Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[WanderWoman]

Thanks again. Maybe that specific one is barren, but I would think there are others that aren’t- mine was more of a general question.

Do you suppose the absence of game may explain the low price? $150 per acre seems really cheap, but perhaps not?

If lands encumbered by a CE were now to be appraised at $150/acre, and without a CE would be appraised at $800-$1200/acre, that puts the CE encumbrances at 81-89% of the property value. That must be one heck of a CE.

Most CEs without access (i.e., purchasing subdivision and maybe a few other rights related to tilling) are in the 25-30% (ish) range. FWP CEs with access are generally 40-50% (but could sometimes exceed 60%+) of appraised value. Recreation is getting to be an expensive game.

If the CE devalued the property by 25-30%, that per acre cost would more like be between $560-$900 acre.

Also, most entities do a bit of vetting prior to buying CE on a property. It is after all, a marriage of sorts, and not a Hollywood one. One of the main goals is to leverage conservation dollars in the most effective way possible, so CEs generally target areas within priority habitats that have been well-managed. But every CE is different and different entities may have slightly different targets and objectives.

I’ve hunted several FWP CEs with access managed via both Type I and Type II BMA, and have had great experiences. One of them is pretty reliable for elk, actually.

 

[Flynarrow]

There are many conservation easements. The ones in perpetuity that give up everything are in my belief a mistake.
I live right next to 2 blocks of land that have C.E.’s on them. Neither place has had an offer on them that’s legit. I’ve made a contingent offer of $150 an acre. Contingent because I’m not certain that either would pencil ag wise. If the easement could be reversed, both parcels sell overnight for 800-1200 an acre.

I was part of an organization who negotiated perpetual Conservation Easements on ranch properties. In some cases the landowner just wanted to sell. So in a couple of cases we bought the land in fee...then attached a perpetual CE...and resold it. Amazingly we recouped most of the original price we paid even after we had attached the perpetual CE.

 

[TheJason]

Wouldn’t know why it wouldn’t qualify for 454, but if it has an easement on it there would be no point in trying to enroll in 454, cause there would be ZERO big game on it.

I’ve hunted properties with easements that were absolutely fantastic. Surprised you have had the opposite experience.

 

[Eric Albus]

What makes you say that - its in an LE unit?

On account of having to in an LE unit in order for 454 to be used/needed

 

[Forkyfinder]

On account of having to in an LE unit in order for 454 to be used/needed

I still mean its LE for deer and elk.

Its not going to get near the orange army some other units do and that is big country.

 

[Eric Albus]

The problem is even tho it’s LE for elk there are to many ppl with permits torturing elk chasing them onto private that’s inaccessible. The company orange army may be slightly fewer ppl, but they accomplish same thing as an orange legion.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think there are at least two bills being crafted to protect mule deer hunting during the rut. To put the rut hunting of mule deer bucks into law.... Or put another way, to fast-track Montana's march to Limited Entry everywhere.

 

[Flynarrow]

I think there are at least two bills being crafted to protect mule deer hunting during the rut. To put the rut hunting of mule deer bucks into law.... Or put another way, to fast-track Montana's march to Limited Entry everywhere.

View attachment 354446

Sadly Hinkle and other legislators seem to think they know enough bar stool biology to manage better than FWP. Dangerous territory for our wildlife resource. Past sessions are responsible for all the non resident give aways like "come home to hunt" licenses that FWP then has no ability to limit non residents. You get what you vote for...

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think there are at least two bills being crafted to protect mule deer hunting during the rut. To put the rut hunting of mule deer bucks into law.... Or put another way, to fast-track Montana's march to Limited Entry everywhere.

View attachment 354446

It’s going to be all right. I’m guessing they will include language in those bills that will increase the number of mule deer bucks and that will make sure that opportunity remains biologically justifiable…. After all, they know best…..


^^^^sarcasm

 

[bigsky2]

I think there are at least two bills being crafted to protect mule deer hunting during the rut. To put the rut hunting of mule deer bucks into law.... Or put another way, to fast-track Montana's march to Limited Entry everywhere.

View attachment 354446

It is our god-given right, after all.

 

[cgasner1]

It is our god-given right, after all.

Think some people are getting worried

 

[Shed God]

We could pool are money together. Lobby. Under the table. Get some good things passed. Course it be real hard to beat john Dutton out. I mean Galt. Homo

 

[Shed God]

Like we have talked about it before and many things have been discussed. They throw a shit load of garbage out there and try to pass a few things.

 

[Shed God]

Nameless range elaborate on limited entry every where

 

[Hunting Wife]

Sadly Hinkle and other legislators seem to think they know enough bar stool biology to manage better than FWP. Dangerous territory for our wildlife resource. Past sessions are responsible for all the non resident give aways like "come home to hunt" licenses that FWP then has no ability to limit non residents. You get what you vote for...

The ridiculous thing is that he did get a wildlife degree. He went to school with my husband. He should absolutely know better but continues to push this BS every session. I struggle to keep it together when listening to him lecture on “the science”.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The ridiculous thing is that he did get a wildlife degree. He went to school with my husband. He should absolutely know better but continues to push this BS every session. I struggle to keep it together when listening to him lecture on “the science”.

J. Hinkle is a real contradiction to me. Originally from Phillipsburg, having a wildlife degree, working in fisheries, being a Montana hunter and fisherman, you would expect his values to align with most sportsmen and women in Montana. Having engaged in personal discussions with Jed, I admire his background and his level of intelligence, however, it is clear to me that his ideology and almost blind allegiance to the party causes him to develop legislative BS and accompanying rhetoric contrary to my philosophy and ideals for Montana's future.
More than once we have agreed to disagree!

 

[Montana_Wanderer]

I was just glancing at the bill list under the Fish and Wildlife category. LC0549 is proposed to change the status of quail to a regulated upland bird. Who knows, maybe Eurasian collared doves will be a regulated species in MT soon as well.

 

[rogerthat]

The ridiculous thing is that he did get a wildlife degree. He went to school with my husband. He should absolutely know better but continues to push this BS every session. I struggle to keep it together when listening to him lecture on “the science”.

This happens in my profession too. I think it boils down to the fact that if you take an idiot and send them through college all you really end up with is an educated idiot with a degree. It doesn’t mean they will apply anything they learned. I have seen it a lot.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I was just glancing at the bill list under the Fish and Wildlife category. LC0549 is proposed to change the status of quail to a regulated upland bird. Who knows, maybe Eurasian Doves will be a regulated species in MT soon as well.

I dont understand the benefit, or case for that?

 

[Nameless Range]

Nameless range elaborate on limited entry every where

I think generally, one of the worst things the legislature can do is limit the options that wildlife managers have. This happened in the early 2000 with Debbie Barrett bill and it resulted in over a decade of conflict.


Imagine a very plausible scenario where mule deer numbers in certain districts continue to decline. Imagine buck to doe ratios in the low single digits.

Now, if biologists and the commission are required by law to allow mule deer buck hunting in the rut in November, but will have to do something in a district that has little to no mule deer bucks and perhaps poor mule deer populations in general, their only option at that point will be to go to limited entry to control the pressure when mule deer there are most vulnerable.

It’s one of the reasons that the season settings 2.0 group’s ideas really need to be considered and discussed. If you don’t think they’re good ideas, to each their own, but let’s not hamstring ourselves in a rapidly changing Montana.

I like that Montana has an ethos of opportunity when it comes to hunting and fishing, and think it’s compatible with a more mature and reasonable management structure. Limited entry would be the death of that ideal across the state.