Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[Nameless Range]

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commission/2022/jun-23/eha/c3-eha-master-list---final.pdf

37 applicants this year compared to 13 last year.

Link isn't working for me. Anyone know how to get them?

EDIT: Found em

Fish And Wildlife Commision | Montana FWP

The Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department as provided by statute.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Link isn't working for me. Anyone know how to get them?

EDIT: Found em

Fish And Wildlife Commision | Montana FWP

The Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department as provided by statute.

fwp.mt.gov

Took me forever to find that list again the other day, thanks for the link!
I'm not even sure what to say for comments because I feel like I'll end up writing several pages.
Like you said though, this program could morph in the future. Something tells me not in a very positive way for hunters in the long term. Hopefully some of the commissioners will listen to some very valid concerns.

 

[Nameless Range]

Took me forever to find that list again the other day, thanks for the link!
I'm not even sure what to say for comments because I feel like I'll end up writing several pages.
Like you said though, this program could morph in the future. Something tells me not in a very positive way for hunters in the long term. Hopefully some of the commissioners will listen to some very valid concerns.

I don’t think there would be much utility in challenging the 454 program as it currently is, but we could give input to mitigate. Here’s my position:


Dear Commissioners,

My name is Xxx, and I live in Xxx I grew up in Xxx and have hunted the Elkhorns for 30 years. I still live and play in them. 3 years ago I had the coveted 380-20 permit, successfully poking a bull in the heart with an arrow, on private land I gained permission on via an earnest question and a handshake. I am very concerned about this year’s proposed Elk Hunting Access Agreements (454 Program), and I would like to lay out some facts for your consideration before you move forward with your decisions regarding them.

Bull counts in the Elkhorns have dropped 30% in the last 4 years

This winter’s aerial survey, which was performed under good conditions, counted 171 BTBs (Brow Tined Bulls). The last good aerial survey in 2018, there were 246 BTBs counted. That is a 30% drop in BTBs in just 5 years. The amount of 380-20 permits available as a whole were already reduced by 25% this year as opposed to previous ones due to this bothersome trend.Now is not a time to add additional permits to the mix.

The Elkhorns are barely within objective.

The biologist had what was classified as a good count in the Elkhorns on flights flown on February 25,26 and March 9, and 10th. Elk totals amounted to 1,794. The objective for HD 380 is 1700 – 2300. We are more than 500 elk from being over objective.

Landowners already have an enormously greater chance than the public

In the 2022 drawings, there were 15 Landowner Preference Permits available in 380, and a total of 26 applicants. That is draw odds of 58%. Conversely, of the 85 remaining permits, 84 of which went to residents, had a permits/applicants ratio of .86%. Landowners already have nearly 70X the opportunity at this permit, and I should add in addition, get a chance at the regular pool if they are unsuccessful in the landowner draw. A once in a lifetime tag to most, is already likely drawn every two or three years by landowners. The most sought after elk tag in the state every few years seems a good deal.

Some of these landowners don’t qualify for landowner preference, or only have elk seasonally, or already have accessible land.

The Hahn Ranch is either enrolled in Block Management or has an FWP Conservation Easement that already allows public access. This is not gaining the public much and they are giving up a fair amount.

The Staubach Creek Ranch chiefly only has elk during archery season, and FWP already engages in preseason damage hunts. One of the most coveted permits in the state for a place that elk mostly leave after October?

The Dunn Canyon Ranch is already enrolled in Block Management, and also typically has game damage hunts.

The Radley Ranch isn’t even a section of land. It’s not eligible for Landowner Preference, which is telling.



This would be a disservice to a tenuous resource, and a poor exchange for the public.

Ultimately, we are talking about 5 additional 380-20 permits – 30% more than what is already available to landowners who already have a superb chance at what is a once-in-a-lifetime tag for most, in a district with plummeting bull numbers and a barely acceptable amount of elk as a whole. These agreements are poor and unnecessary. The public would gain very little, andgive up a lot. Being a member of the public, I ask that you deny these agreements.

I appreciate your time and service.

Thank you,

 

[GoGriz]

Thanks for the heads up! I emailed all Commissioners with my thoughts. I’m trying to move my schedule around to make the meeting as well. Keep up the pressure!

 

[Nameless Range]

Just to follow up on this.

Every single 454 application was approved - Landowners who don't qualify for landowner preference, landowners who only hold elk one month out of the 3 month general season, landowners who already allow access via block management.

There will be no judicious review of "applications". Just assume that as time moves on the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota will be automatic. And for what? We just gave dozens of our finest permits away in exchange for maybe a hundred hunter days on the landscape - some of which are supervised, some of which would've already happened through BM, some of which are highly constrained - an act that will inevitably reduce the permit quota available to the public.

A damn shame.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Just to follow up on this.

Every single 454 application was approved - Landowners who don't qualify for landowner preference, landowners who only hold elk one month out of the 3 month general season, landowners who already allow access via block management.

There will be no judicious review of "applications". Just assume that as time moves on the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota will be automatic. And for what? We just gave dozens of our finest permits away in exchange for maybe a hundred hunter days on the landscape - some of which are supervised, some of which would've already happened through BM, some of which are highly constrained - an act that will inevitably reduce the permit quota available to the public.

A damn shame.

EQC will be looking at this as a committee bill starting in September.

The legislature doesn't gavel in until January, but the bill drafting process is already underway. Time to start polishing the armor & sharpening the lances.

 

[Nameless Range]

EQC will be looking at this as a committee bill starting in September.

The legislature doesn't gavel in until January, but the bill drafting process is already underway. Time to start polishing the armor & sharpening the lances.

Sorry, what do you mean by "as a committee bill", potentially anyway?

 

[noharleyyet]

Money neither rusts nor sleeps.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sorry, what do you mean by "as a committee bill", potentially anyway?

The EQC usually pulls together bills on issues of importance and PLPW generally gets their bills introduced as "committee bills." This means that the EQC has voted in the majority to put their stamp of approval on the bill. One issue will be Conservation District Funding, but it sounds like the committee is looking at using general fund money from the recreational marijuana tax for that (good idea) and then 454 is likely to be a bill as well, depending on what PLPW brings forward.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thank you @Ben. I appreciate that information. I assume that if they do, their bill would propose some changes to the 454 program?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thank you @Ben. I appreciate that information. I assume that if they do, their bill would propose some changes to the 454 program?

Yep. Not sure where that ends up, but since it's an evenly split committee it would need bipartisan support to move forward as a committee bill. A vestige of statesmanship left in the legislative process.

 

[golfer]

Just to follow up on this.

Every single 454 application was approved - Landowners who don't qualify for landowner preference, landowners who only hold elk one month out of the 3 month general season, landowners who already allow access via block management.

There will be no judicious review of "applications". Just assume that as time moves on the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota will be automatic. And for what? We just gave dozens of our finest permits away in exchange for maybe a hundred hunter days on the landscape - some of which are supervised, some of which would've already happened through BM, some of which are highly constrained - an act that will inevitably reduce the permit quota available to the public.

A damn shame.

This is kind of conflicting. I know one person who applied and did not get it.

 

[Nameless Range]

This is kind of conflicting. I know one person who applied and did not get it.

That is interesting, and I could be wrong. My understanding is this is the list of the applicants:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commission/2022/jun-23/eha/c3-eha-master-list--final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2aLYPXgzuhHLx7Zajq6pT8LGhPG10Wlu4-kkqP2e_k9u-TkY7cPnlP4MA

When I watched the commission meeting, they basically voted to approve this list, and there was essentially no discussion. I am curious what led to your friend not being approved. I assume that individual's name is not on this list? Everything I read and the commission stated, was that these were the 454 applicants they received.

 

[golfer]

That is interesting, and I could be wrong. My understanding is this is the list of the applicants:

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/commission/2022/jun-23/eha/c3-eha-master-list--final.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2aLYPXgzuhHLx7Zajq6pT8LGhPG10Wlu4-kkqP2e_k9u-TkY7cPnlP4MA

When I watched the commission meeting, they basically voted to approve this list, and there was essentially no discussion. I am curious what led to your friend not being approved. I assume that individual's name is not on this list? Everything I read and the commission stated, was that these were the 454 applicants they received.

Maybe I should have said they weren’t awarded the permit/tag. So they may have been approved, but did not get the tag/permit and others won’t be hunting that property this fall. I was under the understanding that there is the 10% rule where those would be drawn. If not drawn I’m guessing those properties wouldn’t be opened up to the agreement?

 

[The Hedgehog]

The voices of the children with cancer and disabled veterans have been heard.

 

[Nameless Range]

Maybe I should have said they weren’t awarded the permit/tag. So they may have been approved, but did not get the tag/permit and others won’t be hunting that property this fall. I was under the understanding that there is the 10% rule where those would be drawn. If not drawn I’m guessing those properties wouldn’t be opened up to the agreement?

There's the 15% of landowner preference, that is drawn, and is something separate.

The 454 is not a draw, but rather an allocation given of up to 10% of the permits in an area in addition to the original quota. If the agreement was approved, the applicant got a permit.

This is my understanding. If their name is on that list I linked to, then they got the permits they asked for.

 

[DFS]

Hank had already added the 10% in some of these areas in the “special” draw. I think lawsuits from the public need to start coming down on mtfwp. Wait til the new emp gets ramrodded through.

 

[golfer]

There's the 15% of landowner preference, that is drawn, and is something separate.

The 454 is not a draw, but rather an allocation given of up to 10% of the permits in an area in addition to the original quota. If the agreement was approved, the applicant got a permit.

This is my understanding. If their name is on that list I linked to, then they got the permits they asked for.

Their name is on the list they didn’t get a permit. In some of these area there were enough applications that the number of applicants was more than the total allowable for the 454 which I though was 10%. So if there were more applicants that the number of the 10% of permits those landowners were then drawn. So not everyone who was approved got a permit.

 

[Beignet]

Their name is on the list they didn’t get a permit. In some of these area there were enough applications that the number of applicants was more than the total allowable for the 454 which I though was 10%. So if there were more applicants that the number of the 10% of permits those landowners were then drawn. So not everyone who was approved got a permit.

It was my understanding that they would get permits for use on their property. Here’s a shot from an application for one of the properties where FWP wasn’t sure there’d be good hunting opportunities.

Have you confirmed with your acquaintance that they didn’t receive permits even though the commission seemed to approve all applicants.

 

[Nameless Range]

Their name is on the list they didn’t get a permit. In some of these area there were enough applications that the number of applicants was more than the total allowable for the 454 which I though was 10%. So if there were more applicants that the number of the 10% of permits those landowners were then drawn. So not everyone who was approved got a permit.

OK. That makes sense and is a good correction for me. Thank you. My initial statement was not entirely correct.

To correct my initial assertion, everyone who applied to a 454 agreement got a permit, except for those whose properties were in HDs where the amount of 454 applicant requests exceeded the 10% "in addition to" the permit quota. In those instances, not all applicants got a permit.

I think though, it will be safe to assume that the commission will automatically approve all agreements, until they reach that 10%, which is what I believe happened.