Non resident Landowner incentive.

[GeorgeBlack]

Came to Montana once last year, no success in my Antelope hunt.
I had a great time,met some great people and fell in love with the State.
You guys are getting shafted.....the reasoning I see here is the same lots of people were giving us out west in British Columbia.
Once it became a law with the rotten politicians,guides and even our federation blessed it..."the best we can get"...."we will revisit it ".
Too late,the connected and the rich got their way.
A stranger in your state,or province for me.
I hope it works for you ,I hope I am wrong,but the talking points are all too familiar.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

With credit to Eric Dietrich and the Montana Free Press, this pretty much sums up the current legislative session.

 

[sacountry]

Art,
Absolutely the wildlife and the opportunity to hunt are big parts of the marketing schemes for real estate companies and these kinds of landowners are purchasing large spreads based on the habitat quality. As you note, that's an investment as well as it is an amenity. Land investments in Montana that are 640 acres and under are the ones that are primarily being used to game the landowner preference system as it is today. Someone buying 14,000 acres is buying far more than the potential license, even though that is part of the equation. Just like Theodore Roosevelt did in North Dakota: He bought a ranch to be a cattleman first, and the hunting was a bonus.

The Montana Wildlife Federation issued this letter to House members last night.

One thing that bothers me. Statistics. We had seen a dramatic ramp up in Resident sportsman sales from 2011 to 2022 (based on the data you grabbed from FWP). MWF paints a different picture in its opening paragraph. Data needs to be referenced whenever used.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

 

[sacountry]

Hay crop and number of cows is at the bottom of the listing
View attachment 266918

FWP needs to buy this and then add it to their Super Tag lotto program. That would get more people involved in Super Tags!!

 

[Badlandcat]

Please explain why the opportunity for landowner tags does not increase the incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land.

That started a few years ago,

 

[Badlandcat]

Im wondering how is this bill going to be enforced? The bill states the license are only valid on deaded or leased land owned by said land owner. Will these properties be printed on each individual license?
As I see it one of the main benefits of this bill is it essentially shifts 15% of the NR pressure to private property only. But what is the actual mechanism that will ensure that happens? What’s to keep these license holders from also hunting public?

Most states with landowner tags will have the land description on the permit or attached to it. pretty simple.

 

[cgasner1]

Most states with landowner tags will have the land description on the permit or attached to it. pretty simple.

Does make you wonder though because we have elk b tags that are valid on state and private only. So if the tag says private only then technically they could go hunt someone else ranch also with that tag

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Does make you wonder though because we have elk b tags that are valid on state and private only. So if the tag says private only then technically they could go hunt someone else ranch also with that tag

If the tag says valid only on land deeded to “rich landowner” then technically they couldn’t. It’s no different that the landowner sponsored deer tags that have been in use for several decades.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I’m not diving into this debate, but I agree very much with Andrew Posewitz.

It’s hard to put the genie back into the bottle.

 

[Badlandcat]

Does make you wonder though because we have elk b tags that are valid on state and private only. So if the tag says private only then technically they could go hunt someone else ranch also with that tag

They have to on the land that's listed in the land description part of the tag.
B-tag is something totally different.

 

[Labman]

… “rich landowner” …

Just curious about this descriptor since I see it all the time on this site and finally need to ask about why it is necessary to use. It seems to be used in a derogatory manner, as if those individuals should have given their money or land away when they inherited it, worked hard for it, or got lucky in the stock market or at the roulette table. Who gets to define what a rich or wealthy landowner is, what is the cutoff? Is it your total acreage, AGI, net worth, do intangibles play into the equation, or is it just someone who others feel is undeserving of what they possess? Replace the term rich/wealthy with another term used to describe someone that they can’t control and it probably won’t go over as well.
I don’t think bridges are built when people try to tear the other side down, it just creates divisiveness and animosity.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Just curious about this descriptor since I see it all the time on this site and finally need to ask about why it is necessary to use. It seems to be used in a derogatory manner, as if those individuals should have given their money or land away when they inherited it, worked hard for it, or got lucky in the stock market or at the roulette table. Who gets to define what a rich or wealthy landowner is, what is the cutoff? Is it your total acreage, AGI, net worth, do intangibles play into the equation, or is it just someone who others feel is undeserving of what they possess? Replace the term rich/wealthy with another term used to describe someone that they can’t control and it probably won’t go over as well.
I don’t think bridges are built when people try to tear the other side down, it just creates divisiveness and animosity.

It was meant in jest. My apologies.

 

[Labman]

It was meant in jest. My apologies.

No offense taken (because it doesn’t apply to me) and my reply wasn’t targeted towards you, just a general observation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

One thing that bothers me. Statistics. We had seen a dramatic ramp up in Resident sportsman sales from 2011 to 2022 (based on the data you grabbed from FWP). MWF paints a different picture in its opening paragraph. Data needs to be referenced whenever used.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Slide 29: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...re/2023/hunting-license-trends-in-montana.pdf

 

[Nameless Range]

Relative to this bill, the meaningful slide is really slide 30 - there's more resident deer and elk hunters today than ten years ago. And still, nonresident deer and elk hunter increase has exploded relative to the resident increase.

Relative to our experiences, hunter-days in the field and its increase, which is more drastic relative to the increase in hunters, is what we all see on the landscape. There are twice as many hunter days on the landscape occurring in the HDs I frequent than were occurring 15 years ago.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Relative to this bill, the meaningful slide is really slide 30 - there's more resident deer and elk hunters today than ten years ago. And still, nonresident deer and elk hunter increase has exploded relative to the resident increase.

Relative to our experiences, hunter-days in the field and its increase, which is more drastic relative to the increase in hunters, is what we all see on the landscape. There are twice as many hunter days on the landscape occurring in the HDs I frequent than were occurring 15 years ago.

That's the point of the bill - to reduce hunter days on public land. As that pressure increases, we see fewer resident hunters with success and lowered success rates all around, leading to a large increase in hunter days necessary to fill a tag. By creating this pool, the goal is to reduce not only the number of NR hunter days on public land, but also reduce the number of hunter days it takes for residents to fill a license.

The two working together would be the biggest benefit to the resident hunter: less pressure, faster success, better outcomes for residents and wildlife management.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Former House FWP chairman & sponsor of the bridge access bill Kendall Van Dyk had this opinion piece today in the Butte paper. I'd note that this bill does not allow for the hunting of public inholdings, but only private land, and private land leased for agricultural production.

Kendall Van Dyk: A rare opportunity for a win-win on elk management

In the last decade there have been few policy issues in Montana more contentious than elk management. The arguments about what ought to be done take place in our communities,

mtstandard.com

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Last night I referenced talking today with Jim Posewitz’s son, Andrew, who I worked with on the Montana Public Trust Coalition. Randy did a podcast with him on that effort. He sent a looong email to me this morning. I don’t speak for him and don’t quite track some of this, so I’m cutting and pasting the whole thing:

“Interesting discussion and thanks for the heads up on the bill and the thread. I read the hunttalk thread this morning and this bill bothers me for a host of reasons and I will do my best to articulate them. I don’t have a ton of time, so apologies for stream of consciousness.

I am certain my dad would have opposed this bill. I have read through the string and here are the items I find most troubling and philosophically inconsistent with my father’s views and teachings.

1. This bill is written to serve commercial purposes. It does not serve the resource. Hunters for generations put the resource first, even at the expense of their individual opportunity. This bill deviates from the very thing that made the North American Model the unique success it has been. Hunters put the resource first and themselves second, this is a reversal of that success.

2. Hunters in Montana have been a north star on commercialization historically. Outfitter guarantees were removed by ballot measure of this reason. We have proudly resisted the movements to commercialize. Recently we have begun seeing an effort to have wildlife policy written to satisfy commercial interests. History tells us what will happen when we monetize this.

3. There are many perversions of the North American Model out there as people have twisted the words ever so slightly to match their own values. Don’t fall for that; this is a direct move to commercializing wildlife. Go to the original work from Dr. Geist (even when he tries to refer you to my dad’s work), before people started twisting it around to serve their purposes.

4. The debate of better or worse than 454 is a false debate. Both serve commercial purposes and send us back in time; towards a model of opportunity as a product of wealth or birthright. Regardless of what side you land on, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

5. The debates of resident vs non-resident, DIY vs guided are also false debates, each trying to claim right to the resource for commercial purposes, which is to be kept in trust for all of us. Opportunity should be afforded on an equal basis, not preferentially to landowners and or the wealthy which this bill does. Wild things owned by all citizens should not be “traded” between constituencies in exchange for anything, including money and access.

6. This is what happens when you put dealmakers in place to dictate resource management decisions. My dad believed viciously in what he termed the “democracy of the wild” and this bill flushes that down the drain by awarding tags on the basis of what dealmakers think is the best deal they can get for their individual constituents. This is where long term failure lives under the guise of short-term success. This is a step down the worst possible road for Montana and it saddens me to see any organizational support for this. This step is mimicking a step taken in all those states who have commercialized wildlife. Although I don’t like the split in the conservation community at the very moment when we ought to be coming together, eventually values slide too far out of alignment with our philosophy and our history to continue to collaborate.

I suspect as this becomes more well known, the remainder of the conservation community will rise to oppose this, it may not matter on this bill, but it will help guide us all going forward.”

It's easy to agree with the sentiment. Just feels like the choice is to hold rigidly to this sentiment and allow the actual management to slide further away from it or to compromise.

The "conservation community" may very well rise to oppose it but the majority of hunters are only worried about conserving their opportunity to hunt at least as much as they do now without regard to conservation. If hunters and in turn MT politics / FWP showed a little willingness to give up their own opportunity in the name of resource conservation there would be some hope in holding rigidly to the principals. As it sits now I don't see that hope.

 

[SAJ-99]

That's the point of the bill - to reduce hunter days on public land. As that pressure increases, we see fewer resident hunters with success and lowered success rates all around, leading to a large increase in hunter days necessary to fill a tag. By creating this pool, the goal is to reduce not only the number of NR hunter days on public land, but also reduce the number of hunter days it takes for residents to fill a license.

I think the general counter argument is if you want to reduce hunter days just reduce hunters (permits). I'm now a NR but I would feel the same if I still lived there. The bill just re-slices the pie - public vs private. You reduce hunter days on public and redistribute to private with some hope of a positive result. We really can't quantify the impact, so some people have the argument that hope isn't much of a strategy so be more direct on targeting hunter days and reduce hunter permits. I get that this is a compromise and it's how things get done in politics, but it's more of the same. To @JLS point, once you give these NR landowners something, it's not like they reciprocate in kind. Rather they tend to demand more next session.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

That's the point of the bill - to reduce hunter days on public land. As that pressure increases, we see fewer resident hunters with success and lowered success rates all around, leading to a large increase in hunter days necessary to fill a tag. By creating this pool, the goal is to reduce not only the number of NR hunter days on public land, but also reduce the number of hunter days it takes for residents to fill a license.

The two working together would be the biggest benefit to the resident hunter: less pressure, faster success, better outcomes for residents and wildlife management.

Ben, here is a quote from your post on Friday: “100% agree that the amount of pressure on public land isn't fixed by this bill”. In the face of exploding NR big game tag numbers—more than 66K in 2021—this bill’s accomplishments disappear. I don’t understand why you and Kendall reference the 17K cap; it no longer means anything, and using it distorts perceptions. I can’t see where this bill does anything but reward the wealthiest non-resident landowners.