Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,689
The word “Punitive” keeps entering this conversation. Usually in the context of “FWP policy is punitive towards private landowners.”
Can someone please explain to me how current FWP policy and the laws @ tag allocation are punitive towards landowners?
Landowners already receive preferential treatment with regards to tag allocations.
Are FWP policies punitive because they do not adequately relieve landowners of the financial burden of wildlife? The wildlife that exists as a condition of the land? The wildlife that was part of the landscape for far more years than that land was under private ownership?
If in your opinion FWP should bear the legal responsibility of ensuring landowners aren’t negatively affected by wildlife, shouldn’t FWP also ensure that I don’t suffer financially from the multiple deer that I hit while driving down the highway? Those deer have cost me thousands of dollars of damages and I didn’t want them to be where I was driving.
To be clear, I am supportive of helping alleviate landowners’ financial burden from wildlife as a collaborative gesture on the part of other shareholders who don’t have as large of a financial burden, but get to enjoy the benefits of wildlife. It makes perfect sense to me to show appreciation and help shoulder the load with our neighbors. I am willing to personally pay more than I currently do.
What doesn’t make sense to me is the continual efforts to enact legislation and wildlife management policies that benefit a minority of shareholders when those policies are detrimental to the resource and harm the interests of other shareholders. That seems to be “Punitive” to me.
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I get a strong sense from some landowners that they shouldn’t have to feel any financial pressure at all from the state’s wildlife. When that’s the case, I would like to point out there is no legal support that mentality in MT law. They can certainly have that opinion as a matter of preference, but that doesn’t mean we enact policies or legislation from a basis of recognizing that as fact.
Can someone please explain to me how current FWP policy and the laws @ tag allocation are punitive towards landowners?
Landowners already receive preferential treatment with regards to tag allocations.
Are FWP policies punitive because they do not adequately relieve landowners of the financial burden of wildlife? The wildlife that exists as a condition of the land? The wildlife that was part of the landscape for far more years than that land was under private ownership?
If in your opinion FWP should bear the legal responsibility of ensuring landowners aren’t negatively affected by wildlife, shouldn’t FWP also ensure that I don’t suffer financially from the multiple deer that I hit while driving down the highway? Those deer have cost me thousands of dollars of damages and I didn’t want them to be where I was driving.
To be clear, I am supportive of helping alleviate landowners’ financial burden from wildlife as a collaborative gesture on the part of other shareholders who don’t have as large of a financial burden, but get to enjoy the benefits of wildlife. It makes perfect sense to me to show appreciation and help shoulder the load with our neighbors. I am willing to personally pay more than I currently do.
What doesn’t make sense to me is the continual efforts to enact legislation and wildlife management policies that benefit a minority of shareholders when those policies are detrimental to the resource and harm the interests of other shareholders. That seems to be “Punitive” to me.
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I get a strong sense from some landowners that they shouldn’t have to feel any financial pressure at all from the state’s wildlife. When that’s the case, I would like to point out there is no legal support that mentality in MT law. They can certainly have that opinion as a matter of preference, but that doesn’t mean we enact policies or legislation from a basis of recognizing that as fact.
Paul Ellis has been pushing the narrative of bull elk tags are what will bring elk under objective. His bills in 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015 & I believe 2017 (I'll have to double check on that) have been all about telling people that we need to kill bulls to get populations under control and removing the commissions authority to set seasons in favor of politicians doing so in statute. Outfitters have helped create the mess that licensing is now, both through divisions of licenses to increase # of NR's getting A tags for deer, increased elk tags, bonus points, preference points, etc. I think we can look at the outfitter community as part of the problem here just like we can look at the rest of us as being part of the problem. In the rush to create a larger market for themselves and stack the deck in their favor (2 points for every sport!), the result is actually worse than a straight points draw that is pretty predictable based on an increased number of B-10's to match the herd & current allocation of the resource. But a totally fair point, and I think Montanans need to recognize that the outfitter community are their neighbors too, and finding some path forward together is always going to be a good idea. 
