Non resident Landowner incentive.

[cgasner1]

Yeah but it’s a carve out for those that own $2m ranches. That’s the part that I keep getting hung up on.

It’s only a million I know a guy at my gym he bought enough to apply for land owner tags he is a resident

 

[ccc23454]

No dog in this fight but two things always stand out when these tag proposals start.

1) if outfitters are for it its bad for average guy (not sure how or why today but eventually will see)
2) these proposals become gateway drugs for more extreme expansions of programs. Come home to hunt comes to mind.

I grocery shop in montana, waiting for program that allows me to get resident rates. Good luck guys.

 

[DFS]

Yeah but it’s a carve out for those that own $2m ranches. That’s the part that I keep getting hung up on.

Carve out of nonresidents that stay for 10-14 days on public land. Sign me up. I know it’s a management issue but it is clear to me management isn’t going to change.

 

[SAJ-99]

Carve out of nonresidents that stay for 10-14 days on public land. Sign me up. I know it’s a management issue but it is clear to me management isn’t going to change.

Well, we know where you stand. Carve away at the 17,000 legit hunters, but the other 50,000 NR tags that get doled out are fine. Just seems like this solution isn’t looking at the problem. Lipstick on a pig, if that makes sense.

 

[cgasner1]

Well, we know where you stand. Carve away at the 17,000 legit hunters, but the other 50,000 NR tags that get doled out are fine. Just seems like this solution isn’t looking at the problem. Lipstick on a pig, if that makes sense.

Pretty sure we all know where he also stands on those other 50k tags

 

[DFS]

Well, we know where you stand. Carve away at the 17,000 legit hunters, but the other 50,000 NR tags that get doled out are fine. Just seems like this solution isn’t looking at the problem. Lipstick on a pig, if that makes sense.

Well I guess we know where you stand as well. Wildlife are screwed. If anybody with half a brain could run this show it wouldn’t have to be like this. Yet every 2 years we think oh crap what is coming this year. If Washington had better hunting I suspect you wouldn’t have the interest in Montana that you do. Just dealing with the hand I’m dealt and I can see you aren’t a good player in the game, you would take wildlife right back to the brink for the opportunity to hunt which in Montana isn’t much. Any decreased pressure either nonresident or resident is a good thing and I will support.

 

[cgasner1]

Pretty sad that at this point we almost welcome any sort of change. But it would be nice to hunt a couple more of these ranches I drive by and not see as many Washington plates

 

[SAJ-99]

Pretty sad that at this point we almost welcome any sort of change. But it would be nice to hunt a couple more of these ranches I drive by and not see as many Washington plates

Those are the landowner’s trucks. That’s why the limit in the bill is 5 licenses. That is all that can comfortably fit in the truck in the ride from Washington.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pretty sad that at this point we almost welcome any sort of change. But it would be nice to hunt a couple more of these ranches I drive by and not see as many Washington plates

It took 20 years to get this deep into this place, getting out will take more than a session. This isn't the end-all, be-all of the changes that folks are looking at, but given the allocation of NR licenses is primarily a legislative issue, these bills are geared towards that. With the new EMP coming up this year and a new round of season setting, putting these new laws into application and working with others to change the season structure so that it favors opportunity to harvest rather than opportunity to go for armed walks will take more heavy lifting.

 

[cgasner1]

It took 20 years to get this deep into this place, getting out will take more than a session. This isn't the end-all, be-all of the changes that folks are looking at, but given the allocation of NR licenses is primarily a legislative issue, these bills are geared towards that. With the new EMP coming up this year and a new round of season setting, putting these new laws into application and working with others to change the season structure so that it favors opportunity to harvest rather than opportunity to go for armed walks will take more heavy lifting.

100% agree thanks for fighting for this. I think it’s a huge step in the right direction

 

[mtmuley]

Thanks Ben. Much appreciated. mtmuley

 

[Cattleman]

They also do not get to choose who hunts on their property under block mgt

They sure as hell do for Type 2 BMA's. You ever try to call one of these type 2 BMA's when reservations "supposedly" open in late august. For example a Type 2 BMA XXXXXXX Ranch is open for reservations starting at 7am MT time on August 22 and you call them at exactly that time and you here sorry we are all booked up. They go through the hoopla of asking how many people and what dates your looking at and they say they are already booked. Then you respond by asking what dates are available and they say none, we booked for the entire season. 3 or 4 of us used to all call different Ranches the second they are open for multiple seasons and all them were miraculously booked for the entire 11-week season.

 

[Schaaf]

I support it. Ben listed reasons why better than I can over my phone but it doesn’t add licenses, and will move NR hunters off public and onto Private land.

Lowering the total amount of hunters on public land, should be the #1 goal, IMO.

 

[Nameless Range]

Whether or not this makes a huge difference, I am happy to see far less antagonistic relationships in the legislature, and people trying for solutions of compromise. It could be so much worse, and even though I think a case could be made in the big picture that this won't do much, I do think it does a little, and I support it. If people are realistic about the Montana we are living in, moving forward is gonna be a grind with compromise, and we need to act in good faith with folks we may not have historically.


Except for the UPOM. Those guys suck.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Except for the UPOM. Those guys suck.

New bumper sticker?

My pros list is longer than my cons list (granted it's not weighted). I still feel undecided though. I need to go look at some numbers more I think. Out of curiosity, why was 2,500 acres chosen?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Out of curiosity, why was 2,500 acres chosen?

That's a solid question. At 2500 acres, you tend to have actual, working cattle ranches. Here's the current listings under Fay ranches: https://fayranches.com/ranches-for-...R0_OjJPZ-NUhTb2gH-r1C7cXLLnD6oQ0aAn2fEALw_wcB

There is a real concern that some of the smaller acreage ranches are purely purchased for amenities, and not to maintain working landscapes. Setting the acreage high means you get properties that are either being used for production ag, or are leased for production to local ranchers and farmers. The idea is to provide the license to people who are creating large amounts of conservation uplift by ensuring large tracts of land are undeveloped or broken up in this mix, while leaving the folks with starter castles and a section out.

This also goes back to an earlier discussion this session relative to landowner preference in general, and how some folks are purposely buying the minimum acreage to help ensure drawing premium tags. The concept that was pushed forward in the consensus package ultimately didn't achieve the desired result, so we're going back to the drawing board in the interim with a group of landowners who also see issues with how the landowner preference is being used. That effort is likely to see a bill for 2025.

 

[GeorgeBlack]

If Montana wants to release the pressure on public land,simply lower the NR license numbers.
I am a non resident but I think it would be very acceptable.
Guests don't make the rules,they follow them.
But ofcourse you will have to make up the difference on the bill.
The way it goes is for some guides to get access to private land ,put it on BMA 2 and charge a fee.
And very soon anyone of you that can afford it will be paying a nice fee to hunt in your own State.
Because it will be managed better it will have better bucks and the success rates will be higher
It is a slippery slope,trust me.
Money creates greed and this is all about money... and Money makes the decision for you.
Well it is sugarcoated....

 

[Jock Conyngham]

That's a solid question. At 2500 acres, you tend to have actual, working cattle ranches. Here's the current listings under Fay ranches: https://fayranches.com/ranches-for-...R0_OjJPZ-NUhTb2gH-r1C7cXLLnD6oQ0aAn2fEALw_wcB

There is a real concern that some of the smaller acreage ranches are purely purchased for amenities, and not to maintain working landscapes. Setting the acreage high means you get properties that are either being used for production ag, or are leased for production to local ranchers and farmers. The idea is to provide the license to people who are creating large amounts of conservation uplift by ensuring large tracts of land are undeveloped or broken up in this mix, while leaving the folks with starter castles and a section out.

This also goes back to an earlier discussion this session relative to landowner preference in general, and how some folks are purposely buying the minimum acreage to help ensure drawing premium tags. The concept that was pushed forward in the consensus package ultimately didn't achieve the desired result, so we're going back to the drawing board in the interim with a group of landowners who also see issues with how the landowner preference is being used. That effort is likely to see a bill for 2025

That's a solid question. At 2500 acres, you tend to have actual, working cattle ranches. Here's the current listings under Fay ranches: https://fayranches.com/ranches-for-...R0_OjJPZ-NUhTb2gH-r1C7cXLLnD6oQ0aAn2fEALw_wcB

There is a real concern that some of the smaller acreage ranches are purely purchased for amenities, and not to maintain working landscapes. Setting the acreage high means you get properties that are either being used for production ag, or are leased for production to local ranchers and farmers. The idea is to provide the license to people who are creating large amounts of conservation uplift by ensuring large tracts of land are undeveloped or broken up in this mix, while leaving the folks with starter castles and a section out.

This also goes back to an earlier discussion this session relative to landowner preference in general, and how some folks are purposely buying the minimum acreage to help ensure drawing premium tags. The concept that was pushed forward in the consensus package ultimately didn't achieve the desired result, so we're going back to the drawing board in the interim with a group of landowners who also see issues with how the landowner preference is being used. That effort is likely to see a bill for 2025.

Ben, the very fact that these are owned by non-residents mean that most if not all are amenity ranches. If they are in production ag it’s a hobby operation or a tax write-off, and the four to 20 section NR landholdings this bill addresses are less liable to subdivision and development anyway. These ranches do provide conservation uplift, and any leases to locals provides rural benefits—but people are buying these big tracts to hunt, play, and retire on. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but I don’t understand why they need to be rewarded for their good fortunes.

 

[Eric Albus]

Here's a link to the bill: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW02...P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

When this first came forward, my initial reaction was "hell no." Now, I support it.

Here's why: MT resident hunter numbers are declining while NR's are increasing. With this switch, and longer seasons, we are seeing resident hunter success (success against all license holders really) go down as season length and intensity of hunters increases. This bill would move up to 15% (same as any other landowner preference program) into the preference pool for NR landowners with at least 2500 acres of fee title land. That means up to 2550 fewer licenses for outfitters and DIY NR hunters. On average, those NR hunters are spending about 10-14 days hunting for each license. By moving those licenses into private land only category (only to be held by the family members) this could potentially see between 25500 and 35700 fewer hunter days on public land and publicly accessible lands while applying pressure on lightly pressured private lands. That benefits the wildlife resource and the resident hunter

This kind of re-allocation also does not impact FWP's revenue stream as these are still full price. There is also an access carrot in the bill where a landowner could purchase an extra bonus point for permit areas if they enroll in a state sponsored access program.

The 15% matches other Landowner preference programs in statute, although those apply for LE permits. This program does not take anything from the permit system in terms of allocating it to those preference pool. It also does not add any permits or licenses to the 17,000 cap.

Furthermore, when you look at this piece in the entire elk consensus package, it looks like this:

1.) SB 58: Double the cap on Block Management to $50K with rule changes coming to increase the hunter day use formula.
2.) SB 281: Reduce the number of B8 licenses available for OTC purchase: This could cut as much as 3000 B licenses, and another 12K hunter days.
3.) HB 635: 2550 B10's going to the NRLO preference pool
4.) HB 361: Hunter Harassment/Hunting w/o landowner preference (amendments for this bill are posted)
5.) HB 243: Mandatory in person field day for Hunters Ed
6.) HB 596: Tightening the law around the 454 program to put a heavier focus on wildlife management
7.) HB2: New fte for data gathering for the Hunt Planner to include DNRC road system, access easements & other data that can then be scraped by GoHunt, OnX, etc for better apps.

I understand and respect the opposition, but the 454 program is the easiest to corrupt statutorily for ranching for wildlife, and bartering tags for access is how the CO, NM and NV systems started and then were taken over by privatized interests. MT's landowner preference system simply provides licenses/permits for landowners as a benefit of providing habitat. While there are some who abuse this program, it has been well run in the past and there is a side group that is likely to be taking this issue up in the interim for further reforms to the LO Preference program in 2025.

Like it or not, NR landowners have always been in the west. The Scots and English ran the range from the 1860's until the early 1900's. Hell, even Evelyn Cameron, the heroine photographer of eastern MT was an English upper crust member who came out west. TR was a large NR landowner as well. The ranches are providing conservation uplift in that they are being maintained as large, intact landscapes rather than being chopped up for 20 acre horse ghettos or new subdivisions for 5 acre ranchettes. This approach is about helping those NR landowners become a bigger part of their rural communities while extending a courtesy license for their stewardship. It's not that much different than the current LO preference program that all - Residents and NR's are using today.

Also, by segregating these landowners out, it improves the odds for resident landowners to improve the success in drawing their LO preference, further (albeit in a very small way) reducing more pressure on public land.

As to why MOGA supports the bill - their board and leadership are seeing the same thing we all are: increased use of private land due to public hunting pressure, decreased success rates and bad outcomes for people and critters. To their credit, this takes a hit out of their potential client base, but they're supporting this as a part of the whole package.

Excellent explanation Mr Lamb.

You saved me responding in a very derogatory, condescending, questioning those suggesting ulterior motives mental capacities.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Passed out of committee tonight 12-7, with bipartisan votes opposed.