Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Forkyfinder]

Some nonresidents gaming system to hunt Montana elk

A legislative panel in Montana discussed concerns that affluent hunters are exploiting hunting programs to obtain nonresident elk tags. Evidence includes wealthy buyers subdividing large ranches to gain landowner preference. Recommendations to address inequities include waiting periods for land...

www.montanaoutdoor.com

Nonresidents Drew 17 of 17 Montana Elk Permits as 640-Acre Land Splitting Draws Scrutiny | UH.app

Nonresidents Drew 17 of 17 Montana Elk Permits as 640-Acre Land Splitting Draws Scrutiny *Montana's Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Committee is examining how wea | UH.app

m.uh.app

 

[DFS]

I could see a lot of benefits to agriculture and Montana hunters by completely axing nonresident landowner tags. Something a lot of Montanans could get behind. They are driving up land prices and shutting down access with these nonresident tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I could see a lot of benefits to agriculture and Montana hunters by completely axing nonresident landowner tags. Something a lot of Montanans could get behind. They are driving up land prices and shutting down access with these nonresident tags.

Look at your onx a while in these LE districts.

Chopped up everywhere. Guess who cant afford these ranches now? And voted their dipshit representation in who did it? Judas kiss by the gop to ranchers in state.

"No one will buy a ranch for those permits"
"Could go on a lot of guided hunts"

All a line of Lamb shit.

 

[TheTone]

Some nonresidents gaming system to hunt Montana elk

A legislative panel in Montana discussed concerns that affluent hunters are exploiting hunting programs to obtain nonresident elk tags. Evidence includes wealthy buyers subdividing large ranches to gain landowner preference. Recommendations to address inequities include waiting periods for land...

www.montanaoutdoor.com

Nonresidents Drew 17 of 17 Montana Elk Permits as 640-Acre Land Splitting Draws Scrutiny | UH.app

Nonresidents Drew 17 of 17 Montana Elk Permits as 640-Acre Land Splitting Draws Scrutiny *Montana's Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Committee is examining how wea | UH.app

m.uh.app

I know of an area in Idaho where a similar game is happening. One very wealthy guy has been buying up tons of ranch land but on paper a number of his employees are the listed owner thus giving them more landowner tags. Wealthy guy also got an outfitter license to get even more controlled hunt tags under his control which he is then issuing to family and friends, not actual clients

 

[DFS]

I could see a lot of benefits to agriculture and Montana hunters by completely axing nonresident landowner tags. Something a lot of Montanans could get behind. They are driving up land prices and shutting down access with these nonresident tags.

Maybe Montana Stockgrowers could even get behind it. We are supposed to be doing our best to pump up the supply of cattle and save the cowboy.

 

[INMT]

Maybe Montana Stockgrowers could even get behind it. We are supposed to be doing our best to pump up the supply of cattle and save the cowboy.

If only. Chase the booger man instead.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If only. Chase the booger man instead.

Well i think this should be a selling point of the next election cycle. Folks should reach out to some dem senators running against the people who sold them out. Be a great campaign ad.

 

[INMT]

Well i think this should be a selling point of the next election cycle. Folks should reach out to some dem senators running against the people who sold them out. Be a great campaign ad.

I’m all about it. I don’t hunt out that way but that’s a bunch of BULLSHIT.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m all about it. I don’t hunt out that way but that’s a bunch of BULLSHIT.

Well - some real smooth brains will act like $ome of the people who lobbied for this didnt see it coming.

 

[INMT]

Well - some real smooth brains will act like $ome of the people who lobbied for this didnt see it coming.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ben Lamb, representing the Montana Conservation Society, called the issue “640-acre stacking.” Elkhunting gear

“This is a very real issue,” Lamb told the Environmental Quality Council. “We’re seeing that happen a lot in Eastern Montana for prime elk tags, and it’s a real-estate marketing tool that people are using.”

Lamb said buyers of “hardpan” that has never “hosted elk” nonetheless qualify for landowner preference.

“If you own submarginal land and you qualify, you get to hunt the whole district right now,” he said.



Read the script youre paid to read. A real batman if you will.

 

[Point Creep]

Some of these people are buying a section (640 acres) of land so they can get a permit every year. 100% fact that’s happening. Some of these same people are spending 6 figures plus a year to hunt elk in MT. To add insult to injury they’re putting in social media, getting enough imprints and ad money to make it back and then some, while wrecking it for the rest of us mere mortals who just want to enjoy our time hunting outside a sea of their followers. That crap needs to end.

 

[cgasner1]

Simplest and easy fix to benefit the residents would be to implement New Mexicos style land owner tags for non residents. They wanna buy 640 acres of prairie in the middle of nowhere let them elk hunt their prairie. If they wanna be able to hunt the entire unit make them enroll in block management

 

[Forkyfinder]

Simplest and easy fix to benefit the residents would be to implement New Mexicos style land owner tags for non residents. They wanna buy 640 acres of prairie in the middle of nowhere let them elk hunt their prairie. If they wanna be able to hunt the entire unit make them enroll in block management

Honestly - i see your point - but dont you think youve seen enough gameless bma? What would be good about shelling out more cash for cheatgrass next to the road?

I think the simplest solution - why not repeal it? Can someone describe the person who this benefits that is actually a constituent of such policy? Save for lobbyists and land brokers - not a single citizen benefits from this policy. Ranches are more unaffordable for our long time ag operators. Access evaporates for hunters. Associated problems with fwp managing populations game with a landowner running a legitimate ag business and one running an elk hunting fiefdom only grow. All for the "benefit" of allegedly taking 131 hunters who'd never touch public anyway off the landscape.

Pretty unique for our legislature to deliberately and openly stab their constituency in the back, to me anyway. What do i know though, im just a voter/taxpayer/constituent. Clearly not an out of state billionare paying a liar to push my agenda, so im not sure my individual voice matters much.

Fwiw - my local representation is in tune with the fact theres a problem. Montanans reading this should push for change with their local representation, ideally a clean repeal. Im pleased to see more articles coming out to growing awareness of the problem.

 

[cgasner1]

Honestly - i see your point - but dont you think youve seen enough gameless bma? What would be good about shelling out more cash for cheatgrass next to the road?

Wonder why our bmas don’t have wildlife? Just because it doesn’t hold elk doesn’t mean it won’t have a value to an antelope or upland hunter. Also your fixated on region 7 and thinking its the only region with this issue. Those empty sections could also be a potential access point into a much swath of public

I think the simplest solution - why not repeal it? Can someone describe the person who this benefits that is actually a constituent of such policy? Save for lobbyists and land brokers - not a single citizen benefits from this policy. Ranches are more unaffordable for our long time ag operators. Access evaporates for hunters. Associated problems with fwp managing populations game with a landowner running a legitimate ag business and one running an elk hunting fiefdom only grow. All for the "benefit" of allegedly taking 131 hunters who'd never touch public anyway off the landscape.

Your solution is pretty much always #*^@#* the other guy. Making it so they have to hunt their own property also means they can’t hunt someone else’s ranch. Some of the public can be just as good of hunting as the private if guys put the time in. But as per usual your so worried about what moga or someone else is doing your not looking for a solution that could be positive just a way to screw someone else over.

 

[Point Creep]

Some BMAs are ridiculous awesome and underrated.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Some of these people are buying a section (640 acres) of land so they can get a permit every year. 100% fact that’s happening. Some of these same people are spending 6 figures plus a year to hunt elk in MT. To add insult to injury they’re putting in social media, getting enough imprints and ad money to make it back and then some, while wrecking it for the rest of us mere mortals who just want to enjoy our time hunting outside a sea of their followers. That crap needs to end.

Simplest and easy fix to benefit the residents would be to implement New Mexicos style land owner tags for non residents. They wanna buy 640 acres of prairie in the middle of nowhere let them elk hunt their prairie. If they wanna be able to hunt the entire unit make them enroll in block management

There are some solutions that are in play right now to alleviate the abuse within the system. Once the loophole to use buy/sell agreements was closed people moved over to quit-claim deeds to do the same thing. I think there's an appetite to close that loophole and help eliminate that piece of the shenanigans. Personally, I'd like to see a provision where NR landowners have to have held the warranty deed to a property for no less than 2 years before qualifying for LOP. If you want to buy a ranch in MT, great. If you want licenses & permits, show your intent and longevity - invest in the state and show that you aren't just here for the permit.

PLPW came up with some solid recommendations, including NR Landowners have to hunt their own property under LOP. I think that makes sense. The people who are buying large ranches are generally only hunting those properties, and the guys buying hard-pan 640's are hunting district wide because their hunting isn't good, just qualifying for the permit. FWP is currently updating their elk & deer overlay maps to help get a better understanding of what country elk use and what country they don't. Right now it's open to wide interpretation and it needs to be better vetted in terms of properties that actually have elk on them. It should be worth considering changing the application from the individual to the property, i.e. show the agency your land and enrol it in LOP as opposed to the applicant. Then you can have them requalify every other year to ensure that elk/deer/antelope are actually using the place, rather than simply being in the district.

Another piece they offered up was to create uniformity between resident & NR landowners in the extra bonus point - again - super easy to support.

The PLPW report also has an interesting poll conducted by BBER on the issue. Interestingly, most landowners list improvements and non-transferable licenses/permits are the biggest incentive for allowing access for elk hunting.

 

[Point Creep]

What does it mean to be a “secondary owner” of MT acreage?

Rules will never be made that prevents those with the fat wallets from getting what they want.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What does it mean to be a “secondary owner” of MT acreage?

Rules will never be made that prevents those with the fat wallets from getting what they want.

View attachment 417908

It essentially means "co-owner." It could also mean a shareholder. Lots of ranches moving into S Corps, LLC's, etc. to avoid inheritance taxes and preserve the family ranch, which should be encouraged in order to help ensure generational transition w/o going deeper into debt.

Under current LOP, only 1 permit is issued for a property, but it's tied to an owner rather than the property itself. The creativity of the class of individual who is engaging in this kind of mudlarking is impressive. By instituting the "property only" clause, making them qualify a property, and creating a wait period for new owners I think you can cut out a significant portion of this. Other option would be to increase the acreage requirement for NR landowners and get rid of the 640 acre stacking that is happening.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Your solution is pretty much always #*^@#* the other guy.

Really? By properly granting R landowners (who are constituents) priority over the NR LO that currently have more levers to pull?

I guess its a bit more like "everyone" who pays taxes here, lives here, produces here, and consumes here everyday got #*^@#*.

Right now it's open to wide interpretation and it needs to be better vetted in terms of properties that actually have elk on them.

That was the understanding, when it was passed, anyone honest and informed knew this would be an outgrowth. Move the goal posts some more.