Elk hunt access lists

[Forkyfinder]

The 635 pool is still a draw, even though the odds are 100%. Some folks will still purchase a point as extra insurance, or in case they want to apply for a state-wide license in a future year (holding more than one point is still a common application strategy.) The preference point is for licenses, not for permits. Permits require bonus points, which is why we inserted the BP incentive for 635 licenses - to encourage landowners in those hard to draw areas in working with the agency on creating new access.

Regardless, your point that 635 enhances EHA's is moot since the EHA already has the license attached to it: https://fwp.mt.gov/hunt/landownerprograms/public-elk-access-agreements

You are claiming that under both 635 & 454 the landowner can hunt statewide/district wide. That is simply not the case. If people are doing that then they should be reported so FWP can address the issue, same with issues around the EHA lists - which I think most everyone is not happy with at this point given another administrative change this year.

In fact, 907 would have created the situation you seem to be upset about: allowing NR landowners to hunt statewide on a landowner license. That bill also had no understanding of the current laws and rules around landowner licenses, and the amendments showed that as well. As amended it would have made it so much easier for NR landowners and hunt clubs to get licenses and permits while enrolling sub-prime lands into block while reserving the best spots for themselves. As it was introduced, it disincentivized the over 200 folks who receive free B10's by enrolling in Block Mgt from continuing to do so because they would have been excluded from the extra BP incentive.

No ben - you misunderstand or are misrepresenting this.

After the NR LO has accumulated BP and preference points - there would be no reason to apply in the 635 preference pool. Thats been explained twice in this thread.

"Extra insurance" is a curious explanation thats incompatible with reality.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No ben - you misunderstand or are misrepresenting this.

After the NR LO has accumulated BP and preference points - there would be no reason to apply in the 635 preference pool. Thats been explained twice in this thread.

"Extra insurance" is a curious explanation thats incompatible with reality.

I misunderstood. My apologies. Like Gerald, I'm having a tough time separating out your legitimate gripes from the bad information you keep throwing out there.

2024 was the first year of the NR Landowner Preference pool. If you were an applicant that went in to that with your 3 points, those points were used. If the 2025 data shows they're still purchasing points, you may have a discussion point. Using the first year data is silly and ignores reality of the draw mechanisms in place for FWP.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I misunderstood. My apologies. Like Gerald, I'm having a tough time separating out your legitimate gripes from the bad information you keep throwing out there.

2024 was the first year of the NR Landowner Preference pool. If you were an applicant that went in to that with your 3 points, those points were used. If the 2025 data shows they're still purchasing points, you may have a discussion point. Using the first year data is silly and ignores reality of the draw mechanisms in place for FWP.

So - you are saying you cant collect preference points and participate in 635 NR LO preference? Wheres that written? Id love to be wrong about that.

That would be a useful reform. But landowner permits, acquired by traditional means, ARE NOT restricted to hunt their own land.

A person seeking to maximize their opportunity as a NR LO would accumulate PP and not participate in nr lo 635.

The whole conversations pretty nuanced - which is exactly how and why it continues to get misrepresented by 635s proponents.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So - you are saying you cant collect preference points and participate in 635 NR LO preference? Wheres that written? Id love to be wrong about that.

That would be a useful reform. But landowner permits, acquired by traditional means, ARE NOT restricted to hunt their own land.

No. I'm saying that the conclusion you are making using the first year data on that pool of licenses is inconsistent with reality. The 2025 data would be where I'd look for the connection you are trying to make.

You are correct that traditional LOP has no private land only requirement. That's one of many reasons 907 was a step backwards.

 

[Forkyfinder]

No. I'm saying that using the first year data on that pool of licenses is inconsistent with reality. The 2025 data would be where I'd look for the connection you are trying to make.

You are correct that traditional LOP has no private land only requirement. That's one of many reasons 907 was a step backwards.

Whats to stop someone from doing both?

Getting a general license via 635, for 3 years, and then getting a general license via draw with 3 PP would do exactly what i said.

And indeed - the NR LO would have a unit wide tag at that point.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Whats to stop someone from doing both?

Getting a general license via 635, for 3 years, and then getting a general license via draw with 3 PP would do exactly what i said.

635 is a general B10 out of the existing Cap. You still have to put in for the draw and draw.

 

[Forkyfinder]

635 is a general B10 out of the existing Cap. You still have to put in for the draw and draw.

I get that.

You are gauranteed the "draw" so i suppose you can call it a draw if you want. But you can "draw" via gauranteed methods and then when enough PP accumulate (2 or 3) - hunt the whole unit and apply for the permit via land owner preference WITHOUT getting the 635 general.

You could fix 80% of what im spun about if NR LO couldnt save PP while getting a 635 gauranteed general.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You could fix 80% of what im spun about if NR LO couldnt save PP while getting a 635 gauranteed general.

I don't think they can. Again - it's a draw. Your PP go into the license draw.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don't think they can. Again - it's a draw. Your PP go into the license draw.

Looks like they dont deplete to me.

If they did - no one would have PP

 

[Ben Lamb]

Those are the points they went into that first draw with. Based on the text of that page, those points were used to draw as they list the draw percentage as well.

The 2025 numbers could be a combination of using the outfitter pp as well as the usual pp for extra insurance on the draw or they're new people who entered that w/ the PP in hand. You can't make the conclusion you are without more data that shows individual ALS numbers to back up your claims.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Those are the points they went into that first draw with. Based on the text of that page, those points were used to draw as they list the draw percentage as well.

The 2025 numbers could be a combination of using the outfitter pp as well as the usual pp for extra insurance on the draw or they're new people who entered that w/ the PP in hand. You can't make the conclusion you are without more data that shows individual ALS numbers to back up your claims.

I'll put in a foia request and post it here.

Are you saying that someone would pay an outfitter to "hunt their own property" ? I suppose if you conclude someones buying preference points that are good for nothing - you could think something like that.

I noticed theres no legislation that exhibits what youre saying. Im just a dumb engineer - why dont you prove it - surely its written somewhere in MCA if that is true.

Approximately 213 NR LO are even elgible for a NR LO preference. Im not sure how any reasonable person could conclude these arent the same applicants.

A Closer Look at HB 635: What do Montana Hunters Get Out of This?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'll put in a foia request and post it here.

Are you saying that someone would pay an outfitter to "hunt their own property" ? I suppose if you conclude someones buying preference points that are good for nothing - you could think something like that.

I noticed theres no legislation that exhibits what youre saying. Im just a dumb engineer - why dont you prove it - surely its written somewhere in MCA if that is true.

Approximately 213 NR LO are even elgible for a NR LO preference. Im not sure how any reasonable person could conclude these arent the same applicants.

A Closer Look at HB 635: What do Montana Hunters Get Out of This?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Yes. Some people have outfitters that run the wildlife management programs on their property and so they may opt to hunt through them. They can purchase 2 bonus points per year. Also, without the specific ALS numbers you can't make the assumption that any points have carried over, especially since FWP's data clearly says 100% draw in 2024. Also, notice with the 2025 numbers that there were zero applicants with 3 points. So - logically - if there was the kind of activity you are alleging, then there would be more people in that top end of 3 points.

Your 213 number isn't really relevant since the language of 635 allows for up to 5 licenses based on direct familial lineage (which is another restriction from standard LOP that allows for employees). The NR LOP pool is limited to 2500 of the B10's. That 213 number also ignores the over 200 people who received B10's over the cap from Block Mgt - which if the authors of 907 had understood, perhaps they wouldn't have written their bill so poorly as to exclude those BMA cooperators from their incentive push or pushed hastily crafted amendments that would have created a bigger rush for 640 acre stacking.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yes. Some people have outfitters that run the wildlife management programs on their property and so they may opt to hunt through them. They can purchase 2 bonus points per year. Also, without the specific ALS numbers you can't make the assumption that any points have carried over, especially since FWP's data clearly says 100% draw in 2024. Also, notice with the 2025 numbers that there were zero applicants with 3 points. So - logically - if there was the kind of activity you are alleging, then there would be more people in that top end of 3 points.

Your 213 number isn't really relevant since the language of 635 allows for up to 5 licenses based on direct familial lineage (which is another restriction from standard LOP that allows for employees). The NR LOP pool is limited to 2500 of the B10's. That 213 number also ignores the over 200 people who received B10's over the cap from Block Mgt - which if the authors of 907 had understood, perhaps they wouldn't have written their bill so poorly as to exclude those BMA cooperators from their incentive push or pushed hastily crafted amendments that would have created a bigger rush for 640 acre stacking.

No - they would apply for a general with the rest of the NR when they had 3 - not a 635 gauranteed license. They would have moved pools. And remain in the LO pool for when they apply for a permit after getting a general license via draw like a common person.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Which if the authors of 907 had understood, perhaps they wouldn't have written their bill so poorly as to exclude those BMA cooperators from their incentive push or pushed hastily crafted amendments that would have created a bigger rush for 640 acre stacking.

Perhaps the best move - as @Frequently Banned Troll suggested - take out the trash that stinks and repeal all of it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No - they would apply for a general with the rest of the NR when they had 3 - not a 635 gauranteed license. They would have moved pools. And remain in the LO pool for when they apply for a permit after getting a general license via draw like a common person.

635 isn't a guaranteed license. It's still a draw. It just has 100% draw rates right now. That may seem like a contradiction but from a regulatory standing it is very critical in difference between a guaranteed license and a draw pool. If that pool ever gets more than 2500 applicants then those odds go way down.

These folks still enter into a draw pool - the NR LOP pool. It's still the same system for drawing relative to points. That pool comes out of the current cap of the 17K B10's. The 2024 draw had people move into that NR LOP pool, with their points which were used for the draw (as per the data you posted). The 2025 data you posted seems to indicate that as well since there are no people w/3 points in the draw.

 

[Forkyfinder]

635 isn't a guaranteed license. It's still a draw. It just has 100% draw rates right now. That may seem like a contradiction but from a regulatory standing it is very critical in difference between a guaranteed license and a draw pool. If that pool ever gets more than 2500 applicants then those odds go way down.

These folks still enter into a draw pool - the NR LOP pool. It's still the same system for drawing relative to points. That pool comes out of the current cap of the 17K B10's. The 2024 draw had people move into that NR LOP pool, with their points which were used for the draw (as per the data you posted). The 2025 data you posted seems to indicate that as well since there are no people w/3 points in the draw.

No one with 3 preference points would ONLY want to hunt their own property when they could get a unit wide tag. I follow your rationale that its a "draw" but with 2500 licenses - its never going to be a draw.

The only way that would be true - is if PP are for specific pools. Afaik - they arent.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No one with 3 preference points would ONLY want to hunt their own property when they could get a unit wide tag.

The only way that would be true - is if PP are for specific pools. Afaik - they arent.

The rigidity of your thought process shows that you have a limited understanding of the motivation of these landowners. You should try seeing the world through some different lenses before making assumptions about other people.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The rigidity of your thought process shows that you have a limited understanding of the motivation of these landowners. You should try seeing the world through some different lenses before making assumptions about other people.

I actually dont really much care about their motivations/intentions. Anyone would be making assumptions in that scenario - unless you talked to all 231 (or however many you assume there are) of them. I try to look at effects and what things mean in practice and worry less about feelings/intentions.

I suppose thats as close as ill get to you acknowledging that a NR LO can game the system exactly as i lined out.

The world will know when the foia is published.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I actually dont really much care about their motivations/intentions.

Clearly. You would rather fight than win.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Clearly. You would rather fight than win.

View attachment 379251

So - could someone do exactly as i suggested?

We can assume intent, or trust stated intent, or we can look at what this provides incentive to do and reality.