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

[bsnedeker]

Well... if you're in favor of wealthy people getting better access to public resources simply because their wealthy... then we see the world differently. It's not about R or NR, it's about preferential treatment of the rich.

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

 

[handwerk]

It would be interesting to know what the number of Montana hunters is resident vs. non resident currently and what that looked like 10 years ago.

 

[yfarm]

As a NR of Montana fully support this bill, have personally experienced the frustration of not being able to hunt on land that has been in my family for 60 yrs. Born,raised and worked in the(not Mt)state moved in midlife for job reasons. Have paid state income taxes on income off the farm for 20 yrs as well as property taxes but can only hunt deer by participating in a non resident lottery with at best once every three years tag. From a conservation standpoint provides wildlife benefits for miles around. Don’t even bother to apply anymore, just hunt leases in the state I live in.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Copied from Hunt Talk member
When this first came forward, my initial reaction was "hell no." Now, I support it.

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

I hope montana loses out on the $28,000,000+ that NR hunters (175k) provided.

For comparison, MT residents (858k) provided $10,000,000.

2020 numbers though.

I hope it's more.

I hope it drives pricing up for MT in general, way up, unobtainaium up.

I also hope MT residents stop asking for NR help/attention/support while actively hindering NR hunting opportunities.

Funny eh?

 

[Trackerbacker]

Land owners actually buying tags to kill animals on their property.

"The state owns the resource"...

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

People who own property aren't automatically rich. Just because someone has something that you don't doesn't mean they are wealthy, rich, or owe you something. It just means this is a capitalist country and you made different life decisions than the other person.

I find it terribly ironic and sad that it's the same handful of people bringing up these grievances with various states. Using terms like "we" and "us" but only managing to promote a division in their effort to elk hunting socialism.

Ex: @bsnedeker has said he doesn't care one way or another about this bill and lives in MT. @BuckeyeRifleman is going after him like he is an enemy, and is probably annoying him into choosing that side.

I simply was employing to him that A) this bill is contrary to the NAMWC that has entrusted the United States with more hunting opportunities for more people than anywhere else in the modern world.

He, or anyone else here is welcome to disagree with the tenets of that model, but they are what they are.

Allocating wildlife democratically, and not based on wealth or political connections has worked damn well for all of us. We shouldn’t f$ck with it.

It’s not a nonresident/resident thing. Not once have I or anyone on this forum demanded NR get the same treatment as residents. But by slowly erring from the model that has given us what we have today, and restricting tag allocations to a smaller group of people rather than the citizenry as a whole, we risk in the long run losing hunting all together. As opportunities are lost, and fewer and fewer people have the means to hunt, anti hunters will gain more power and political influence.

That’s a fact. We’re already watching it happen in certain places. I wonder if NJ bear hunters are still worried about too many nonresidents?

Nobody wants to see packed trailheads, but it’s way better than empty trailhead’s because hunting and trapping is no longer legal and we no longer have hunter centric wildlife management.

 

[Gutshot007]

Where is all the "quit your whining and move there " gang ? Lol (previous wyoming threads)

 

[406huntermt]

Where is all the "quit your whining and move there " gang ? Lol (previous wyoming threads)

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

 

[Gutshot007]

Honestly im not a class envy guy . More power to you if you can get ahold of a big chunk of montana land (especially if your from california lol) . In all fairness one should be referred to as " land rich " and not "wealthy" . I feel for the poor sap that only owns 2499 acres and does'nt quite make the cut for your very own state funded elk herd . I guess theres always the next election cycle .

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Bottom line, we have a long history in this country that you can own land, you can own livestock, but you can’t own wildlife.

We should keep it that way.

 

[Valsport]

Forwarded this to my buddy in Big Sky, good subject

 

[Cowbell]

Bottom line, we have a long history in this country that you can own land, you can own livestock, but you can’t own wildlife.

We should keep it that way.

You may not own the wildlife, but you own the habitat and the food that sustains them. If it weren't for private landowners in every state, there wouldn't be a fraction of the amount of game that we currently have. It's best for states to incentivize those that own this habitat so that they continue to make it a priority when there are so many other ways to use the land.

I've got an older friend in Wyoming with 90k acres and he would like for my friend and our sons to hunt it. But we will never get to because we will never draw the tags. So he is forced to lease it to an outfitter if he wants to utilize any of the hunting value.

 

[t_carlson]

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. .

That is 100% what this is.

I heard of a local landowner trying to pressure FWP to change the regs right before he was going to put his property up for sale.

So we have landowners that are getting extorted for what is called property taxes, and we have the nonresidents that merely pay the nonresident license fees? It sounds like the number of tags should be much greater than 2,550.

Nobody's putting a gun to their heads and forcing these poor, poor non-residents to own property in another state. As I've said, the system was in place when the land was bought or gifted or whatever. Nobody should be surprised or offended by it.

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

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.

As a NR of Montana fully support this bill, have personally experienced the frustration of not being able to hunt on land that has been in my family for 60 yrs. Born,raised and worked in the(not Mt)state moved in midlife for job reasons. Have paid state income taxes on income off the farm for 20 yrs as well as property taxes but can only hunt deer by participating in a non resident lottery with at best once every three years tag. From a conservation standpoint provides wildlife benefits for miles around. Don’t even bother to apply anymore, just hunt leases in the state I live in.

You could live here and hunt it or don’t and not. I’d like to live in a state with no income tax. Think I can file outside of MT without moving there? The point is, it’s a package deal. Every place has advantages and disadvantages.

Also, there’s nothing stopping you from selling and buying a piece of land in a state that will give you some kind of benefit. You've apparently kept the land, so it must not be THAT frustrating or have too high of taxes.

 

[MT257]

It would be interesting to know what the number of Montana hunters is resident vs. non resident currently and what that looked like 10 years ago.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/aboutfwp/legislature/2023/hunting-license-trends-in-montana.pdf

Slide 29

 

[Red Letters]

Bottom line, we have a long history in this country that you can own land, you can own livestock, but you can’t own wildlife.

We should keep it that way.

Can they not high fence in Montana

 

[dreamingbig]

Has this bill died yet? Please tell me it is not still in play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreamingbig]

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.

Resident elk and deer hunters are NOT DECLINING but tell yourself whatever you want to believe.

Last I checked 163k is more than 158k.

Sent from my iPhone 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.

They can hunt on property they own until they're blue in the face. They just have to get a tag first. It is really no different than if they bought land in a draw unit. If I were going to buy a piece of hunting property in my home state of Montana (or any state, for that matter) one of the first questions I'd ask is, "how often will I be able to hunt this place." Because, it makes no sense to buy land in a unit with 1% draw odds if you want to hunt there on a regular basis (unless the tactic is to increase draw odds or guarantee a tag). This is no different.

 

[Scoot]

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

I'm no victim and I don't feel sorry for myself. However, welfare for the rich is bullshit and that doesn't have anything to do with residency.

You are also confounding two seperate issues and misrepresenting my point. I'm absolutely fully supportive of those who can buy land like that doing so. You are right- I would if I could afford it. But no way in hell I'd expect tags to be set aside for me because I'm wealthy.

You claim this is about me being butt hurt for something I am claiming entitlement about-- is not. It's about the rich being given special privileges over DIY guys. If these tags were coming out if the resident allotment you'd be losing your shit. For me, it's not about where they are coming from, it's about special treatment for the rich.

If you're brilliant plan for the future of hunting is more welfare tags for the wealthy, then you are one short sighted dude.

 

[sneaky]

I simply believe in federalism and that wildlife belongs to the state. End of story, the debate is over, close the book. I have points all over. I have a sister in MT and was planning a hunt in the near future. All this modification of allocation in all these states has the same negative impact on me and it does suck. However, I will stand behind my morals and be consistent that states such as MT should be able to allocate their wildlife however they want. I would assume a purest to the NAMWC like yourself would agree to that sentiment since the bedrock of the NAMWC is Public Trust Doctrine as defined in Martin vs. Waddell (the public maintains a common right to fish in navigable and tidal water because those waters and their underlying lands were kept in trust by the state for the common use of the people). In Greer vs. Connecticut, the court expanded PTD to include wildlife. Furthermore, the model lists private land owners and mangers as a key stakeholders in upholding the model. You're right, it isn't black and white; at least not so much that we get to cherry pick the parts of the model we like. It's extremely complex.

Careful what you wish for. If national politics shift back red in a couple of years, I expect some very anti-federal lands legislations coming down the pipe from all the historic places and some new ones. Places like Alaska are quickly jumping on board and it's only gaining speed. Residents of the west are getting sick and tired of the federal government driving the boat in their state. The sentiment now basically across the AK hunting community is that it's time to get the federal government out of our house and there is some real movement on it.

Ok, the lower 48 can stop subsidizing the natives in Alaska. Let's see how long that'll last. I mean, if Alaska wants the Feds out,by golly don't take any money from them then.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk