Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Schaaf]

As a resident, if you don't draw a special permit in an area you want to hunt because landowner preference decreased your odds slightly, are you still able to purchase a general deer and elk tag in Montana?

Are you making the argument that a nonresident is entitled to hunting in Montana on a general license every year just the same as a resident?

 

[Elky Welky]

Are you making the argument that a nonresident is entitled to hunting in Montana on a general license every year just the same as a resident?

Nope. That is not my argument at all. As I stated, it’s one thing to differentiate between residents and nonresidents. It’s another to further divide nonresidents based on landownership.

 

[mmw194287]

Nope. That is not my argument at all. As I stated, it’s one thing to differentiate between residents and nonresidents. It’s another to further divide nonresidents based on landownership.

Honest question--why can't we divide nonresidents based on landownership when we divide residents based on landownership? If I own ten acres in a high demand permit-only area, I can't hunt my land with any regularity, but any of my neighbors who own more than 640 enjoy much, much better odds.

 

[sclancy27]

Honest question--why can't we divide nonresidents based on landownership when we divide residents based on landownership? If I own ten acres in a high demand permit-only area, I can't hunt my land with any regularity, but any of my neighbors who own more than 640 enjoy much, much better odds.

Because your 10 acres doesn't provide the same amount of habitat as the 640.

Edit: Nevermind, I see the point you are making.

 

[Elky Welky]

Honest question--why can't we divide nonresidents based on landownership when we divide residents based on landownership? If I own ten acres in a high demand permit-only area, I can't hunt my land with any regularity, but any of my neighbors who own more than 640 enjoy much, much better odds.

And that is a totally fair question, to which I’d refer you to my response above. They are not the same thing, and it is a false and overly simplistic premise to equivocate the two of them.

To elaborate, however, resident landowners live on and work the land, contribute far more to their communities, and suffer the consequences of having wildlife on their property. The 640 acre premise is based on the idea that those are large, working ranches (which to this bill’s credit, that’s the idea behind 2500 acres for the NT amenity ranch owners, there’s not nefarious intent behind this).

It’s worth revisiting the merits of the 640 acre requirement for landowner preference, but that’s a different conversation.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

But technically they are a different types of non-residents. One owns land and pays taxes to the state the other does not.

 

[Akcabin]

Hey maybe just me but those animals live on public lands also. Yes they wander around and eat.
But trying to figure out how government can make everything equal for everyone got us into this mess. And government isn't perfect. How about just no laws that give others a preference for, pick your cause. They are all the same. More government isn't going to fix it

 

[Elky Welky]

But technically they are a different types of non-residents. One owns land and pays taxes to the state the other does not.

Absolutely and I appreciate this point a lot. And that’s exactly where we should be having this debate: on the merits of if NR landowners are entitled to something different compared to other NRs. Let’s stop comparing the resident program to the nonresident program, but look more specifically to this point you just made.

And here’s where it comes down to one’s own personal values and if you’re willing to go there and split NRs that way. I oppose, others support.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Whether anyone likes it or not NR’s in any state receive licenses at the preference of the residents of the state.

If MT wants to give preferential treatment to NR landowners whose property provides beneficial habitat for wildlife that’s their prerogative.

IMO, 635 as written is essentially an investment in ensuring that NR landowners view wildlife with appreciation and interact with that wildlife directly rather than viewing wildlife as either a commodity to be bought and sold (transferable tags)or as only a financial liability if they don’t get to draw a tag with regularity.


I spent a lot of time after yesterday’s hearing thinking about the argument that NR preference is a violation of the principle of democratic allocation of access to wildlife resources as outlined in the NAMWM. Strictly speaking on the matter of principle, isn’t any form of bonus points, preference points, landowner preference, or limitation of either resident or nonresident a violation of equity and democratic allocation?

 

[goodhunt]

If NR landowners get the chance to buy an extra bonus point shouldn't resident landowners and lessee's get the chance to buy 2 extra bonus points a year? If I'm a NR landownowner that qualifies for 3 licenses but don't have 3 immediate family members that hunt shouldn't I be able to transfer those extra tags to somebody else? They are only using the tags on my land and helping to push the problem elk back onto public where you guys want them. Then if NR landowners can transfer tags why can't residents? It's not a "compromise" if nobody involved in the discussion/transaction is loosing anything. The compromise for resident public land hunters hasn't happened yet. MOGA keeps offering you boys candy and you keep jumping in the van.

 

[Gerald Martin]

And here’s where it comes down to one’s own personal values and if you’re willing to go there and split NRs that way. I oppose, others support.

On the basis of determining who should get to hunt I would tend to agree at first glance. On the basis of incentivizing NR landowners to appreciate the intrinsic benefits of wildlife and be open to expanding wildlife populations on their property I view prioritizing NR landowners over other NR’s as Montana’s choice.

Not everyone who wants to hunt MT as a NR gets a tag. If we acknowledge that some NR’s benefit MT residents more than others by providing wildlife habitat on their property I’m fine with providing them preferential access to the state’s wildlife on their own deeded property.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Gerald, I do consider landowner preference a toe over the line of the NAM, and maybe a very worthwhile toe for the reason you cite above. I consider this bill, however, where tags increase as acreage increases in multiples over that minimum threshold, a kick in the face of the NAM.

You heard yesterday about the PERC report with transferrable tags as the #1 recommendation. I don’t think it is a coincidence that both PERC and MOGA had representatives in the room yesterday and support this bill. To beat my drum again, the evisceration of the NAM in UT and NM didn’t happen with one cut, but in a series of smaller cuts. I consider this bill the first in a series. Word is that Mac Minard is being vetted to replace Hank. If that happens, Katie bar the damned door…

 

[SAJ-99]

Can someone explain exactly where the "compromise" was on this whole thing? It escapes me. Was it the entry of some of these NR-owned lands into BM?

 

[goodhunt]

Can someone explain exactly where the "compromise" was on this whole thing? It escapes me. Was it the entry of some of these NR-owned lands into BM?

I think it's just less potential NR pressure on general tag public lands. With population growth in the state, it won't even be noticeable though (17k increase in residents annually, assume just 5% are hunters, means 850 more residents running around in the woods every year). Public land residents are really giving up nothing. MOGA is potentially giving up some lease opportunities but it's relatively easy to get a montana general tag. So I doubt those landowners worried about getting tags every year would have been leasing anyways (they hunt themselves). This is a huge win for wealthy NR landowners. Small give by MOGA and small negligible win by resident public land hunters. The bill will come due.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Can someone explain exactly where the "compromise" was on this whole thing? It escapes me. Was it the entry of some of these NR-owned lands into BM?

There is no compromise. Given the small number of NR LO’s with that kind of acreage, they get de facto guaranteed tags—1 to 5, depending on the size of their place. Residents are promised some alleviation of pressure on public land, but it’s insignificant given that the state is selling over 65,000 non-res big game tags a year. The “access” component is, to be uncharitable, a false flag—a landowner in a limited entry area gets a single bonus point if he enrolls his land in block management or other access program. Now, seriously—if you’re a non-resident with 2,500 to 12,500 acres, are you going to expose yourself to all the headaches of block management for a single point, or are you going to pay $100 and wait a year to get that point? If that is a “carrot”, as it was presented yesterday and elsewhere, it’s a nano-carrot. I believe that element of the bill to be pretty close to open deception.

MOGA says it is compromising in that the NR LO tags come out of the 17,000 NR cap—but that cap exists in name only given all the additional NR license sales.

Wait, there’s more! For all this, the Montana hunting community gets to be deeply divided, and the state creates some dangerous precedents and starts down a path only MOGA, PERC, and UPOM want to follow.

I sincerely believe that this bill had good intent and that the coalition process, with its inherent compromises, is promising—but this bill went off the rails into fundamentally dangerous areas.

 

[Labman]

assume just 5% are hunters,

Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 21.1%

Montana is the #3 state with the most registered hunters

Stacker investigated the number of registered hunters in Montana using data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

stacker.com

 

[goodhunt]

Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 21.1%

Montana is the #3 state with the most registered hunters

Stacker investigated the number of registered hunters in Montana using data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

stacker.com

Yeah I was intentionally being conservative. One other potential win I guess: wealthy individuals typically have more political pull. Maybe they can help get grizzly bears delisted. That would probably help put more elk on the landscape....

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Jock Conyngham, other than “No” what is the solution that opponents to 635 are bringing to the table for consideration to ease tensions between landowners and hunters?

All I heard yesterday was a unified “We don’t like this bill” (paraphrased) but what bills is BHA and other groups bringing to the legislature that landowners are willing to sign onto?

MOGA testifying in support of a bill that only harms their members financially and PERC walking back from their preference for transferable tags is significant progress in my mind.

We are negotiating from a position of political weakness in this (and foreseeable future) legislative session. HB-505 or a variation thereof being brought up and passed without regard for our objections with a veto proof majority is not something that should be dismissed without concern.

Standing in opposition for the sake of principle is admirable until the lack of practical application of that principle renders the principle irrelevant as power brokers with different principles dictate the policies and terms of wildlife management for the next several decades.

 

[Nameless Range]

ontana hunting community gets to be deeply divided, and the state creates some dangerous precedents and starts down a path only MOGA, PERC, and UPOM want to follow.

The path we are currently going down that I am pleased to see, is PERC and MOGA -two groups of which I am not a member and never will be - are for the first time in my memory, not pushing for transferable landowner tags - something that would be far more devastating than this piddly issue people are arguing over. If people can’t see the connection between that, and this, I think you might be missing the forest for the trees.

A chief tenet of The NAM is that wildlife are held in trust for the public. That “ public“ are the residents of the state in which that wildlife reside. Non-residents, whether they be landowners or DIY folks, have no real stake in the game outside of economics, aesthetics, and our goodwill. It’s hard to hear, but true.

If there is a future where Montanans - The beneficiaries of the trust - do not have their opportunities and/or experience diminished - and we do so on the backs of A small portion of non-resident opportunity, then so be it. I want a path forward, and relationship building, to occur between groups that historically have not got along that benefits Montanans. People need to wake up to the political reality we are in.

We are talking 15% of the hunting licenses available to people who, from the perspective of public trust of wildlife, are entitled to none of them to begin with. The response to it has been disproportionate.

 

[goodhunt]

@Jock Conyngham, other than “No” what is the solution that opponents to 635 are bringing to the table for consideration to ease tensions between landowners and hunters?

All I heard yesterday was a unified “We don’t like this bill” (paraphrased) but what bills is BHA and other groups bringing to the legislature that landowners are willing to sign onto?

MOGA testifying in support of a bill that only harms their members financially and PERC walking back from their preference for transferable tags is significant progress in my mind.

We are negotiating from a position of political weakness in this (and foreseeable future) legislative session. HB-505 or a variation thereof being brought up and passed without regard for our objections with a veto proof majority is not something that should be dismissed without concern.

Standing in opposition for the sake of principle is admirable until the lack of practical application of that principle renders the principle irrelevant as power brokers with different principles dictate the policies and terms of wildlife management for the next several decades.

I dont think it's a bad bill overall but I guess my point is the public land hunter is not getting an equal value for what they are giving up. You are giving essentially guaranteed elk tags to wealthy NR landowners for the foreseeable future and getting basically nothing in return. At some point resident opportunity is going to have to be throttled but this bill would ensure NR landowners would be fine even past that point. Meanwhile MOGA is going to come calling with a "remember when we compromised that one time". At least make them allow trespass to landlocked public lands or something. I guess in the landowners defense, up until the last few years those tags were pretty much guaranteed anyways.