Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Forkyfinder]

It’s never out of season for BLDS….

Well gerald, why dont you tell me something definitive that a R hunter got from it?

The critiques that all the opponents have seemingly come true, the benefits that were touted seem over sold.

Do you have anything (save for paid parroted propaganda) to show for it? Or was the needle moved more towards a model of "i have, and now i deserve"?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Believing the lobbyist for a special interest group has the average guys issues in perspective is nothing short of laughable. I guess ive found the demographic that thinks the stripper loves you.

 

[Nick87]

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.

Every state should. Would only benefits their own residents. As it should be.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Are you attempting to link 640 stacking to HB-635? Because HB-907 that you shilled for and loved so much wouldn’t have solved this issue and would have made it worse.

Recipients of licenses through 635 are limited to hunting their own land. These folks are getting unit wide permits.

HB- 907 would have given NR landowners who qualify for the 640 acre ownership the ability to enroll a portion of their property into Block Management, receive a free NR combination license and get an extra bonus point for the permit draw.

Folks using the 640 stacking to game the system are using loopholes in the long standing LO preference system. Pretty sure that came to be before your favorite lobbyist was walking the halls in Helena.

 

[Carnage2011]

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.

Meh. Some of that is valid but to act like they are some huge benefit because they allow 50 cow elk hunters is kind of laughable. We killed 22 cows and a handful of bulls off my place last year without tag incentives. There are ranchers is region 4 begging for cow hunters. People are too lazy to do their own digging. They want FWP to line everything up and tell them where they can hunt.

As far as the comment regarding the Dana employing people. That’s garbage, it doesn’t matter who owns the ranch, it will need employees. It’s the Dana for shit sakes…one of the largest and nicest pieces of ground in this state, it can’t be run by one guy. As a counter point, I’d bet Frank had more employees when he owned the CA than Griffith does. Nonresident landowners aren't owed a damn thing and we need to quit kissing their ass. We need to scrap the 454 all together but at the very least, all LO tags should be limited to their private land only.