Landowner Elk Tag Bill

[mtmiller]

The contracts are legally binding documents. If one party violates them, then there are legal repercussions. Given that this program has been on the books for a while with very limited use, it is not expected that extending it will lead to a crush of new applicants.

The way the current bill is written, the landowner could set the number of public hunters at 50 and ask for 1 license or permit. I agree that there is an opportunity for abuse. THere is a possible amendment being discussed to provide a report to the interim committee detailing the program. I think if we see abuse, we'd have bills to eliminate the program entirely. And I would wager they could get passed.

I just saw this today and have concerns.

1. "program has been on the books for a while with very limited use, it is not expected that extending it will lead to a crush of new applicants". What is the rational of the bill? Who is the sponsor? End game frightens me.

2. "I agree that there is an opportunity for abuse". Everyone with a firing brain cell is seeing this gateway.

3. "There is a possible amendment being discussed to provide a report to the interim committee detailing the program." Waste of time and money. Hopefully this is DOA.

4. "If one party violates them, then there are legal repercussions". IMO, scare tactic that can't/won't have any real repercussions.

5. "The way the current bill is written, the landowner could set the number of public hunters at 50 and ask for 1 license or permit." ...or require 16 based on the bill as written. Mr. Pessimist here.

I am sure I am missing the big picture on the 2017 legislative process, but individually I hope this bill dies early.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the link to the legislative recommendations from PLPW: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/meetingSummaries2016June.html

The permit holder was supposed to be from the regular draw. I'll confirm w/FWP tomorrow. I might have misheard them on this. If they changed that provision, then it certainly should reflect the council's wishes.

 

[BuzzH]

FWP issues the tag. They can issue tags good for only private land for which they are drawn for. That would fulfill the requirement.

This was a PLPW bill - the committee worked on it for a while before asking the EQC to draft it.

Here is the roster of PLPW: http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/plpw/members.html

Oh great, it just keeps getting better and better, they can just issue tags to whoever they want, when they want. No reason to ask a biologist how this will impact the herd? How it will impact quotas from the start?

There is no management in Montana...and no reason to employ a single biologist.

Truly sad.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Oh great, it just keeps getting better and better, they can just issue tags to whoever they want, when they want. No reason to ask a biologist how this will impact the herd? How it will impact quotas from the start?

There is no management in Montana...and no reason to employ a single biologist.

Truly sad.

As I said Buzz, I may be wrong. Based on the notes from PLPW and the intent of the committee, it was not meant to do that. if I misheard them, I'll gladly shout it from the rooftops. Will clarify tomorrow.

 

[RobG]

I think this was presented at the CAC meeting and I asked a few questions. They said it was simply extending the existing program to non-resident landowners. Furthermore, the existing program had only a couple participants so it wasn't expected to have much impact. I wish I knew the conversations that resulted in this solution - especially from the landowner side. It seems the next step will have to be sweetening the pot a little to get more landowner participation - and we all know that slippery slope.

 

[whiskeydog]

if the current system sees limited participation, then what's the point of expanding the program?

 

[belly-deep]

It's a PLPW bill. Rep. Brown is a member of the PLPW and is the one carrying it.

Again, the hunters chosen to participate in this would be selected in a random lottery from FWP, not chosen by the rancher. This bill takes an existing program and opens it up to non-resident landowners. I would imagine the public would have a big say in the terms of the contract if we saw a landowner getting 10 permits for 40 public hunters and ask the commission to alter the terms or abandon the deal. There is still a significant amount of public involvement, which is part of what UPOM was objecting too. They were pushing for tags for landowners w/o any conditions.

I really don't see it being used much, and if there is abuse, then the contracts would not be renewed and the participating landowner would not be eligible to participate any more.

After watching the public get repeatedly f***ed on BMA and land swaps, my faith in the FWP being able to successfully execute this program is low. Very low.

I haven't had time to read through the bill, but maybe you can answer this for me:

What constitutes a "hunter" under the bill? Is it one hunter out in the field for one day? If that is the case, land owners will cram them into the crappiest part of the season, probably all on the same day, so that the odds of success are low and then have the rest of the season for their family to shoot all kinds of elk on the property. If they really want to get tricky with the program, which I believe someone somewhere will, they'll do a Wilks Bros on the property and chase everything off with an ATV the day before the public comes on.


IMO, the FWP needs to grow a set and tell the ranchers that if they want the elk off their property, they need to let the public on until the problem subsides. If they don't want to do that, then they can go pound sand. No more of these "creative" programs that just get abused.

 

[LopeHunter]

I hunted NM for pronghorn with a rifle a decade or so ago. Drew the tag in the public draw. Very short season but you are assigned to private land. Private landowner did not have to provide a scale map and on Day 2 realized I was hunting about 10% of the land and the landowner tag guys were at the waterhole near the alfalfa. Definitely shenanigans. Not equal access to equal opportunity.

I have heard UT has similar things where they isolate the draw hunters so the guys that bought tags get on the best animals. There are also reports of ranch hands herding animals back onto private property. Not equal access to equal opportunity.

I never support taking tags out of the public draw pool (or what would have been in the pool otherwise) to allocate to any preferenced group such as landowners or the old or the young, etc. I do not even support preference or bonus point systems for the same reason. Put the tags in the draw and let applicants look at prior draw results to figure out if they want to try for a tag where is low odds will draw or aim for a tag with better odds. Life is not always fair and the point schemes are anything but fair.

 

[TheJason]

FWP legally can't grow a set because they are currently in violation of law by having elk populations over objective. As long as that pink elephant is in the room you aren't going to see them hardballing anyone on elk issues.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Here's the link to the bill page, which will eventually include the audio of the hearing

The bill would expand an existing program that has traditionally seen 2 tags issued.

Some points about the bill:

1.) It would allow for Non-resident landowners to participate.

2.) The licenses and permits do not come off of the current permit or license system. They would be added to the overall total. Not subtracted.

3.) The license or permit may only be used by the landowner, and immediate family member or a designated, fulltime employee.

4.) These are not transferable or salable tags.

5.) The hunters would be drawn at random by FWP. The landowner has no say in selection.

6.) The bill was designed by the Private Land/Public Wildlife Committee in 2016.

7.) Any landowner participating must enter into a contract with FWP that outlines the management of the hunting, who will use the tags, etc.

8.) The bill was supported by RMEF, MWF, Stockgrowers, Farm Bureau & MOGA. It was opposed by UPOM.

I see the legislators changing #3...#4...and #5 at a later date after this version is passed.

 

[shootbrownelk]

if the current system sees limited participation, then what's the point of expanding the program?

It seems to me that the Ranchers/land owners are whining for this....and as we all know, Agriculture Rules.

 

[Nameless Range]

I appreciate that people are trying to find unique solutions to improve hunting in Montana, but I share the concerns of others.

I like that the bill requires a random draw, but I didn't see where it specifies that Rancher Bob can't say "cows only", and how would hunter access be determined? Would they have free reign of the ranch, or be limited to the south 640 while Rancher Bob, after letting 40 hunters in, gets 10 tags to hunt on the north 640 where the big bulls hang out. Ultimately those tags that are gifted to the landowner would effect the amount of tags allocated to the public in subsequent years.

Going to school in Boulder, I watched ranching families pull Elkhorns Bull tags every few years due to landowner preference, while I'm nearly two decades in to trying. I'm leery of things that cater to landowners, even when supposedly helping public hunters.

 

[BuzzH]

FWP legally can't grow a set because they are currently in violation of law by having elk populations over objective. As long as that pink elephant is in the room you aren't going to see them hardballing anyone on elk issues.

What was their excuse before?

 

[TheJason]

What was their excuse before?

In all fairness Buzz, pre 2004 I think they did a pretty good job of fighting for the average Joe. After all, that's why all of the special late season hunting went away as they attempted to leverage access. Unfortunately, that didn't work and elk populations exploded. Without that pink elephant, the elk numbers might have produced a different result? I don't know?

Instead you have shoulder seasons. Got room for a displaced NR Montana hunter?

 

[BuzzH]

In all fairness Buzz, pre 2004 I think they did a pretty good job of fighting for the average Joe. After all, that's why all of the special late season hunting went away as they attempted to leverage access. Unfortunately, that didn't work and elk populations exploded. Without that pink elephant, the elk numbers might have produced a different result? I don't know?

Instead you have shoulder seasons. Got room for a displaced NR Montana hunter?

I cant even remember pre-2004 in Montana, seems so different and so long ago.

Yes, we have room for displaced NR Montana hunters...I've been hosting more and more displaced Montana R and NR hunters lately.

Wonder why?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Unfortunately, that didn't work and elk populations exploded.

Yeah right.

When you mix "MT elk license", landowner, and bill, you're asking for a disaster.

 

[TheJason]

Yeah right.

When you mix "MT elk license", landowner, and bill, you're asking for a disaster.

What is the "yeah right " directed to? Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

 

[TheJason]

I cant even remember pre-2004 in Montana, seems so different and so long ago.

Yes, we have room for displaced NR Montana hunters...I've been hosting more and more displaced Montana R and NR hunters lately.

Wonder why?

.

I agree, it seems like an eternity ago. A time when 410 had incredible elk numbers.

Not arguing the why for sure.

 

[TheTone]

When you elect ranchers and landowners and not hunters who do you expect bills to favor?

I guess I've gotten to the point with lots of legislation (for all things, not just wildlife) of really wondering why the need? Are things so bad that their is a need to write a ton of new rules and laws every year?

 

[2ski]

When you elect ranchers and landowners and not hunters who do you expect bills to favor?

I guess I've gotten to the point with lots of legislation (for all things, not just wildlife) of really wondering why the need? Are things so bad that their is a need to write a ton of new rules and laws every year?

This is very true. Most of MT is still rural. And rural areas elect farmers and ranchers to the legislature. And they need to go fight the "out-of-staters" from Bozeman/Kalispell/Missoula. Not really thinking about how Ag is key in this state and swings a ton of power. A lot of bills sponsored by the cattleman's assoc. wouldn't be terrible if used in a way that a lot of farmers and ranchers are envisioning, but they allow for abuse of wealthy landowners and outfitters. A lot of those farmers and ranchers are good guys and see this as having a little more control over trying to manager elk herds, its really going to open the door for abuse. Unfortunately FWP operates at the whim of the legislature and as much as I'd love them to grow a pair and tell people that if they want the herds thinned, they need to allow access. And as a meat hunter, I really couldn't care less if someone told me to shoot a cow. I'd love the bull, but I'll take the meat. The stacking hunters into a short time-frame or on only certain areas would be a concern. I know one of the Huterite colonies outside of Martinsdale tried to put some of their land in BM and outfit the best parts of it. FWP said no and they dropped from BM. That was the colony on the N. side of the highway. Now the colony on the S. side makes you pay something like $40 to hunt a speed goat. But I hear they have some trophy potential if you want to pay to play.

You know, propaganda and the words we use play a big key to some of these. Substitute Farmers and Ranchers for landowner in the conversations we're having. Farmers and ranchers can be trusted. Landowners.....not so much.