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

[Rifleman86]

And that 2550 will come out of the 17,000 nonresident tags already allocated.

Aka more tags for the elites who use Montana as their playground, and less tags for me and you.

https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...cle_c422b588-b478-11ed-af53-b31f2da5c768.html

HB 635 being proposed by Rep. Kassmier. If you’re in his district, please help us fight this one.

 

[Rifleman86]

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0635.pdf

 

[Beendare]

Thats terrible…

but I’m in….

 

[dirtytough]

Doesn’t seem that bad overall.

 

[bsnedeker]

Just so you know what you are up against in Montana: We had over 60 thousand NR deer and elk hunters up here last year...most of them buying B tags.

You aren't going to find a lot of residents up in arms about this since those tags are coming out of the 17K "Limit" we are supposed to have. I'm hopeful we will close the B tag loophole and get our NR hunter numbers under control...until that happens you probably won't see a lot of support from residents.

 

[406huntermt]

Just so you know what you are up against in Montana: We had over 60 thousand NR deer and elk hunters up here last year...most of them buying B tags.

You aren't going to find a lot of residents up in arms about this since those tags are coming out of the 17K "Limit" we are supposed to have. I'm hopeful we will close the B tag loophole and get our NR hunter numbers under control...until that happens you probably won't see a lot of support from residents.

Truth man!

 

[sndmn11]

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.

 

[Legend]

Those who are well educated on MT hunting regulatuons are opposing this bill. I am one of them even though it will not change my day to day. The issue is that it says that if you have BIG money you get more privileges for hunting. This is a slippery slope.

 

[SuperDUECE22]

Copied from Hunt Talk member who broke it down way better than i could :

Non resident Landowner incentive.

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere. I can see both sides of this. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/bill-awards-large-nonresident-landowners-with-big-game-combination-hunting-licenses/article_c422b588-b478-11ed-af53-b31f2da5c768.html

www.hunttalk.com

post#15

Here's a link to the bill: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW02...P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

When this first came forward, my initial reaction was "hell no." Now, I support it.

Here's why: MT resident hunter numbers are declining while NR's are increasing. With this switch, and longer seasons, we are seeing resident hunter success (success against all license holders really) go down as season length and intensity of hunters increases. This bill would move up to 15% (same as any other landowner preference program) into the preference pool for NR landowners with at least 2500 acres of fee title land. That means up to 2550 fewer licenses for outfitters and DIY NR hunters. On average, those NR hunters are spending about 10-14 days hunting for each license. By moving those licenses into private land only category (only to be held by the family members) this could potentially see between 25500 and 35700 fewer hunter days on public land and publicly accessible lands while applying pressure on lightly pressured private lands. That benefits the wildlife resource and the resident hunter

This kind of re-allocation also does not impact FWP's revenue stream as these are still full price. There is also an access carrot in the bill where a landowner could purchase an extra bonus point for permit areas if they enroll in a state sponsored access program.

The 15% matches other Landowner preference programs in statute, although those apply for LE permits. This program does not take anything from the permit system in terms of allocating it to those preference pool. It also does not add any permits or licenses to the 17,000 cap.

Furthermore, when you look at this piece in the entire elk consensus package, it looks like this:

1.) SB 58: Double the cap on Block Management to $50K with rule changes coming to increase the hunter day use formula.
2.) SB 281: Reduce the number of B8 licenses available for OTC purchase: This could cut as much as 3000 B licenses, and another 12K hunter days.
3.) HB 635: 2550 B10's going to the NRLO preference pool
4.) HB 361: Hunter Harassment/Hunting w/o landowner preference (amendments for this bill are posted)
5.) HB 243: Mandatory in person field day for Hunters Ed
6.) HB 596: Tightening the law around the 454 program to put a heavier focus on wildlife management
7.) HB2: New fte for data gathering for the Hunt Planner to include DNRC road system, access easements & other data that can then be scraped by GoHunt, OnX, etc for better apps.

I understand and respect the opposition, but the 454 program is the easiest to corrupt statutorily for ranching for wildlife, and bartering tags for access is how the CO, NM and NV systems started and then were taken over by privatized interests. MT's landowner preference system simply provides licenses/permits for landowners as a benefit of providing habitat. While there are some who abuse this program, it has been well run in the past and there is a side group that is likely to be taking this issue up in the interim for further reforms to the LO Preference program in 2025.

Like it or not, NR landowners have always been in the west. The Scots and English ran the range from the 1860's until the early 1900's. Hell, even Evelyn Cameron, the heroine photographer of eastern MT was an English upper crust member who came out west. TR was a large NR landowner as well. The ranches are providing conservation uplift in that they are being maintained as large, intact landscapes rather than being chopped up for 20 acre horse ghettos or new subdivisions for 5 acre ranchettes. This approach is about helping those NR landowners become a bigger part of their rural communities while extending a courtesy license for their stewardship. It's not that much different than the current LO preference program that all - Residents and NR's are using today.

Also, by segregating these landowners out, it improves the odds for resident landowners to improve the success in drawing their LO preference, further (albeit in a very small way) reducing more pressure on public land.

As to why MOGA supports the bill - their board and leadership are seeing the same thing we all are: increased use of private land due to public hunting pressure, decreased success rates and bad outcomes for people and critters. To their credit, this takes a hit out of their potential client base, but they're supporting this as a part of the whole package.

 

[Scoot]

If Montana can find a way to F*#$ DIY NRs, they will do so. The past handful of years has demonstrated that as clear as crystal. Welfare for outfitters, extra points for non-DIY NRs, allotted tags for the wealthy, and on and on.

Montana is a wonderful state filled with a ton of great people. Bullshit like this makes me so bitter towards it, however. Steps like this (and all the other steps taken/attempted in the recent past) will make it so I can't get back to MT to hunt again as a DIY hunter, and man that's a sad deal in my eyes. ...just another step in making hunting an elitist endeavor.

 

[Legend]

Copied from Hunt Talk member who broke it down way better than i could :

Non resident Landowner incentive.

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere. I can see both sides of this. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/bill-awards-large-nonresident-landowners-with-big-game-combination-hunting-licenses/article_c422b588-b478-11ed-af53-b31f2da5c768.html

www.hunttalk.com

post#15

Here's a link to the bill: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW02...P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

When this first came forward, my initial reaction was "hell no." Now, I support it.

Here's why: MT resident hunter numbers are declining while NR's are increasing. With this switch, and longer seasons, we are seeing resident hunter success (success against all license holders really) go down as season length and intensity of hunters increases. This bill would move up to 15% (same as any other landowner preference program) into the preference pool for NR landowners with at least 2500 acres of fee title land. That means up to 2550 fewer licenses for outfitters and DIY NR hunters. On average, those NR hunters are spending about 10-14 days hunting for each license. By moving those licenses into private land only category (only to be held by the family members) this could potentially see between 25500 and 35700 fewer hunter days on public land and publicly accessible lands while applying pressure on lightly pressured private lands. That benefits the wildlife resource and the resident hunter

This kind of re-allocation also does not impact FWP's revenue stream as these are still full price. There is also an access carrot in the bill where a landowner could purchase an extra bonus point for permit areas if they enroll in a state sponsored access program.

The 15% matches other Landowner preference programs in statute, although those apply for LE permits. This program does not take anything from the permit system in terms of allocating it to those preference pool. It also does not add any permits or licenses to the 17,000 cap.

Furthermore, when you look at this piece in the entire elk consensus package, it looks like this:

1.) SB 58: Double the cap on Block Management to $50K with rule changes coming to increase the hunter day use formula.
2.) SB 281: Reduce the number of B8 licenses available for OTC purchase: This could cut as much as 3000 B licenses, and another 12K hunter days.
3.) HB 635: 2550 B10's going to the NRLO preference pool
4.) HB 361: Hunter Harassment/Hunting w/o landowner preference (amendments for this bill are posted)
5.) HB 243: Mandatory in person field day for Hunters Ed
6.) HB 596: Tightening the law around the 454 program to put a heavier focus on wildlife management
7.) HB2: New fte for data gathering for the Hunt Planner to include DNRC road system, access easements & other data that can then be scraped by GoHunt, OnX, etc for better apps.

I understand and respect the opposition, but the 454 program is the easiest to corrupt statutorily for ranching for wildlife, and bartering tags for access is how the CO, NM and NV systems started and then were taken over by privatized interests. MT's landowner preference system simply provides licenses/permits for landowners as a benefit of providing habitat. While there are some who abuse this program, it has been well run in the past and there is a side group that is likely to be taking this issue up in the interim for further reforms to the LO Preference program in 2025.

Like it or not, NR landowners have always been in the west. The Scots and English ran the range from the 1860's until the early 1900's. Hell, even Evelyn Cameron, the heroine photographer of eastern MT was an English upper crust member who came out west. TR was a large NR landowner as well. The ranches are providing conservation uplift in that they are being maintained as large, intact landscapes rather than being chopped up for 20 acre horse ghettos or new subdivisions for 5 acre ranchettes. This approach is about helping those NR landowners become a bigger part of their rural communities while extending a courtesy license for their stewardship. It's not that much different than the current LO preference program that all - Residents and NR's are using today.

Also, by segregating these landowners out, it improves the odds for resident landowners to improve the success in drawing their LO preference, further (albeit in a very small way) reducing more pressure on public land.

As to why MOGA supports the bill - their board and leadership are seeing the same thing we all are: increased use of private land due to public hunting pressure, decreased success rates and bad outcomes for people and critters. To their credit, this takes a hit out of their potential client base, but they're supporting this as a part of the whole package.

To my point....he says they will be back in 2025 legislature to ask for more. More rights for the wealthy.

MT, like all bonus point systems, is on a crash course. With the squared bonus point system and a little time you can all but guarantee that most non resident LE tags would go to the wealthy nonresidents who play the game.

Money talks.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Seems like a good idea as long as the tags must be used on said private property.

 

[TheTone]

I wonder which non resident landowner slipped some money to the bill sponsor

 

[LIWolverine]

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

 

[Bowhuntone]

As someone who will never have enough money to own 2500 acres in Montana , if it passes my draw odds just got worse just like in almost every other state for a non resident.

 

[dirtytough]

Again this looks like a win. You guy's need to look at all the positives.

Resident's will have less competition on public land that is mostly funded by non res.

The wealthy will get to hunt more often.

And the less wealthy will have more money to give to con orgs and corner crossing fundme's.

Win, win, and win.

 

[D S 319]

how much worse can your odds be.. idea of less pressure is glamorizing though.

 

[406huntermt]

how much worse can your odds be.. idea of less pressure is glamorizing though.

wait until they get the insane amount of doe tags under control and hopefully get it back to the actual 17000 mark not the 66000 non res that were here last year! It will be glorious!

 

[Btaylor]

Seems like a good idea as long as the tags must be used on said private property.

I completely agree. The question I wonder about, are there 2550 NR landowners that own 2500 or more acres? I guess maybe with multiple property owners for a particular tract.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Seems like a good idea as long as the tags must be used on said private property.

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.