Billings Gazette Article

[El Jason]

Montana's New Game-Changer: House Bill 635

House Bill 635 Empowers Non-Resident Landowners to hunt Elk on their own land, Plus Four other proven strategies for non-resident landowners to maximize…

landinvestor.com

Its almost like legislation made that market accelerate. Huh. Weird.

In the bigger picture, I don’t see this as a major reason, but we can agree to disagree.

With the outfitter subsidies they can lease and then use that access to tags, just like they did back in the 1990s.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

What is PTD?

 

[BuzzH]

What is PTD?

Public Trust Doctrine

 

[Forkyfinder]

In the bigger picture, I don’t see this as a major reason, but we can agree to disagree.

Yeah - wouldnt it be an obviously bad thing and contributor?

And no. They couldnt just lease an outfitter and have access to those tags. They are permits. You would draw one every 5-10 years. They will get one every year. Independent of draw odds.

 

[mtmuley]

@El Jason, agree but you’re describing what the rest of the country (especially in the whitetail and waterfowl world) has already experienced long ago.

Montana isn’t special- just behind. Times change.

We like being behind. At least in this case. Hopefully we stay this way. mtmuley

 

[El Jason]

Yeah - wouldnt it be an obviously bad thing and contributor?

Honestly, I haven’t dug into the nuance of this today whether it’s good, bad, or neutral. Just saying the landowner exclusivity is nothing new and there were easy workarounds to tags back then and still are.

I’m sure it’s contributed. It would be naive to say it’s had zero affect. One of the neighbors to the Diamond Cross was using an outfitter to get tags for the owner long before this.

The bigger picture is far more complex than HB635.

 

[TheTone]

@El Jason, agree but you’re describing what the rest of the country (especially in the whitetail and waterfowl world) has already experienced long ago.

Montana isn’t special- just behind. Times change.

Nothing about that is good for the general populace. Do you think that high dollar leases, hunt clubs and outfitting have been a good thing for whitetail and waterfowl hunting?

 

[Treeshark]

1. @TheTone, it does not matter if it’s good for the general populace or not, it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (the land purchase part, anyway) for good reason. The Constitution serves to protect from the general populace as much as it does for it.

You can apply that question to all sorts of things: what kind of vehicle do you drive? Is it good for the general populace or would they be better served if you rode a bike instead? Thankfully it’s none of their damn business though as long as you’re following the law, right?

Game tag allocation is the one factor that residents do indeed have a legitimate say over, that is for them to decide.

2. Some good, some bad. In terms of the health of the resource, almost all good. “High Dollar” is your words, many may feel it perfectly reasonable depending on their own personal means.

I personally can’t really think of a personal impact I’ve felt from it one way or another.

 

[mtmuley]

1. @TheTone, it does not matter if it’s good for the general populace or not, it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (the land purchase part, anyway) for good reason. The Constitution serves to protect from the general populace as much as it does for it.

You can apply that question to all sorts of things: what kind of vehicle do you drive? Is it good for the general populace or would they be better served if you rode a bike instead? Thankfully it’s none of their damn business though as long as you’re following the law, right?

Game tag allocation is the one factor that residents do indeed have a legitimate say over, that is for them to decide.

2. Some good, some bad. In terms of the health of the resource, almost all good. “High Dollar” is your words, many may feel it perfectly reasonable depending on their own personal means.

I personally can’t really think of a personal impact I’ve felt from it one way or another.

At least you keep your thoughts into it. mtmuley

 

[TheTone]

1. @TheTone, it does not matter if it’s good for the general populace or not, it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (the land purchase part, anyway) for good reason. The Constitution serves to protect from the general populace as much as it does for it.

You can apply that question to all sorts of things: what kind of vehicle do you drive? Is it good for the general populace or would they be better served if you rode a bike instead? Thankfully it’s none of their damn business though as long as you’re following the law, right?

Game tag allocation is the one factor that residents do indeed have a legitimate say over, that is for them to decide.

2. Some good, some bad. In terms of the health of the resource, almost all good. “High Dollar” is your words, many may feel it perfectly reasonable depending on their own personal means.

I personally can’t really think of a personal impact I’ve felt from it one way or another.

You’re fortunate then that you have never lost access to a lease, hunt club or outfitter. It will happen, guaranteed and you will think it sucks

As for tag allocations; it sounds great on paper that residents get to decide that but in my experience outfitters and those with money and thus political connections are often able to skirt the laws or get them changed to suit them.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Sounds like a fairly benign contract dispute, I’m sure they will figure it out.

The second half of the article clearly seems to focus on stoking class-envy, but failed to establish any sort of relevant connection to the issue.

Honestly as much as I tend to disagree with you on certain issues that’s pretty much my takeaway from the article. Usually Brett lays out the facts he includes in an article that weave together in a cohesive way to clearly frame an issue and gives the reader a sense of the stakes. I didn’t come away with that from reading this article.

The general public hasn’t had access to the Diamond Cross for free hunting since before elk repopulated the local area. I’m struggling to find relevance to me and my hunting in the facts of a lease dispute between an outfitter and the new owner of the ranch.

I do find relevance in the fact that elk thrive in the area on more than just private property. I’m more concerned with folks trying to influence FWP to allocate too many permits than what the available public land can sustain for a quality hunt. Too much pressure on public can push elk onto inaccessible private property but that’s a management issue more than a private landowner issue. The public is never owed access to private property unless a private landowner is demanding that wildlife on his private property be reduced because he doesn’t want them there.

 

[Treeshark]

It will happen, guaranteed and you will think it sucks

You’ve lost public land access to a hunt club/lease? If so, yep- I would be pissed too. If it was private, thems the breaks. I do not hunt private land for this very reason, don’t like owing people/having other people call the shots.

You make a fair point about people influencing laws with means. That has been going on forever, but that does not make it any more fair- agree with you there. As an NR, I’m in this weird space of hating it while also rooting them on.

 

[TheTone]

You’ve lost public land access to a hunt club/lease? If so, yep- I would be pissed too. If it was private, thems the breaks. I do not hunt private land for this very reason, don’t like owing people/having other people call the shots.

You make a fair point about people influencing laws with means. That has been going on forever, but that does not make it any more fair- agree with you there. As an NR, I’m in this weird space of hating it while also rooting them on.

Public access, no. Private absolutely. We did almost lose some public access in Idaho when outfitters were wanting to do exclusive use leases on state endowment lands. They were making the case that they would pay more into the endowments and by state code the endowment lands purpose is generating the highest return it can

 

[Treeshark]

Private absolutely.

Well yeah dude, you didn’t own it. I get being bummed out about losing it, but you can’t expect to keep access of land you don’t own indefinitely.

Were you paying the landowner or was it free access?

 

[TheTone]

Well yeah dude, you didn’t own it- you can’t expect to keep access of land you don’t own indefinitely.

Were you paying the landowner or was it free access?

Always free, usually with long time family relationships.

Worst case was a non profit that leased a large property under the guise of taking kids hunting. The reality of it was that didn’t happen but the group leaders shot some nice deer that fall

 

[Treeshark]

Always free

That’s probably why it went away.

 

[mtmuley]

This thread makes me so happy I can wake up in the morning and be in 100's and thousands of acres of public land in Montana about 20 minutes from my driveway. No landowner tags, no vouchers no nothing except a tag in your pocket and hunt. mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

Exactly, no reason to be envious of those able to purchase their own private ground with that much federal public land at your disposal

 

[mtmuley]

Exactly, no reason to be envious of those able to purchase their own private ground with that much federal public land at your disposal

Who is envious? mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

Who is envious? mtmuley

Not you. Read the thread from the beginning and draw your own conclusion.