Landowner Elk Tag Bill

[Big Fin]

Randy, can you explain to me what happens to the unutilized landowner set aside from the current pool? Do the tags go unused, or do they revert back to the public? Coming from a state where 20% of all limited licenses are offered to landowners first in the form of transferable vouchers, I can tell you I would be very hesitant to support any additional concessions for landowners. We didn't start out in Colorado where we are today.

The underutilized tags go back to the draw. In the high-demand units that is moot, as there are more landowner applicants than tags.

I agree with the hesitancy. Having watched how RFW morphed in you home state, I am very hesitant to support any additional concessions. It never stops. You are always under additional pressure for a "new compromise." What has been here in Montana, in the form of 15% tags to landowners, was worked out a long time ago and that is where it should stay. I do feel we should get more out of that landowner tag allocation, and that is what this bill accomplishes, so long as it is not amended.

 

[shoots-straight]

Randy thanks for pulling up that info on the original bill. I looked at just about every session but that one to see when it originally became a law.

I understand both sides and am very concerned about this bill and the fact that it didn't hurt us much before but now has the chance to morph into a very dangerous one. I sent out an Alert to vote against the amendment.

 

[tjones]

So to be clear everyone keeps saying "tags" when in fact the crust of the matter will be "permits" in LE HD's.

I can't see a landowner letting getting to excited to let 4 guys on for a $20 general elk tag.

 

[antlerradar]

Here's the link to the legislative recommendations from PLPW: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/meetingSummaries2016June.html

The permit holder was supposed to be from the regular draw. I'll confirm w/FWP tomorrow. I might have misheard them on this. If they changed that provision, then it certainly should reflect the council's wishes.

What is sad to me is that this is all that PLPW could come up with. There are some good people on that committee.
This bill will have about the same effect as running north on a south bound train and if the amendments are added we could be running south. Tells me that we are not ready to bit the bullet and endure the pain it will take to improve access.

 

[warmer]

15% to landowners is pretty generous to hunters. Here in SD we give them 50%!!

 

[The Hedgehog]

Randy - where does it say the permits used for sb96 are to be taken from that 15% carved out of in hb454? Regardless of where they come from - I still think this is a rediculous idea.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy - where does it say the permits used for sb96 are to be taken from that 15% carved out of in hb454? Regardless of where they come from - I still think this is a rediculous idea.

Glad you asked, but not glad to provide the answer.

When a group was convened after the 2015 Legislative session to talk about Block Management, HB 454, and other access programs, a now-retired FWP employee told the group that the HB 454 permits came from the landowner pool.

In the last three hours since posting what I did, another person pointed out to me what you have; that MCA 87-2-513 (created by HB 454) does not read that way. I sent some emails this evening asking for more clarification, as the person who sent me the information has his stuff dialed in, giving me reason to ask more.

This evening, it has been clarified to me, by a person who would know for absolutely sure, that these HB 454 tags do not come from the 85% general pool or the 15% landowner pool. He explained that these tags/permits are over and above the current tag/permit numbers that are split 15/85. If approved by the Commission, they would be additional tags/permits.

That's a change from what I, and others were told, when these topics were discussed last year. My fault for accepting the answers provided and not doing my own research. I know better. Bad on me.

Embarrassed as hell, but not much I can do about it now.

 

[Schaaf]

When can we expect a vote on this in the committee?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Bad news ... it would have been much more palatable if, as initially assumed, the tags came from the 15% pool.

 

[teamhoyt]

Called and opposed the bill and any amendments

 

[Ben Lamb]

Committee may vote as soon as tomorrow. Given the volume of calls and emails, I'm not positive when they will schedule executive action. Keep them up and be nice. Those ladies answering the phones are wonderful public servants.

Randy - as I heard it, the licenses are above the 15%, but they have issued roughly 2 per year since the 454 program was started. While this is above the 15% you mentioned, there has been little use. Your original point of this being an increase for access remains true.

There is a lot of confusion on this bill, but all in all, your post was spot on. If the amendments get added, MWF will turn to opposition on this bill. We have informed the sponsor, the chairman and the committee of that.

I can't speak for RMEF, but I don't see them supporting the bill with amendments either.

Regardless of your position on the bill, please keep calling: 406-444-4800

 

[Oak]

My opinion: if you're going to have an access program, find a way to fund it. Trading permits for access is a bad idea. What other bills can FWP pay with permits?

 

[Big Fin]

My opinion: if you're going to have an access program, find a way to fund it. Trading permits for access is a bad idea. What other bills can FWP pay with permits?

Your "opinion" has proven to be "fact" in most states where these access via landowner tag programs get established.

I just emailed the sponsor explaining why I do not support the bill. I also pointed to him that these amendments for transferability, even if defeated this session, represent the continual battle that will happen, and has happened in all other states.

 

[BuzzH]

I kind of figured from the start the landowner permits would be above and beyond the 15%. The main reason, is that landowners have their hair on fire if someone else were to get something they don't, even if it goes to another landowner.

I just cant fathom, with the state of affairs in Montana in regard to elk, even in the LE areas, how issuing even more tags can be any kind of reasonable option. Taking a struggling resource, and applying more landowner permits, that I'm sure are valid unit wide, and thinking this is a good idea is just crazy.

All the access in the world, is useless when the resource is being hammered like it is in Montana.

I look for things to continue to be horrendous on public land, general elk tag hunting, and with bills like this, soon to follow will be equally shitty hunting in permit only areas and private lands.

What a shame...so much wasted potential....sad.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My opinion: if you're going to have an access program, find a way to fund it. Trading permits for access is a bad idea. What other bills can FWP pay with permits?

HB 97 & HB 164 both seek to increase payments through the block management system. We are working on amendments to both to ensure that the increase in spending is not at the cost of other wildlife programs. If we are successful, this would mean a boost of roughly $1 million per year to the Block Management program for increased payments for both types of BMA's, and ensuring better funding in the future. This point is the larger part of the issue of access that is being debated in Helena right now. Both HB 97 & HB 164 have support from the hunting community and are not nearly as controversial as HB 96.

Transferable tags as an issue will not go away. Sportsmen must continually be vigilant and fight against that. The permits and licenses in HB 96 are not transferable, and can only be used by the landowner, immediate family members or a full-time employee. That's our line in the sand. The chairman, vice-chairs and sponsor are aware of that.

It's time to drop the talk of amendments and leave HB 96 as it is. If it's abused, we'll be back in 19 to kill the program outright.

 

[BuzzH]

I wouldn't support any more money for any access programs in Montana until the permission slips were administered by the Montana FWP...just like they are in Wyoming.

Too many landowners are hosing sportsmen through the BM program and now they'll get paid more to do it. Waste of money.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Don't even think about fixing what's broken - better to just pass out some extra money and limited quota permits to all..

 

[Ben Lamb]

Don't even think about fixing what's broken - better to just pass out some extra money and limited quota permits to all..

If you want to make changes to Block Management, then you do it through the rule making process, not the legislature. legislating fixes to programs and seasons is a bad route, regardless of the intention or the desire. The price cap on the 67 landowners who receive the full amount are statutorily fixed. HB 96 is necessary to change that. HB 164 will increase revenue to the access enhancement account to help pay for that, and an increase on the hunter day cap, which has not changed in years.

We've spent a decade trying to get the Legislature to stop micro-managing the agency. They're acting in an appropriate manner right now (except for the amendments) with only 30 some wildlife bills introduced. Let's not start asking them to micro-manage our desires or positions.

 

[BuzzH]

If you want to make changes to Block Management, then you do it through the rule making process, not the legislature. legislating fixes to programs and seasons is a bad route, regardless of the intention or the desire. The price cap on the 67 landowners who receive the full amount are statutorily fixed. HB 96 is necessary to change that. HB 164 will increase revenue to the access enhancement account to help pay for that, and an increase on the hunter day cap, which has not changed in years.

We've spent a decade trying to get the Legislature to stop micro-managing the agency. They're acting in an appropriate manner right now (except for the amendments) with only 30 some wildlife bills introduced. Let's not start asking them to micro-manage our desires or positions.

I don't think anyone is arguing what the proper process is to change things like the abuses that definitely are occurring with the BMP.

But, IMO, and I think Greenhorn is saying the same thing, you're getting the cart well in front of the horse by asking to statutorily increasing the amount that landowners can receive.

It doesn't seem prudent to me, to increase funding to BM recipients via statute, BEFORE you get the program under control via changing regulation.

All you're doing is rewarding bad behavior. Even though that bad behavior may be limited to only a few...my philosophy is that everyone must suffer until the rats are smoked out and squashed.

 

[Big Fin]

I don't think anyone is arguing what the proper process is to change things like the abuses that definitely are occurring with the BMP.

But, IMO, and I think Greenhorn is saying the same thing, you're getting the cart well in front of the horse by asking to statutorily increasing the amount that landowners can receive.

It doesn't seem prudent to me, to increase funding to BM recipients via statute, BEFORE you get the program under control via changing regulation.

All you're doing is rewarding bad behavior. Even though that bad behavior may be limited to only a few...my philosophy is that everyone must suffer until the rats are smoked out and squashed.

I would suggest a new thread about how hunters would like to see improvements to the Block Management Program. I've participated in plenty of discussions about the topic and every idea gets killed for some reason or another. Given how those ideas for improving Block Management all die for various reasons, it seems people start looking for other well-intended manners to increase access, whether they be good or bad ideas.

Rather than divert this HB 96 thread with Block Management discussions, I would ask that another thread be started on the topic for those wanting to contribute to that solution.