PL/PW meeting 2.23.2022

[mtmiller]

To those interested.

Private Land/Public Wildlife (PLPW) Advisory Committee | Montana FWP

Private Land/Public Wildlife (PLPW) Advisory Committee information.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Ben Lamb]

It should be an enlightening meeting. Rumor is that the director is going to bring back the HB 505 transferable license discussion.

Seems poorly advised given all that's happened.

 

[406LIFE]

FWIW, we will be discussing 454's around 10:30.

 

[Carnage2011]

It should be an enlightening meeting. Rumor is that the director is going to bring back the HB 505 transferable license discussion.

Seems poorly advised given all that's happened.

Of course he is. I would expect nothing less from him at this point.

 

[406LIFE]

Of course he is. I would expect nothing less from him at this point.

505's are not on the agenda and I have not heard anything about its resurrection.

 

[SAJ-99]

505's are not on the agenda and I have not heard anything about its resurrection.

How about allowing 454's to be transferrable?

 

[Schaaf]

505's are not on the agenda and I have not heard anything about its resurrection.

Seems as though the rumors of its resurrection are founded on the Director's own statement in the June meeting about the 505 concept coming from the PLPW Committee.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@406LIFE and others have been doing a good job on the discussion. I think there's a lot of commonality on Block Management, etc. I'm glad that hunter ethics are part of this discussion as well.

 

[bigsky2]

Watching the 454 discussion now, the documents say you can't charge a fee for hunting on your property. Can someone explain how these landowners that have paid hunting are still eligible for these 454 permits then?

 

[Schaaf]

@Big Shooter @Eric Albus Hunters are upset with the current slate of agreements because we saw a swing from a 39:1 on the Carlson Ranch in 622 to a 3:1 ratio in 2 years.

FWP works agreement with Blue Ridge Ranch to allow limited public elk hunting

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in a written agreement approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission, worked with the Blue Ridge Ranch owner, Will Carlson, to allow limited public elk hunting on approximately 9,665 private land acres in hunting district (HD) 622 in southern Phillips Co. for the...

www.blainecountyjournal.com

 

[Eric Albus]

How about allowing 454's to be transferrable?

Not sure they need to be. If it’s working like it has, keep it same, but may be possible to look at that idea in a couple yrs

 

[Ben Lamb]

"If the billionaires don't get bull tags, the kids with cancer won't get to hunt."

Weird flex, but whatever.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, in your opinion it’s not working then?

 

[Big Shooter]

Watching the 454 discussion now, the documents say you can't charge a fee for hunting on your property. Can someone explain how these landowners that have paid hunting are still eligible for these 454 permits then?

If they aren’t charging the folks that obtain the permit through the 454 program wouldn’t it be legal. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, in your opinion it’s not working then?

I think the program was used to promote an agenda this time around in order to gloss over the fact that it was a bulls for billionaires effort, and not tied to actual wildlife management. And that does the program a great disservice.

The 454 program has a lot of merit, and simply going back to the original metrics would end a lot of the controversy. Ultimately, 454 will live or die by the grace of the average MT hunter, so your task is to make it work for everyone, not just the guys who hire an expensive lobbyist.

 

[bigsky2]

If they aren’t charging the folks that obtain the permit through the 454 program wouldn’t it be legal. Just thinking out loud.

I meant when I was reading through the stipulations for the agreements I thought it said you weren't eligible if you charge access for hunting (I thought this meant outside of the program). I probably misunderstood something.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the statute relative to the 454 program: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0020/part_0050/section_0130/0870-0020-0050-0130.html

The law states under MCA 87-2-513:

(2) To be eligible for a license or permit pursuant to this section, a landowner:

(a) must own occupied elk habitat that is large enough, in the department's determination, to accommodate successful public hunting;

(b) may not have been issued a Class A-7 landowner license pursuant to 87-2-501(3) during the license year;

(c) must have entered into a contractual public elk hunting access agreement with the department in accordance with subsection (7) that allows public access for free public elk hunting on the landowner's property throughout the regular hunting season; and

(d) may not charge a fee or authorize a person to charge a fee for hunting access on the landowner's property.

To me, that means no outfitting or charging access fees at all. And the agency had interpreted the law that way until the new director came in, it would appear. I think it's sufficiently broad in language that a judge could read it as disallowing outfitting or access fees.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Eric Albus's take on a type 3 Block Management was good, so I don't want Eric to think I'm just a grumpy gus.

 

[Eric Albus]

Here's the statute relative to the 454 program: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0870/chapter_0020/part_0050/section_0130/0870-0020-0050-0130.html

The law states under MCA 87-2-513:



To me, that means no outfitting or charging access fees at all. And the agency had interpreted the law that way until the new director came in, it would appear. I think it's sufficiently broad in language that a judge could read it as disallowing outfitting or access fees.

If the public is getting free access who cares if the landowner has an outfitter on the place. Especially if the public is getting free access to elk, and the outfitter is reduced to the crumbs(deer)

 

[Ben Lamb]

If the public is getting free access who cares if the landowner has an outfitter on the place. Especially if the public is getting free access to elk, and the outfitter is reduced to the crumbs(deer)

It's worthy of a discussion, but if the goal is to reach wildlife management goals, then ensuring that the proper level of harvest is part of the discussion, rather than simply make short-term gifts to landowners who may or may not have been the genesis of elk overpopulation problems in some districts, like 411.

The public is paying for that access in the form of licenses and permits. Those are opportunities that are held in trust for the public, not simply gifts to be handed out to the politically connected.

Furthermore, if a place is leased to a hunt club or an outfitter, then the idea that the landowner can't hunt is part of their own business model, and not really something I care to subsidize with public licenses and permits. If the leasing is garnering payments to landowners that take care of the impacts, then why should the public throw more at them?

454 is a great idea, and while it wasn't utilized much in the past, I think landowners who are more interested in finding some balance should be able to get those licenses/permits when the are in block management or if they have PAL act agreements, etc.