Landowner Elk Tag Bill

[Schaaf]

Essentially the bill gives a landowner one free elk tag for every four hunters allowed on their property.

"The bill is an attempt to provide hunter access to elk while also giving landowners an incentive to provide access, said Rep. Zach Brown, D- Bozeman, who sponsored the bill. For every four elk hunters allowed onto their property, the landowners would receive one free tag to also hunt on the land. FWP would choose the four hunters through a random drawing of available applicants."


http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_99e79f68-1dcd-53a4-a705-45a3e1fe7303.html

This seems like a slippery slope to me.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

 

[antlerradar]

Sounds like a step towards ranching for wildlife. The concept sounds good, the details usually sucks.

 

[NoWiser]

Not a big fan of programs like this. Won't be long until those tags are able to be sold for big money.

 

[whiskeydog]

I'd rather stay on public land and forget about private than lose 20% of our elk tags to landowners...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the link to the bill page, which will eventually include the audio of the hearing

The bill would expand an existing program that has traditionally seen 2 tags issued.

Some points about the bill:

1.) It would allow for Non-resident landowners to participate.

2.) The licenses and permits do not come off of the current permit or license system. They would be added to the overall total. Not subtracted.

3.) The license or permit may only be used by the landowner, and immediate family member or a designated, fulltime employee.

4.) These are not transferable or salable tags.

5.) The hunters would be drawn at random by FWP. The landowner has no say in selection.

6.) The bill was designed by the Private Land/Public Wildlife Committee in 2016.

7.) Any landowner participating must enter into a contract with FWP that outlines the management of the hunting, who will use the tags, etc.

8.) The bill was supported by RMEF, MWF, Stockgrowers, Farm Bureau & MOGA. It was opposed by UPOM.

 

[WapitiBob]

If you have a good LO that wants to embrace the spirit of the Bill, it's a win/win. Those landowners seem few and far between...

 

[Schaaf]

Thank you for the additional information, Ben. Couple more questions you may know the answer to, would it be in the unit the landowner owns the land (special draw) or for the general season? Also, is there a cap to how many tags the landowner can receive?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thank you for the additional information, Ben. Couple more questions you may know the answer to, would it be in the unit the landowner owns the land (special draw) or for the general season? Also, is there a cap to how many tags the landowner can receive?

My understanding is that the licenses or permits would be specific to the landowner's property and not unit wide. The draw would also come from unsuccessful applicants in the regular draw.

There is no statutory cap on the number of licenses or permits that a landowner could recieve, but those details would be addressed in the contract negotiation. That contract would be a public document, and would have a comment period so citizens can weigh in as well. Then it goes to the commission for their approval, where again there will be public comment.

 

[teamhoyt]

I Just read about this in the billings paper. It mentions in there that if they allow 100 hunters they would get 25 tags. It also mentions that bma owners could participate but they would only get tags for the hunters drawn for access. I think if it passes we can kiss having bma's to elk hunt on unless you draw a tag. Is that going to be a legitimate concern?

I also don't see much landowner participation from the limited quota areas and certainly not leased land. Smaller operations aren't going to be letting guys in just so they get a free tag. They'll pony up the $20 themselves.

I see the slippery slope coming and can't believe this "tool" is going to accomplish anything positive for hunting and Montanas wildlife.

 

[TheTone]

3.) The license or permit may only be used by the landowner, and immediate family member or a designated, fulltime employee.


7.) Any landowner participating must enter into a contract with FWP that outlines the management of the hunting, who will use the tags, etc.

And who will be checking on the family or work status for point 3? I'm sure those contracts in point 7 will be good right up until the time the landowners start saying how much of a headache doing all this reporting is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The contracts are legally binding documents. If one party violates them, then there are legal repercussions. Given that this program has been on the books for a while with very limited use, it is not expected that extending it will lead to a crush of new applicants.

The way the current bill is written, the landowner could set the number of public hunters at 50 and ask for 1 license or permit. I agree that there is an opportunity for abuse. THere is a possible amendment being discussed to provide a report to the interim committee detailing the program. I think if we see abuse, we'd have bills to eliminate the program entirely. And I would wager they could get passed.

 

[teamhoyt]

Ben, so you understand that the draw for the public to hunt this private land will be a draw for a tag not a draw for access? And if its for a tag it would be an extra tag that would be good only on the private ?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, so you understand that the draw for the public to hunt this private land will be a draw for a tag not a draw for access? And if its for a tag it would be an extra tag that would be good only on the private ?

My understanding is that the permit or license would be good on the property through which the hunter is drawn to hunt on - so a 1 for 2 draw, it seems. I could be wrong on that, but according to FWP's testimony, that was my take away.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I also don't see much landowner participation from the limited quota areas and certainly not leased land. Smaller operations aren't going to be letting guys in just so they get a free tag. They'll pony up the $20 themselves.

^^Why do all this work for a $20 tag?
So what exactly is the point?. A landowner lets a few friends on gets a $20 elk tag?
Seems like just letting some hunters on during the normal seasons would be so much simpler, but that won't line anyone's pockets.

 

[belly-deep]

Sounds like a shit system to me.

I thought the Democrats were supposed to be against this stuff?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sounds like a shit system to me.

I thought the Democrats were supposed to be against this stuff?

It's a PLPW bill. Rep. Brown is a member of the PLPW and is the one carrying it.

Again, the hunters chosen to participate in this would be selected in a random lottery from FWP, not chosen by the rancher. This bill takes an existing program and opens it up to non-resident landowners. I would imagine the public would have a big say in the terms of the contract if we saw a landowner getting 10 permits for 40 public hunters and ask the commission to alter the terms or abandon the deal. There is still a significant amount of public involvement, which is part of what UPOM was objecting too. They were pushing for tags for landowners w/o any conditions.

I really don't see it being used much, and if there is abuse, then the contracts would not be renewed and the participating landowner would not be eligible to participate any more.

 

[BuzzH]

My understanding is that the licenses or permits would be specific to the landowner's property and not unit wide. The draw would also come from unsuccessful applicants in the regular draw.

I don't think that last part is true...read the last 2 lines. The drawing for access would be held only for hunters having the correct tag/permit for the unit where the landowner allows access. In the case of general tags, that's not an issue.

This whole thing is a clustershag if you ask me. Its the camels nose under the tent.

Another thing to consider, is if elk hunting in Montana was worth a chit on public land, there wouldn't have to be all these landowner give-away programs to get at the last remaining elk in Montana (those found on private land).

On the other hand, since I will not likely ever participate in another elk hunt in Montana...go for it. Give away what's left of the elk in Montana to landowners. They run the show anyway, and the only good elk is a dead elk.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That piece was based off of testimony/comments from FWP. It may well be wrong. I'll ask tomorrow.

There are other bills coming, some good, some bad, that would address the public land side of the equation.

 

[BuzzH]

That piece was based off of testimony/comments from FWP. It may well be wrong. I'll ask tomorrow.

There are other bills coming, some good, some bad, that would address the public land side of the equation.

There's no other way it could be...you cant offer access to elk hunters that don't have the proper licenses to hunt elk in the area that the landowner has land (elk b-tags, cow permits, etc.) It would also be unfair if they issued tags to people that didn't apply in the initial draw.

These are the problems with these bills, there is jack chit for thought put into them prior to being introduced. IF the Legislators bother to seek advice prior to introducing legislation like this, they routinely ask the wrong people for advice.

Its truly unbelievable the amount of time they waste and how little they understand what the legislation they introduce actually does...and will do in the future. Setting precedent is dangerous...and they act like its no big deal.

Classic.

Its no different in Wyoming...we're about to get stung from some old legislation setting precedent, and I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWP issues the tag. They can issue tags good for only private land for which they are drawn for. That would fulfill the requirement.

This was a PLPW bill - the committee worked on it for a while before asking the EQC to draft it.

Here is the roster of PLPW: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/members.html