Montana HB 907

[Labman]

Does it say what the BMA has to be good for in order to get the tags? There’s a non resident land owner over here that has his land in BMA for upland game birds but does Land Trust for everything else

Every BMA gets one comped license.

Landowners are also offered a complimentary sportsman's license without bear or non-resident deer/elk big game combination license which they may designate to a family member or employee.

Block Management | Montana FWP

landowner programs block management

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Gerald Martin]

That - is sort of my point exactly. The bm incentive program exists with both 635 and 907. Less incentives exist to enroll if 635 remains and is not repealed via 907.

So your point is that less enrolled acres in Bma, because theres more ways around it via 635 as compared to 907, is a good thing? Am i correct?

I assumed your position was the opposite. Typically public land hunters want more access.

More Block Management enrollment is a good thing. That’s correct.

If you’re making the argument that more NR landowner acreage is going to be incentivized to be open to public access under 907 than currently exists with 635, I don’t think I agree with you.

HB-907 requires any NR landowner enrolled in BLock Management to purchase a B-10 license in order to be eligible for buying an extra bonus point.

MCA-87-1-266 gives a free B-10 license to NR landowners who are enrolled in Block Management.

The requirement to purchase a B-10 in order to qualify for an additional bonus point means that for the landowners wanting to benefit from 907 that bonus point will end up costing them over $1300 when they buy the B-10 and the bonus point.

Essentially, the only folks who may be potentially more incentivized by 907 than 635 and other existing laws are that segment of NR landowners owning between 640 and 2500 acres in permit areas. Even then, the likelihood of those landowners to be incentivized by $1300 opportunity to have an additional chance to get a permit that is limited to 10% of the LO preference pool is unlikely. It’s possible that these NR landowners would forgo the LO preference pool entirely and just enter the permit pool for a chance at 10% like the rest of the NR applicants.

Contrast that pool for increased Block Management enrollment against the potential for current enrollees under 635 to pull out of BM and utilize EHA’s (454 program) more extensively to access permits since additional NR landowners will dilute every NR LO odds of pulling a permit via the extra bonus point.

907 might have good intentions but my prediction if passed is that there will be negligible increases in numbers of Block Management properties in a best case scenario and likely to be an overall decrease in total amount of Block Management acreage.


Plus, if 907 is about incentivizing BM enrollment, why don’t resident LO enrollees get a chance for an extra bonus point? There’s nothing in 907 for them. That’s a much larger pool of potential enrollees for Block Management than NR landowners who own between 640-2500 acres.


NR landowners in general areas are already incentivized to join BM by receiving a free B-10 license.

NR landowners who own 640 or more acres in a permit area and enroll in BM are already eligible for a free B-10 license and opportunity to buy a bonus point. Will 907 incentivize new landowners to sign up for BM and pay $1300 for the opportunity for an extra bonus point while having to participate in the NR drawing to buy the B-10 license?

 

[Labman]

… since additional NR landowners will dilute every NR LO odds of pulling a permit via the extra bonus point.

I will also add it dilutes the odds of a R LO pulling the same special permit UNTIL (or if) the 10% NR cap is met.

On target overview of what’s going on.
I bet legislators voting on this stuff don’t have that much of an understanding of these issues.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I will also add it dilutes the odds of a R LO pulling the same special permit UNTIL (or if) the 10% NR cap is met.

On target overview of what’s going on.
I bet legislators voting on this stuff don’t have that much of an understanding of these issues.

I agree. I think there needs to a much better thought out comprehensive approach to how we integrate LO preference with incentives for opening public access in a manner that standardizes our approach and keeps at least as much opportunity to incentivize R landowners as NR landowners.

 

[Forkyfinder]

HB-907 requires any NR landowner enrolled in BLock Management to purchase a B-10 license in order to be eligible for buying an extra bonus point.

As far as bonus points being offered.... That was originally from 635 - see above. If you dont think thats fair to R landowners - i agree. Why didnt you last session? Guess you missed that?

907 requires that they enroll in bma, 635 only required a "program" like an EHA to get an extra bonus point.

Contrast that pool for increased Block Management enrollment against the potential for current enrollees under 635 to pull out of BM and utilize EHA’s (454 program) more extensively to access permits since additional NR landowners will dilute every NR LO odds of pulling a permit via the extra bonus point.

This is exactly the point of 907. It is fair and doesn't privilege people who own land over DIY NR hunters. With so few enrollees under 635, that permit is now practically a guarantee. It absolutely should not be a guarantee. 454 is called "Bulls for Billionaires" for a reason, and we should not be encouraging NR LOs to use that program, which benefits very few people.

It is truly baffling that so many people here think residents owe rich nonresidents our public resources in exchange for nothing. It's death by a thousand cuts, as the Montana way of life keeps getting eroded by this insidious thought that everything here can be bought for the right price.

At least MWF--who as i understamd were proponents of 635--had the testiclular fortitude to recognize that it was wrong and are willing to stand up for people who dont own 2500 acres again. Residents or not.

 

[Gerald Martin]

“As far as bonus points being offered.... That was originally from 635 - see above. If you dont think thats fair to R landowners - i agree. Why didnt you last session? Guess you missed that?”

Yes. I did miss that. I would support making that extra bonus point available to R landowners who enroll in Block Management.

 

[Gerald Martin]

[QUOTE="Forkyfinder, post: 3918097,
It is truly baffling that so many people here think residents owe rich nonresidents our public resources in exchange for nothing. It's death by a thousand cuts, as the Montana way of life keeps getting eroded by this insidious thought that everything here can be bought for the right price.
[/QUOTE]

You know, if proponents of 907 would have just been straightforward with this argument instead of trying to argue 907 is going to open more public access I could probably respect that. At least it’s an unveiled sentiment that lets folks know where the legislation is rooted. It also clarifies that some folks view public access as the only thing of value that landowners provide.

Access is one thing of value as it provides the opportunity to harvest public trust wildlife.

Habitat is at least as valuable if not more valuable than access as it provides the environment that allows wildlife to thrive.

When that habitat happens to be exist on private property the landowner is a beneficial partner in wildlife conservation.

Montana grants recognition to the benefit that resident private landowners provide in the form of habitat by granting them preferential treatment in the allocation of permits. That’s independent of any access they provide.

Making the case that a NR owner provides nothing to the residents of MT when his property is adjoining R landowners’ property who do provide beneficial habitat doesn’t make logical sense to me.

The whole tunnel vision argument that access is the only thing of value ensures that certain segments of the conservation community will not view landowners as partners in conservation and resource management but rather as competitors to be bargained with as aggressively as possible.

Politically this session it seems as though the sentiment you expressed has the momentum to get folks to vote it into law.

I guess if it passes, we’ll have to wait and see how it works practically when landowners have the final say on what they choose to allow for access.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I will also add it dilutes the odds of a R LO pulling the same special permit UNTIL (or if) the 10% NR cap is met.

On target overview of what’s going on.
I bet legislators voting on this stuff don’t have that much of an understanding of these issues.

Thank you. This is an important point.

Sort of irrelevant - as the proponents say it hasnt been around long enough for NR LO to utilize.

But - this is the case either way(635 or 907) with NR LO pref. If i was king for a day - id fold that up to 0 - and let the landowners who own land (and typically need/want to acquire more to compete with scale) not face subsidized NR recreational land owners seeking a freebie elk tag when they try to buy more land.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It also clarifies that some folks view public access as the only thing of value that landowners provide.

Not sure who youre talking about here?

Frankly, you must be unaware how many public dollars (fed grant dollars) go into habitat funding on private land. Theres a big push to privatize the state level weed money to do the same thing.

On the contrary - if this imagined property was in 622 and contained bighorn sheep - wouldnt they deserve a tag? Why/how is that any different?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana grants recognition to the benefit that resident private landowners provide in the form of habitat by granting them preferential treatment in the allocation of permits. That’s independent of any access they provide.

I dont see how you can make the statement above and below. They are incompatible philosophically. As a NR LO - you likely get to hunt your property (and the rest of the unit/montana) about 3 in 5 years with the way that PP assuming they arent hiring an outfitter and about that frequency really dependent on the permit area. That was true with 635 and also true with 907. To be clear - i dont think they should be provided nothing. I think what they are provided (via state law) is quite generous. Perhaps too much so if its only 160 acres in a deer permit area, like 270.

Making the case that a NR owner provides nothing to the residents of MT when his property is adjoining R landowners’ property who do provide beneficial habitat doesn’t make logical sense to me.

The case i am making - is that some group of outsiders shouldnt come in and be able to buy a ranch and a bunch of our legislators to go hunt it, if the laws dont currently allow. Even if thats "good" for wildlife somehow - the idea that someone who doesnt live here, vote here, or do anything besides hunt here controlling our legislative process is extremely short sighted. Extrapolating that elsewhere (beyond even hunting/wildlfe) scares me even more. Giving 907 a pass would send a resounding message that you cant get your way legislatively just cause you have some money. Regardless of how you feel about the specifics - thats a precident no Montanan should want.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There’s a non resident land owner over here that has his land in BMA for upland game birds but does Land Trust for everything else

I kinda hate that hes doing both and double dipping.

The upland bird people use an outsized amount of access dollars from deer/elk hunters that they dont pay enough for.

 

[Nameless Range]

Does it say what the BMA has to be good for in order to get the tags? There’s a non resident land owner over here that has his land in BMA for upland game birds but does Land Trust for everything else

Thankfully yet criminally, the 454 permits are capped at "10% above the quota", but one could get their LE Permit through that program, allow 4 or 5 hunters on their property at times they choose (and choose a portion of those hunters) and lease their property to an outfitter the rest of the season. In some districts annually, there are LOs being awarded what for you and I are dang near once-in-a-lifetime permits for allowing half a dozen hunters on their property and some of those landowners already participate in block management - so the public gains nothing and in fact loses opportunity to draw from a dwindling tag pool.

I'm not opposed to programs that in the big scheme of things are dinks and dunks and not the larger changes that will ultimately be needed, but these handouts in exchange for paltry access are gameable giveaways with a terrible ROI for the Public Trust.

 

[Labman]

Yes. I did miss that. I would support making that extra bonus point available to R landowners who enroll in Block Management.

100%. Could an amendment could be proposed, or is it too far along to be amended @Eric Albus ?

 

[Forkyfinder]

100%. Could an amendment could be proposed, or is it too far along to be amended @Eric Albus ?

To be clear to anyone reading. It wouldnt improve/harm the existing odds for folks outside of their respective draw pools. R LO, NR LO, R hunter, and NR hunter are all seperate permit buckets. All this would ultimately do is improve the odds of getting a permit with vs another R landowner within their pool who choose not to enroll in BMA.

 

[Labman]

To be clear to anyone reading. It wouldnt improve/harm the existing odds for folks outside of their respective draw pools. R LO, NR LO, R hunter, and NR hunter are all seperate permit buckets. All this would ultimately do is improve the odds of getting a permit with vs another R landowner within their pool who choose not to enroll in BMA.

There are only 2 draw pools though, not 4 - LO and general.
The LO draw is first. If the 10% NR cap is met before all permits are awarded then those unlucky NR applicants roll over into the general drawing. Until (or if) the 10% “not to exceed” cap is met NR and R LOs are competing for the same special permits. Once the LO drawing is completed all unsuccessful applicants roll over into the general permit drawing, where the 10% NR “not to exceed” limit applies to that pool of applicants.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'm not opposed to programs that in the big scheme of things are dinks and dunks and not the larger changes that will ultimately be needed, but these handouts in exchange for paltry access are gameable giveaways with a terrible ROI for the Public Trust.

Critical to stopping that - letting outside interests control things like hunting legislation.

This is, to me, one of the most important parts of 907. Even in a political climate you deem favorable, you can't buy law, just because its good for you and passing that would send the signal loudly.

I get that a lot of people who arent from here or the west in general might not feel the same way. Culturally theres a big gap between places like the south and midwest in terms of how people think about public trust doctrine and wildlife.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

More Block Management enrollment is a good thing. That’s correct.

If you’re making the argument that more NR landowner acreage is going to be incentivized to be open to public access under 907 than currently exists with 635, I don’t think I agree with you.

HB-907 requires any NR landowner enrolled in BLock Management to purchase a B-10 license in order to be eligible for buying an extra bonus point.

MCA-87-1-266 gives a free B-10 license to NR landowners who are enrolled in Block Management.

The requirement to purchase a B-10 in order to qualify for an additional bonus point means that for the landowners wanting to benefit from 907 that bonus point will end up costing them over $1300 when they buy the B-10 and the bonus point.

Essentially, the only folks who may be potentially more incentivized by 907 than 635 and other existing laws are that segment of NR landowners owning between 640 and 2500 acres in permit areas. Even then, the likelihood of those landowners to be incentivized by $1300 opportunity to have an additional chance to get a permit that is limited to 10% of the LO preference pool is unlikely. It’s possible that these NR landowners would forgo the LO preference pool entirely and just enter the permit pool for a chance at 10% like the rest of the NR applicants.

Contrast that pool for increased Block Management enrollment against the potential for current enrollees under 635 to pull out of BM and utilize EHA’s (454 program) more extensively to access permits since additional NR landowners will dilute every NR LO odds of pulling a permit via the extra bonus point.

907 might have good intentions but my prediction if passed is that there will be negligible increases in numbers of Block Management properties in a best case scenario and likely to be an overall decrease in total amount of Block Management acreage.


Plus, if 907 is about incentivizing BM enrollment, why don’t resident LO enrollees get a chance for an extra bonus point? There’s nothing in 907 for them. That’s a much larger pool of potential enrollees for Block Management than NR landowners who own between 640-2500 acres.


NR landowners in general areas are already incentivized to join BM by receiving a free B-10 license.

NR landowners who own 640 or more acres in a permit area and enroll in BM are already eligible for a free B-10 license and opportunity to buy a bonus point. Will 907 incentivize new landowners to sign up for BM and pay $1300 for the opportunity for an extra bonus point while having to participate in the NR drawing to buy the B-10 license?

Gerald, you are a very intelligent guy, but I think you have thought yourself into knots. Your third paragraph is totally wrong; under 907 if you enroll in BM you get a B-10, free—as your last two paragraphs state—and you get the chance to buy a second bonus point for the point fee. 635 actually is the bill that requires a NR LO to buy a B-10 and then enroll in an access program to get access to the second bonus point if you’re in a LE district. And your last paragraph about paying $1300 for a bonus point? Wrong. Maybe I’m just tired, but your logic seems to be to defend 635, whatever it takes. And you’re bringing a lot of energy to that.

And to address another point of yours, opponents of 635/proponents of 907 have been clear about seeing it as a giveaway to the wealthiest NR’s, who bought land here knowing their draw odds and then paid lobbyists and gave campaign donations to get the draw regulations changed. Period. They are within their rights to do so, and we are within our rights as residents to call our elected representatives and say it sucks. Your habitat argument? What amenity ranch buyer from another state isn’t already doing everything in his power to build up his elk herd? Where is the need for motivation? Some of these new people are good neighbors, and that’s great…but I don’t feel we need to use a public trust resource to get in good with already highly privileged people.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Line 3, page 2 of the text of 907.

I stand by what I wrote.

 

[Eric Albus]

I was curious if others had read this bill and had thoughts on it - it seems like a very good deal to benefit landowners who are in BMA programs.

Essentially - it gives a NR landowner with more than 640 acres an option to buy an additional bonus point if they are enrolled in a block management access program.

Montana Legislature approves public access easements through private land

Legislature allocates funds for public access easements on private land for wildlife.

www.citizenportal.ai

https://legiscan.com/MT/text/HB907/2025

I think there are better incentives than a bonus point. It’s like giving someone an extra raffle ticket for the cake at the basketball games

 

[cgasner1]

I think there are better incentives than a bonus point. It’s like giving someone an extra raffle ticket for the cake at the basketball games

If I had enough coin laying around to just buy a ranch no way in hell that’s what I’d spend it on. You can finance a lot of really cool hunts off just the interest of that kinda money.