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

[Z Barebow]

I am getting used to being cr@pped on as an NR.

My problem with the bill is not necessarily as the bill currently reads. My problem is the precedent this sets. If it becomes law, the door has been opened. Once opened, what stops the next legislative session from amending the exist law to now make LO tags transferable/sellable? What stops the next session from removing the Block Management piece due to lack of participation? etc.

One thought is lock in the law for 10 year min unless a super majority vote to amend. (EX 2/3 vote).

This is not my first rodeo and I have seen this car accident before. I know what happens. I trust politicians as far as I can throw them.

 

[wapitibob]

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.

 

[S.Clancy]

Some background on this bill....it was created across stakeholder groups, mostly from a grass roots citizen elk coalition (totally separate from the FWP's "Citizen Elk Advisory Group") working with private landowners and MOGA. This bill is the result. I'm hoping this is the start of limiting NR opportunity in MT back to the level that was legislatively passed and putting caps on NR B-tag opportunity.

 

[406huntermt]

Some background on this bill....it was created across stakeholder groups, mostly from a grass roots citizen elk coalition (totally separate from the FWP's "Citizen Elk Advisory Group") working with private landowners and MOGA. This bill is the result. I'm hoping this is the start of limiting NR opportunity in MT back to the level that was legislatively passed and putting caps on NR B-tag opportunity.

Yes sir you and the rest of us!

 

[mtnkid85]

Im conflicted by this bill, which Ive been following since it was first being proposed by the elk coalition. Im a strong advocate for NAM, which I and others feel like this bill violates...

But, I guess we need to ask what our end goal is here. Is taking what is honestly a "small" hit to give unequal access to a portion of hunters, based on land ownership, worth the creation of what could be a foundation for collaboration between two seemingly counter groups? Those of you that remember the last legislative session know DIY Montana hunters got our teeth kicked in and there was plenty of angst from both sides.

This bill addresses to some degree a few issues that we are dealing with in MT, it helps shift hunting pressure off of public and onto private that acts as a sanctuary during the hunting season, which should help with distribution issues. It does not add and additional license sales to the system. And It provides additional incentive for enrolling in public access programs.

One of the big complaints coming from the landowner community is a lack of "incentive" to enroll in public access programs, which have been on a decline across the state. (And while we can debate endlessly about this point) this bill certainly address that concern.

 

[Legend]

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

Out of state ownership takes the land from our family farms and ranches. It is just one more assault on our small communities. Don't kid yourself with they are doing us a favor ideas.

As for property taxes, MTs ag land taxes are next to nothing.

And if keeping public wildlife public is a disincentive to out of state land ownership...well then all the better.

 

[LIWolverine]

Out of state ownership takes the land from our family farms and ranches. It is just one more assault on our small communities. Don't kid yourself with they are doing us a favor ideas.

As for property taxes, MTs ag land taxes are next to nothing.

And if keeping puic wilife public is a disincentive to out of state land ownership...well then all the better.

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

 

[Gobbler36]

Sound like a good idea to culture NR DIY pressure but I could only get on board if it’s absolutely certain the LO have to hunt on their private land ONLY. LO tags leave a bad taste when the tag holders can go all over gods green earth in that unit like here in Idaho.

 

[sram9102]

I think 2500 ac minimum is a lot for landowner tags... Owning damn near 4 square miles and not being able to hunt it annually would be a kick in the crotch. Hell I would be mad if I had any amount of land that deer/elk/antelope were using in a typical year and didn't have a reasonable way to hunt them. I think a few non-transferable tags per family for their own land only would be more than fair especially if they catered to youth hunters.

 

[t_carlson]

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.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

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.

I agree..but you have to start the process somewhere....I dont expect to work in every situation but MT needs to do something about wildlife holding up on private...Is the perfect solution no..but it is a step in the direction.

 

[TheTone]

I’d guess anyone that bought one of these big ranches would have understood the tag and hunting situation prior to the purchase, so f they didn’t then too bad for them

Also I don’t see how allowing one or two tags will do anything to affect private land harboring wildlife. That’s incredibly minimal pressure and I know significantly smaller properties around me that will harbor animals year round because even though the private is hunted and animals get shot at its still less pressure and more careful methods than the surrounding public

 

[dieselchessy]

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.

 

[t_carlson]

I think 2500 ac minimum is a lot for landowner tags... Owning damn near 4 square miles and not being able to hunt it annually would be a kick in the crotch. Hell I would be mad if I had any amount of land that deer/elk/antelope were using in a typical year and didn't have a reasonable way to hunt them. I think a few non-transferable tags per family for their own land only would be more than fair especially if they catered to youth hunters.

So if you bought land out of state, you would just expect the state to change its laws so you could hunt your own property?

The idea of landowners getting tags because they bought land is brand new to MT, so everyone who bought property did so with that in place. If they didn't read the fine print, well that's too bad.

 

[Gutshot007]

Whats so special about 2500 acres ? Curious how they came up with that number . Does anyone know

 

[Gutshot007]

Whats so special about 2500 acres ? Curious how they came up with that number . Does anyone know ?

 

[Rifleman86]

Half the people posting in this thread supporting this are all about the North American model, especially the 7th tenant, “The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.”

But this might cause an approximate 3% (at best) decrease in pressure on public land from nonresidents, so it’s 100% ok to disregard a primary tenet of the NAMWC.

ETA The outfitters got their slice of the pie last legislative session, so now the out of state billionaires want theirs. This is what happens when you open Pandora’s box.

 

[sram9102]

So if you bought land out of state, you would just expect the state to change its laws so you could hunt your own property?

The idea of landowners getting tags because they bought land is brand new to MT, so everyone who bought property did so with that in place. If they didn't read the fine print, well that's too bad.

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.

 

[bsnedeker]

Half the people posting in this thread supporting this are all about the North American model, especially the 7th tenant, “The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.”

But this might cause an approximate 3% (at best) decrease in pressure on public land from nonresidents, so it’s 100% ok to disregard a primary tenet of the NAMWC.

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.

 

[Rifleman86]

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.

Again, louder for those in the back, straight from the FWS.gov website listing the tenets of the NAMWC…

“government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.”

This has nothing to do with who is doing the managing or the fact that residents come first, that’s been a long established thing within the North American model that residents get priority. 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.

Again, lots of people in this thread are big fans of the tenets of the North American model, but only when it’s convenient apparently.