Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Gulf of America]

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.

I have a hard time getting excited about giving a landowner a bull permit in exchange for allowing one buddy and one plebe 2 days selected by the landowner to hunt their ranch. As far as I'm concerned, the one lucky plebe getting a chance at a bull isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[DFS]

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.

Is there a good reason to have nonresident landowner tags at all? Doesn’t seem to serve the residents of the state.

 

[cgasner1]

Is there a good reason to have nonresident landowner tags at all? Doesn’t seem to serve the residents of the state.

What are the odds Fwp parts with the nr money from those tags? So what’s next option push them into the nr pool and end up with more pressure on public?

 

[Forkyfinder]

What are the odds Fwp parts with the nr money from those tags? So what’s next option push them into the nr pool and end up with more pressure on public?

Are you kidding? What significant money from where do you think is coming from that to the department?

Ironically - the 131 tags sold would have been sold to a NR hunter anyway. The carveouts for these are one of the few that arent in addition to the cap (which was the sell of doing it).

131 NR hunters who would be hunting private here anyway isnt moving the needle at all in terms of pressure.

 

[DFS]

What are the odds Fwp parts with the nr money from those tags? So what’s next option push them into the nr pool and end up with more pressure on public?

I think we are mixing different types of handouts to wealthy nonresident landowners. The special permits are already being hunted unit wide so it would not make a bit of difference. It’s driving up land prices and it’s closing down access I am not seeing a benefit to anybody in Montana besides land brokers. Bad for agriculture and bad for access.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is there a good reason to have nonresident landowner tags at all? Doesn’t seem to serve the residents of the state.

Yes. And I'd say there's a lot of people in MT who are beneficiaries of some of these landowners.

It's a mistake to think of NR landowners as a monolithic block. The MPG ranch, for example, is responsible for about 60% of the elk harvest in their district, and it's either for free or for a 2 day class where the proceeds benefit the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association. They also provide significant research uplift on critters and habitats which they share with the agency - everything from invertebrates to big game (MPG owner isn't a hunter, but LOP could be used by their employees).

The Dana participates in Devil's Kitchen working group with sporting groups and other landowners and took about 175 cow elk off of the property last year - all free public access. They also have a payroll that employs a significant number of folks and they're part of the fabric of their community. They're also dealing with significant trespass issues.

A ranch in 417 pulls at least 50 people through their property gratis and they have one of the largest harvest rates of cow elk in their district. They recently agreed to increase that access to help manage the herd better.

A ranch in 411 hosts local kids, first responders, veterans, etc for antlered hunts, as well as opening their doors for antlerless elk hunting. Latest count I heard was north of 50 folks enjoying that property with an eye towards expanding their access program.

There's a lot of NR landowners who are working to be part of the culture and community in which they find themselves. Allowing LOP for them isn't a bad thing at all. If anything, we should be quantifying the access they allow so they get credit for it, even if it's not under Block Mgt.

If we want access to these properties, the license and the permit are the thing that get us that. Creating conditions for NR landowners to participate in LOP while providing access, community engagement, etc makes perfect sense to me. At the same time, I think it's imperative to weed out the abuse and fraud as it comes to light.

 

[rogerthat]

Yup. Get rid of nr landowner tags. Fixes everything super quick and they serve no purpose whatsoever. This is a no brainer. The reason this doesn’t happen is the incestuous corrupt relationship in politics that exist even at the local level ie (but if I do that my friends will get hurt). Heard that before? Lol

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we are mixing different types of handouts to wealthy nonresident landowners. The special permits are already being hunted unit wide so it would not make a bit of difference. It’s driving up land prices and it’s closing down access I am not seeing a benefit to anybody in Montana besides land brokers. Bad for agriculture and bad for access.

That's why making NR LOP apply to their own land makes sense. It reduces the market value for 640's and makes them harder to sell using LOP as the extra incentive.

 

[rogerthat]

That's why making NR LOP apply to their own land makes sense. It reduces the market value for 640's and makes them harder to sell using LOP as the extra incentive.

This is true. I guess if I have to compromise vs 86’ing those things I would get behind this. Get this done Ben!

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yup. Get rid of nr landowner tags. Fixes everything super quick and they serve no purpose whatsoever. This is a no brainer. The reason this doesn’t happen is the incestuous corrupt relationship in politics that exist even at the local level ie (but if I do that my friends will get hurt). Heard that before? Lol

Give it away and count on generousity and hope for a return, maybe theyll let some plebs shoot cows or a dying veteran get a bull. Thats the counter argument, apparently.

This is true. I guess if I have to compromise vs 86’ing those things I would get behind this. Get this done Ben!

Sort of - how do you enforce that in any meaningful fashion?

 

[rogerthat]

Give it away and count on generousity and hope for a return, maybe theyll let some plebs shoot cows or a dying veteran get a bull. Thats the counter argument, apparently.

Sort of - how do you enforce that in any meaningful fashion?

Fwp would have to figure that out but I assume just like Wyoming enforces their stupid no nr in the wilderness law.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Fwp would have to figure that out but I assume just like Wyoming enforces their stupid no nr in the wilderness law.

Thats a lot simpler, respectfully.

We are talking about making sure a couple hundred people are hunting where they are supposed to. How many residents, wardens, or even some of these tag holders do you think are aware of that?

That topic in Wy is a firery one and is one i think theres wide awareness of.

Especially muddied waters when they can hunt public land that they have leased for agriculture.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ive got a neighbor/friend that lets kids with illnesses or veterans hunt. They have shot some big deer.

Apparently - he just does it for fun, and joy of seeing some folks in a vulnerable position get a harvest theyd have no hope to otherwise. He didnt need a carveout, lobbyist, or handout to let people do it.

What should he get?

He didnt ask for anything, and already receives what any good person would hope to receive doing it (fulfillment). Im not sure many people even know it.

Doing something for the "public good" and having lobbyists run an awarness campaign on the internet and in the halls of Helena was never about the public good. It was about the "public relations" and securing more.

 

[bigsky2]

I get the wanting to fight NR landowner and MOGA tooth and nail mentality. I also feel like I’ve seen enough in recent history to know that resident sportsmen will lose those battles more times than not. Money talks and sportsmen simply don’t have the organization or unified voice like they need. Sometimes I feel like we might be better off getting to know the other parties and trying to compromise rather than taking a complete loss every time.

Something like restricting NR landowners to 10% of the landowner preference pool seems like a no brainer, but we already have districts where permit numbers are inflated due to landowner and outfitter influence (see 411 and 595 archery elk). I’m sure if we limited NR landowners to 10% of LOP pool then we’d just see a big push for even more overall permits, with the accessible public getting piss pounded even harder. It’s a very complicated issue.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I also feel like I’ve seen enough in recent history to know that resident sportsmen will lose those battles more times than not.

Actually - curious - how do you think anyone "lost" - to me losing would require "showing up" to the game?

Ive seen enough recent history to know that if 100 people said something instead of 5, something could change. All it takes is writing some reps, expressing your displeasure, asking for a repeal as a constituent and beneficiary of the wildlife in the state. If 100 people did it, theres a chance. If 500 do it - i like the odds.

https://www.legmt.gov/districts/

Think of a small isolated and determined group that successfully warded off an attempt to partially codify the mule deer rut hunt.

Someone really smart at this game whos been at it longer than ive been alive writes routinely that if you compromise 4 times you are only left with 6.5% of what you started with. Im done compromising, and more and more other people are too.

 

[bigsky2]

Actually - curious - how do you think anyone "lost" - to me losing would require "showing up" to the game?

Ive seen enough recent history to know that if 100 people said something instead of 5, something could change. All it takes is writing some reps, expressing your displeasure, asking for a repeal as a constituent and beneficiary of the wildlife in the state. If 100 people did it, theres a chance. If 500 do it - i like the odds.

https://www.legmt.gov/districts/

Think of a small isolated and determined group that successfully warded off an attempt to partially codify the mule deer rut hunt.

Someone really smart at this game whos been at it longer than ive been alive writes routinely that if you compromise 4 times you are only left with 6.5% of what you started with. Im done compromising, and more and more other people are too.

That’s a fair point. I will point out that we weren’t fighting wealthy landowners or MOGA on that one, and we had that evil lobbyist you’re always talking about in our corner. Albus also did a lot to get that one killed, even if it meant siding with the opponents that were mostly Democrats. Even in that case, there was a group of “well respected” sportsmen that was trying to sway the legislature to support that bill. These were people who never in a million years would I expect to support mandating wildlife management/season dates through statute. Some of those individuals don’t even hunt mule deer, yet they were convinced our group had bad intentions and they were willing to support stupid legislation just to spite us. Just another case of resident hunters not being able to get on the same page, no matter what the cause is.

 

[Forkyfinder]

we had that evil lobbyist you’re always talking about in our corner.

Hes just doing a job. Advocating for the interests that paid him - whats pathetic is theres a healthy (albeit shrinking) group of people that just believe the story independent of who is telling it and why.

Do you suppose the NRAs lobbyist is the person you expect to give a balanced view on gun control? Or does he parrot the points he is paid to?

 

[Elky Welky]

Seems a little early in the year for Festivus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JR6xt9S02o

 

[Gerald Martin]

Seems a little early in the year for Festivus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JR6xt9S02o

It’s never out of season for BLDS….

 

[antlerradar]

Someone really smart at this game whos been at it longer than ive been alive writes routinely that if you compromise 4 times you are only left with 6.5% of what you started with. Im done compromising, and more and more other people are too.

That math only works if the other side doesn't compromise at all. I agree with you about digging in your heals if the other side is unwilling to give any. Problem is it turns in to a real tug of war when that happens. In tug of war the biggest side usually wins and in politics the biggest usually means the biggest pocket book.