Montana to allow landowners to hunt without permits?

[wind gypsy]

I suppose you also assume it’s perfectly acceptable to dam a creek that runs through your land without any concern about the downstream effects. So tell me, once the creek water crosses on to your property, do you feel that you have sole ownership of this resource?

Some libruls might say it's not acceptable but that's because they are jealous. Why shouldn't I be able to do what I want on my property?

 

[Dos Perros]

It’s not one step closer to any of those things. It’s twenty steps backwards towards the kings deer theory.

It doesn’t matter who owns the land. Animals are managed BY the state FOR the citizens of that state.

Just wanted to highlight the two most important words in your post.

 

[wind gypsy]

First let me say from a high level, I’m opposed to this. I’m a firm believer in the NA model, that game is owned by the state for collective use rather than landowners. I’m especially opposed to it in the case of western states where there are relatively low densities of game like elk.

That said, it’s not completely unheard of. Ohio lets resident landowners/tenants/and direct kin hunt their own property without hunting licenses and without having to purchase deer and turkey tags. It’s been that way as long as I have hunted which is over 20 years.

I haven’t purchased a deer tag in several years in Ohio because I only usually deer hunt my own land.

I’m not gonna lie I used to feel sorta guilty about it, but recently came to the conclusion that it’s not because I “own” the wildlife, but rather the states means of compensating me for managing good deer habitat. I do whatever I can to manage my property in a way that is good for native species, control invasives, provide browse and cover, etc. I spend way more than ~$32 (cost of a resident deer tag) doing so.

Odd that they wouldn't still issue tags for data's sake but eastern whitetails where the states are primarily trying to manage by killing a shit ton of them and anyone can buy a tag otc and there is no cap on total # of tags sold is kind of a different ball park. Not many Western big game animals that might spend their time almost entirely on a quarter section either.

 

[Antares]

What's selfish about it? The animals are living off my land. I can manage my land better than the government and I can guarantee I care more about it than some weekend warriors hunting public land for a couple of weeks a year.

I’m pleased to see this position getting appropriately derided. Absolute garbage.

 

[Blacktocomm]

Someone find me a job in Northern Arizona please.

WL Gore If I wanted to move to Northern Arizona this would be the first company on my radar for jobs.

I lived there before I got into hunting and kick myself everyday now that I didn't buy a lifetime resident license when I was an AZ resident.

 

[three5x5s]

In Kentucky I can hunt my own land without a HUNTING LICENSE. But I must follow all other game laws. I cant legally shoot 27 deer in the middle of July because they are on my land. KYF&G is still in control of what and when I can hunt my land.

 

[jmez]

then build habitat to sustain and attract. I get the point you are making and dont disagree, but from a devils advocate standpoint.

if someone is worried about the greener grass on the other side of the fence then build better habitat, including the general public on public land…

The devil's advocate to that side would be ranchers can't use public land for ranching. Greener grass for game animals.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

The devil's advocate to that side would be ranchers can't use public land for ranching. Greener grass for game animals.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

Thats fine, someone maybe worse maybe better picks up the void

 

[cuerro viejo]

The problem with public land is that it is managed for multiple use and what may be good for one group may not good for the other. That is primarily why private land is so much better. The person that owns it can prioritize one thing while public cannot.

It really has nothing to do with the land though. Animals are managed by the state with state funding, thus they are owned by everyone in that state. Allowing someone to hunt without a tag, regardless of who owns the land, is theft.

This passing would be the equivalent of saying all public service employees can go on an African Safari hunt and charge it to the general fund.

except the highest quality hunting properties/areas in the US are typically private, Sustainability is the common retort, but not really a reality.

 

[CorbLand]

except the highest quality hunting properties/areas in the US are typically private, Sustainability is the common retort, but not as large of a reality.

Thats exactly what I said...

 

[cuerro viejo]

Thats exactly what I said...

I missed quoted. sorry

 

[CorbLand]

I missed quoted. sorry

That makes a lot more sense. I was like you literally just repeated exactly what I said.

 

[Loo.wii]

There's deer in my front yard right now. In a neighborhood. In the city limits of Missoula. I guess I can just go throw an arrow through him.


No. Just wow.

funny some towns in northern VA have urban archery seasons.

 

[cuerro viejo]

That makes a lot more sense. I was like you literally just repeated exactly what I said.

lol, yelp, I got to get a bigger phone.

 

[jmez]

Thats fine, someone maybe worse maybe better picks up the void

What void?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

What void?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

income, its a lease.

 

[jmez]

Then if it is income/lease should be put out for bids yearly.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[mi650]

You can hunt your own land. You just have to draw a tag if its in a LE unit.

I've never bought the whole "I own the land" lie. Did you not realize animals would live on your property when you bought it? If not, you're stupid. If so, then you agreed to the terms.

You always have the option of fencing it in if you don't like wild animals.

This is a way for wealthy, (mostly) non-resident landowners to circumvent the draw system. Landowners can already get preference in any draw.

Deal with it.

Here at least, there's a system in place to hunt your private land as much as you want without a license. Put up a high fence, and buy the animals from the state. After that, they're all yours to do with as you please.

I bought my land specifically to hunt on. Building a house and moving here was always part of the plan, but not my main priority at the time. Back then, property owners & their immediate family didn't need a license to hunt small game on their own land. Deer, bear, elk, (and for some reason the DNR considers turkeys big game) were a different story.

About 3-4 years ago, the DNR came up with the bright idea of making everyone buy a small game license to be able to buy a deer license. Hell, I rarely hunted small game even when I didn't need a license, now I have to pay an extra $20 for the privilege of paying for my deer tags. Just like most things, it's strictly a money grab.

I have no issue buying my deer tags. This may not be popular, but could I see a system where property owners get a free tag? Yea, maybe 1. We pay enough taxes after all.

 

[Dos Perros]

Why are the people who are right in this choosing to engage with those who are wrong? This is a “hey bud have a great day!” scenario.

 

[jimh406]

Montana has permits that are for private land only already. They also have landowner preference tags if you own enough land.

If you believe what some people say, the animals that are on private land are impossible to hunt. It seems that there might be a side effect if landowners started hunting that weren't able to if they pushed the animals onto public land.

In any case, there seems to be a lot of unintended consequences whenever there are changes.