]

They aren’t even trying to disguise the shift to a rich man’s sport anymore.

 

[Schaaf]

Do you expect all 2500 tags to be used?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. The information I was able to gather on non resident landowners shows there could be anywhere from 600-1000 tags being used. so 3.5-6% of the 17000 NR Tags.

 

[Gutshot007]

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.

Schaaf , thanks for coming on here shedding some light and information on some of the thoughts behind this bill

 

[Schaaf]

Would be nice to see maybe some type of reasonable block management stipulation

The Block Management stipulation hasn't worked in the several years we've been attempting to have it included and it has only led to more harboring and an increased push from them for stuff like HB 505 we saw in 2021, the 454 Program, and transferable tags.

 

[Schaaf]

Schaaf , thanks for coming on here shedding some light and information on some of the thoughts behind this bill

No Problem. I've had these discussions with some of my best friends that share many of the same concerns echoed here and like I said, the bill isn't perfect and it will require people to hold their ground into the future but we've been building good bridges. At it's core, this bill is designed to be an improvement on the Landowner Preference program that Montana has had since 1973 by requiring the tags be private only, a minor access component, and out of the already set quota rather than in addition like we've seen with the Come Home to Hunt and MT Native licenses that have blown the lid off the 17k cap.

 

[sndmn11]

@Schaaf would these be restricted to the LO's property, or all private land within the unit(s), or unrestricted?

 

[Schaaf]

@Schaaf would these be restricted to the LO's property, or all private land within the unit(s), or unrestricted?

Strictly the landowner’s property that made up the 2500 acre contiguous parcel of land. They would also be unable to hunt public inholdings.

Admittedly, tough to enforce.

 

[Montucky]

I would imagine someone looking to take advantage as a NEW NONRESIDENT landowner that would be quite an investment for a yearly tag

Dude we are talking about people that have spending money that would blow our mind…IE: Arizona Mule Deer Gov Tag…..<$700k

Also, you mentioned earlier about BMU’s. IMO that’s a failing program. All you NR hunters are going to see a gradual decrease in landowner participation in this program & it’s already begun. MT Landowners are fed up. They’re not renewing their FWP BMU contract & instead they’re leasing out to NR people that got more money than any of us.

That’s gonna put that much more pressure on FS BLM & SL in cerain areas.

 

[Erict]

Google works it’s all over the internet

Really? I found one article, which states 66,000 NR LICENSES issued. This does not equal 66,000 NR HUNTERS, as I'm sure plenty have multiple licenses like Elk+Deer, Deer+Deer B. Would be good to know the number of unique hunters.