I'm old enough to remember the MT BHA board supporting a legislatively mandated muzzleloader season in December in order to preserve a few days of archery season. I wish they would have put forth this same fervent dedication and time into fighting that bill.
Non resident Landowner incentive.
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
It's true, we did support it out of the first committee. Our board voted to support and it was a close vote. We quickly heard from our members and the greater community a quickly learned that was a mistake. We listened and we fought it after that. I wish others would follow that lesson in this case.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I'm old enough too, that only happened two years ago. Sadly, what you're saying seems only intent to throw mud, is not relevant in any way to this conversation, and to their credit: they also did apologize on that one, took full responsibility for being wrong, and subsequently testified against it.
Unfortunately it was too late.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
It should be a lesson for others to learn.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
So if it is too late to change one's mind then one simply shouldn't change their mind at all? They shouldn't listen and work with their community? They should just dig their heels in and say this is where I stand, wrong, but I'm not going to change anything because it's too late. Is that your logic here?
It takes far more integrity to admit one is wrong than to always be right. As I indicated to @Gerald Martin earlier. I really do hope I am wrong on this one.
Jock Conyngham
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 94
I was one of those who called John to raise holy hell when I heard of that support. He calmly explained the source of their misjudgment and what he intended to do from there. No defensiveness, no rationalization, no excuses. I was impressed.
My logic is, they should have been more diligent about doing the right thing in the first place, and considered the over exploitation of the resource before thinking about opportunity.
I'm not a BHA hater. In fact, I'm a dues paying member. I'm pretty indifferent about SB 635, but the amount of the time and energy that BHA is putting into this bill is somewhat bothersome. I get the impression that I'm not the only one that feels this way.
Painful to see the amount of energy wasted behind the scenes by groups fighting over this low impact bill. It is so low on my priority list when it comes to attacks on easements, Habitat Montana, stream access, and access funding, that I've not really bothered to invest much energy in it. Yet here we are, 14 pages into it on Hunt Talk, hours of meetings and phone calls from both sides, and mountains of emails, all of which could be better spent on issues that will really matter.
I have little expectation of this bill moving pressure from public to private. It will have some impact towards that end, but not enough for changes in hunting pressure to be the primary reason to support or oppose the bill.
A few things sway me. First, this legislative session has been far less venomous than the past due to the work the MT Elk Coalition has done in outreach to partners. This bill was part of that package that was compromised on and I support it as part of that effort to dampen the heat we saw last session. So far it is working.
Second, the likelihood of transferrable tags in Montana is low, at least for deer and elk when most our state is general tag areas. Non-residents draw 75% of the time. That is unlike states with big landowner voucher programs where NR odds are often 5%< and those states are all limited entry draw with no general tags, creating huge scarcity for the demand for NR hunting.
I'd ask anyone to walk through the exercise of what value there is to landowners for a transferrable tag system beyond the few limited entry units we have. You'd have to ask this question - "What value would a NR pay for a tag that they can draw 75% of the time in the general NR draw?"
The answer - The NR would not pay very much when they can draw 75% of the time, with an exception for our few limited entry tags. I've walked through that exercise. In MT, a landowner voucher program with such low benefit hardly seems worth the political battle, which is why we haven't seen such a bill and we probably won't see such until we get to limited entry draw and NR draw rates down under 20%. A bill might get introduced some day, but for it to pass would burn a lot of political capital for very low benefit for landowners.
If we are truly worried about the principle of landowner tags and democratic allocation under the NAMWC, we should be "hair on fire" for giving 15% of our limited entry tags to landowners and getting nothing in return - not higher objective, not more tolerance, not access to locked up public land, nothing. I admire and support "the principle" in question, but I also can see the selectivity of how the principle gets applied/supported/ignored depending upon the situation.
Lastly, many seem to ignore that in this legislature one side has a Super Majority with some rabid anti-wildlifers among the furthest fringe of their Super Majority. Hunters are not in a position of power. If these groups saw enough benefit for transferrable tags or other offensive programs, they have the votes to get it passed by Saturday morning. When dealing from a minority position against some who can use the bludgeon of a Super Majority, you make progress with compromise and relationships. This bill, as part of that pre-session planning, seems to have helped the tone of the session be a lot friendlier than I expected from the vindictive arm of the Super Majority. That is the reason I support this bill, a bill surely not worthy of the fits around the bill.
If the coalition of hunting groups gets fractured this easily, due to a bill of such minor consequence as this bill, mostly on the basis of principle, the future for a united hunting front in Montana is very bleak. As is the likelihood of hunters being able to work in cooperative ways with others groups who we might sometimes have differences with and who happen to be better connected to the elected levers of power than are hunters.
Carry on ......
I have little expectation of this bill moving pressure from public to private. It will have some impact towards that end, but not enough for changes in hunting pressure to be the primary reason to support or oppose the bill.
A few things sway me. First, this legislative session has been far less venomous than the past due to the work the MT Elk Coalition has done in outreach to partners. This bill was part of that package that was compromised on and I support it as part of that effort to dampen the heat we saw last session. So far it is working.
Second, the likelihood of transferrable tags in Montana is low, at least for deer and elk when most our state is general tag areas. Non-residents draw 75% of the time. That is unlike states with big landowner voucher programs where NR odds are often 5%< and those states are all limited entry draw with no general tags, creating huge scarcity for the demand for NR hunting.
I'd ask anyone to walk through the exercise of what value there is to landowners for a transferrable tag system beyond the few limited entry units we have. You'd have to ask this question - "What value would a NR pay for a tag that they can draw 75% of the time in the general NR draw?"
The answer - The NR would not pay very much when they can draw 75% of the time, with an exception for our few limited entry tags. I've walked through that exercise. In MT, a landowner voucher program with such low benefit hardly seems worth the political battle, which is why we haven't seen such a bill and we probably won't see such until we get to limited entry draw and NR draw rates down under 20%. A bill might get introduced some day, but for it to pass would burn a lot of political capital for very low benefit for landowners.
If we are truly worried about the principle of landowner tags and democratic allocation under the NAMWC, we should be "hair on fire" for giving 15% of our limited entry tags to landowners and getting nothing in return - not higher objective, not more tolerance, not access to locked up public land, nothing. I admire and support "the principle" in question, but I also can see the selectivity of how the principle gets applied/supported/ignored depending upon the situation.
Lastly, many seem to ignore that in this legislature one side has a Super Majority with some rabid anti-wildlifers among the furthest fringe of their Super Majority. Hunters are not in a position of power. If these groups saw enough benefit for transferrable tags or other offensive programs, they have the votes to get it passed by Saturday morning. When dealing from a minority position against some who can use the bludgeon of a Super Majority, you make progress with compromise and relationships. This bill, as part of that pre-session planning, seems to have helped the tone of the session be a lot friendlier than I expected from the vindictive arm of the Super Majority. That is the reason I support this bill, a bill surely not worthy of the fits around the bill.
If the coalition of hunting groups gets fractured this easily, due to a bill of such minor consequence as this bill, mostly on the basis of principle, the future for a united hunting front in Montana is very bleak. As is the likelihood of hunters being able to work in cooperative ways with others groups who we might sometimes have differences with and who happen to be better connected to the elected levers of power than are hunters.
Carry on ......
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The Given up comment. I mean, if you want NRs to not get anything, that is the R choice, but you will have to pay more than $20 for the license.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
We sincerely appreciate your support and your perception is duly noted. I can tell you without doubt or hesitation Montana BHA has not put nearly as much time and energy into this as we could or did with bills like 505 or 143 from last session. For example, I'm the only MT BHA representative to engage on this thread and it took me until page 12 (or 13?) to do so. We co-singed one letter with other orgs who oppose and only sent it to legislators. Our representatives in Helena are working on all the other important bills while volunteers work 635. We've sent a few action alerts to members the same way we do on other bills we oppose. We don't like the infighting among our community, but we do think this is a bad bill.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,380
The muzzleloader bill was going to pass with or without BHA’s endorsement.
They did the right thing in switching from support to opposition but the deciding factor is that Montana hunters want and expect “opportunity” regardless of the effect to the resource.
Vigorous debate over the merits of benefits or risks associated with a particular bill is healthy and does not have to mean that the conservation community is deeply divided unless personal or organizational animosity is developed because of how the debate is conducted.
The trajectory of our current wildlife management is not sustainable when it comes to providing the same amount of opportunity and retain the same level of quality that hunters want. Many more difficult and undesirable choices are going to have to be made in years to come unless we want to experience even more degradation to our hunting experience and heritage.
All the legal guarantees, long seasons, principles, etc… are meaningless unless we steward our wildlife and habitat as the source of our opportunity.
Change has to happen. Hunters aren’t going to like giving up opportunity but it has to happen in some way or another. I’m not saying that because I want to hunt less but because I am completely convinced that I and other Montana residents and nonresidents must hunt in a manner that lessens our pressure on the resource if we want to retain our ability to hunt.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,121
We need big change and it has to come at the expense of the hunters and probably mostly NR hunters.....fact. And as hunters we need to be okay with that if it benefits the wildlife and the quality of hunting.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I wanted to call it for the night but this is such a great quote @Gerald Martin:
"Vigorous debate over the merits of benefits or risks associated with a particular bill is healthy and does not have to mean that the conservation community is deeply divided unless personal or organizational animosity is developed because of how the debate is conducted."
I'm a dues-paying member of BHA, a member of MWF, RMEF, TU, and many other orgs inside and outside the coalition that I care about, that might not always represent my interest. When the big stuff hits the fan, which I am certain it will, I have no doubt they will unite and do the right thing. Perhaps it is simply because this one won't really accomplish much that it invited more debate, but when a real threat happens we will stop fighting around the table and head to the closet and grab our pitchforks together. I do believe that.
And it equally pains me to disagree with @Big Fin, but I think hunters have a very strong voice in this state regardless of the super majority, particularly when they stand united and fight against bills like 505, which hasn't come back this session and I haven't heard any buzz about bills like it. Perhaps I am naive, but Montana has some pretty great hunting and I like to think it is because hunters stood up to majorities more than once and came out for the better.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,380
A good start on the NR side is to keep all NR B-10’s under the hard cap of 17,600. That includes “come home to hunt” and other NR licenses in excess of that cap. Many residents are totally fine that those tags were added on top of the 17,600.
Reducing antlerless deer and elk tags is one of the best ways to reducing how ever many “boots on the ground” were associated with the 60,000 NR deer and elk tags sold last year.
I don’t have hard numbers on how many individual hunters the 60,000 tags were distributed among. I’m sure it was less than 60,000 since many NR’s held multiple tags.
How to equitably limit resident hunters is something that’s going to have to be addressed as well. I prefer ripping off that bandaid sooner than later.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This is a mathematical anomaly driven by point systems and the belief you have to be “in it to win it”. And below…
I do note that now, as a NR, I can still get an extra point if I sign up with an outfitter. That was one of the core points of heat last session, as MOGA tried to get point advantages for their clients.
Even as one who took advantage of the anomaly, it won’t last and eventually will even out. And I will change my approach to the point system when it does.
But I agree, none of this fixes the real problem of pressure. That is a problem no one wants to endure any pain on.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,775
I’ve been thinking a lot about this bill after reading that article. This morning i also figured they are looking at these numbers wrong. Most units that are permit still offer opportunities to hunt on a general tag. Those landowners that decide to do this in a draw unit could have a huge effect on pressure. They may only be able to kill a spike or cow that year but they would be in the program with a general tag
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,652
Not sure this statement is completely accurate. I think instead of no one it should be few. My hunting buddies and I would gladly accept much less opportunity in Montana for an exchange in quality of hunt. I would take a mule deer tag every five years or less even if we got some mature animals on the landscape. I’m a busy SOB and I don’t need to be beating my balls off the wall day after day looking for the proverbial needle in the hay stack on public land.
Ha, that sure makes it seem like this will be a fun administrative task.
Residents that have been avoiding taxes suddenly saying they aren’t actually residents; probably some non residents using their ranches as a residence overnight deciding to be honest about where they actually live out of state
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yeah, flippant typing on my part. Few, or at least the minority, want what you describe. All you have to do is read the post on the comment section on the Elk management work. I think this thread is about dead and the point has been made. Most MT residents are in the camp of wanting to hunt for 100days per year with 3 different weapons and then complain about their results for the remainder of the year. "Compromise" was giving NR landowners with very large blocks tags to hunt only their property and reducing the NR pool of people who might hunt public. And everyone, MOGA, FWP, UPOM, and some sportsman groups claimed to have worked together on this and declare a victory.
My analogy, the boat is sinking and 4 of the 5 people in the boat have agreed on who should get thrown out with the belief it will sink slower.
Similar threads
