Montana to allow landowners to hunt without permits?

[OrangeMan73]

Timing of this is perfect. Pulls all the attention away from Idaho's nonresident tag system. Go Montana!

 

[LFC911]

Timing of this is perfect. Pulls all the attention away from Idaho's nonresident tag system. Go Montana!

Ida-who?

 

[jpmulk]

I don't see a problem with it as long as it's just the owner or immediate family who is hunting. Why shouldn't I be allowed to hunt my own land?

My take on this is that it will still degrade trophy units dramatically. Some people have big families. And they would have their pick of big bulls. Also, as stated, it’s a slippery slope. That’s one step closer to allowing outfitting on those private land pieces on a general tag. And finally, we all know there are loopholes in everything. People would find ways to hunt those private lands on a general tag.

It’s one more step toward the monetization of hunting. Less for the common man, more for the rich man.

 

[CorbLand]

My take on this is that it will still degrade trophy units dramatically. Some people have big families. And they would have their pick of big bulls. Also, as stated, it’s a slippery slope. That’s one step closer to allowing outfitting on those private land pieces on a general tag. And finally, we all know there are loopholes in everything. People would find ways to hunt those private lands on a general tag.

It’s one more step toward the monetization of hunting. Less for the common man, more for the rich man.

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.

 

[wind gypsy]

Whats wrong with that? If he decides he wants animals he fosters habitat and a sustainability model, if he doesn't then he doesnt and he has no animals

Extreme example: In parts of MT the Elk population objective is something like 1 elk per 28 Square miles. There's typically a shit load of land owners over 28 square miles that would then be able to shoot said elk. That doesn't work out well for anyone but the multimillion $ ranches who have enough land to let animals survive if they so choose.

 

[molliesmaster]

Is there already some kind of landowner tag system/program in montana?

 

[Marshfly]

Extreme example: In parts of MT the Elk population objective is something like 1 elk per 28 Square miles. There's typically a shit load of land owners over 28 square miles that would then be able to shoot said elk. That doesn't work out well for anyone but the multimillion $ ranches who have enough land to let animals survive if they so choose.

This is a great point. I got awarded an EHA opportunity last year for a cow. The ranch I went to was 40,000 acres with about the same amount of totally or essentially landlocked public within it. The morning the ranch manager took me out I saw no less than a thousand elk on his and an adjoining ranch with a few hundred bulls in that mix. That unit is managed as a trophy unit with only a handful of bull permits issued each year.

 

[Marshfly]

Is there already some kind of landowner tag system/program in montana?

Kind of. The opportunity I wrote about above was issued in response to the land owner getting a tag. The ranch had to allow I think 5 hunters on in exchange for that one tag. One bull and the rest cows.

Elk Hunting Access Agreements | Montana FWP

Learn about the various programs Montana FWP offers to landowners to support conservation and public access.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[t_carlson]

I don't see a problem with it as long as it's just the owner or immediate family who is hunting. Why shouldn't I be allowed to hunt my own land?

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.

 

[BigBird69]

Sounds like most of you guys are just butthurt you don't own a ranch.

 

[CorbLand]

Sounds like most of you guys are just butthurt you don't own a ranch.

Or or we believe in the North American Model of Conservation.

 

[Carr5vols]

If this passes prices of land in MT will go up...buy the right peice of property and you won the lottery...

 

[molliesmaster]

Sounds like most of you guys are just butthurt you don't own a ranch.

I'm not sure that is it at all.

I think it as viewed as further degradation from the way things have always been to a system that stretches the chasm wider between those that have and those that have not. Once again, a way of things is being changed to please an elite few over the middle-class.

I'm all for individual rights and I am trying very hard not to talk out of both sides of my mouth. Perhaps, that is part of the reason why I haven't offered an opinion so far, not that anyone is awaiting my thoughts on the matter.

But I can say for certain that I don't think this is an issue of jealousy. It looks to be one more poke to the common-man who is trying to live a life that makes the west so attractive.


* I blame it all on the californians...

 

[wind gypsy]

Sounds like most of you guys are just butthurt you don't own a ranch.

Right. We should manage wildlife for the 0.001% and everyone else should buck up and get a 9 figure net worth if they want animals to hunt.

You in TX? UT?

 

[CorbLand]

You in UT?

It makes me cry that this is actually a valid question.

Someone find me a job in Northern Arizona please.

 

[Rifleman86]

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.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Extreme example: In parts of MT the Elk population objective is something like 1 elk per 28 Square miles. There's typically a shit load of land owners over 28 square miles that would then be able to shoot said elk. That doesn't work out well for anyone but the multimillion $ ranches who have enough land to let animals survive if they so choose.

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…

 

[CorbLand]

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 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.

 

[t_carlson]

Sounds like most of you guys are just butthurt you don't own a ranch.

Put up a high fence if you don't like the public's animals on your land. Simple, really.

Oh, you don't like that because it is too expensive? That's funny. Sounds like you're butthurt you cant afford to build a high fence.

And for the record, I don't own a "ranch" but me and my family does own a piece of private property that we have killed a LOT of whitetail deer on. One of the owners of Rokslide killed one there, too.

I have absolutely no desire to support any legislation that increases my ability to hunt on that land over the average, public-land hunter. Whatsoever.

 

[Slowlerner]

Totally get it. I live on 6 acres and animals use it. Why shouldn't i be able shoot em all? It’s on muh property!

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?