Montana HB 907

[Forkyfinder]

I think there are better incentives than a bonus point. It’s like giving someone an extra raffle ticket for the cake at the basketball games

Is it? Why would that be true if the BP is applied in the same pool against other LO applying for permits?

I.e. 2 landowners (1 enrolled in bma and one not) after 3 years.

4 bonus points (17 chances) vs 8 bonus points (65 chances) makes a big difference in odds of getting the license.

If someones applying for those permits in a LO pref pool (or buying hunting ranches because of some "game changing legislation") - i imagine it means quite a lot to them.

 

[Forkyfinder]

If I had enough coin laying around to just buy a ranch no way in hell that’s what I’d spend it on. You can finance a lot of really cool hunts off just the interest of that kinda money.

It obviously meant enough to whoever crafted 635 to put it in?

Its a really great scheme if you want to be the only person able to hunt elk on your property. Get an extra bonus point to entirely avoid the public hunting your property next year if you have to suffer through an EHA this year.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

View attachment 367409

Line 3, page 2 of the text of 907.

I stand by what I wrote.

That is holdover language from the statute post-635. And confusing. But if you enroll in BM, you get a free B-10. That is unequivocal. If you don’t want to enroll in BM at all, or prefer one of the other EHA’s (e.g, 454, PALA) then you’re on the hook for the B-10. 907 doesn’t force anyone to buy a B-10 to access a second bonus tag; it continues the same benefits codified earlier for voluntary enrollment in access programs.

You made me go back and re-read the entire text, though, Gerald, which is always good.

 

[Labman]

I think there are better incentives than a bonus point. It’s like giving someone an extra raffle ticket for the cake at the basketball games

There certainly may be better incentives, but until they get discussed and adopted the reality will be that NR landowners who are afforded the opportunity to buy an additional BP have a leg up on R landowners in the special permit draw until the 10% cap is met, if it even is.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is holdover language from the statute post-635. And confusing. But if you enroll in BM, you get a free B-10. That is unequivocal. If you don’t want to enroll in BM at all, or prefer one of the other EHA’s (e.g, 454, PALA) then you’re on the hook for the B-10. 907 doesn’t force anyone to buy a B-10 to access a second bonus tag; it continues the same benefits codified earlier for voluntary enrollment in access programs.

You made me go back and re-read the entire text, though, Gerald, which is always good.

Jock, I don’t know where you’re getting this interpretation out of 907.

The text of 907 clearly specifies that NR landowners can buy an extra bonus point if…. (All of the following are met)

A. They own 640 acres of deeded land.
B. Have participated in BM the previous year per MCA-1-265
C. Have purchased a B-10 license for that year.


MCA-87-1-266 is the statute which provides for a free B-10 license to landowners enrolled in BM.

This statute is not cited anywhere in 907.

Doesn’t this put the stipulations for eligibility in 907 into conflict with the language of MCA-97-1-266? I don’t doubt the intent of 907 is to allow for recipients of the free B-10’s to apply for additional bonus points but I don’t think the language in 907 allows it.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Jock, I don’t know where you’re getting this interpretation out of 907.

The text of 907 clearly specifies that NR landowners can buy an extra bonus point if…. (All of the following are met)

A. They own 640 acres of deeded land.
B. Have participated in BM the previous year per MCA-1-265
C. Have purchased a B-10 license for that year.


MCA-87-1-266 is the statute which provides for a free B-10 license to landowners enrolled in BM.

This statute is not cited anywhere in 907.

Doesn’t this put the stipulations for eligibility in 907 into conflict with the language of MCA-97-1-266? I don’t doubt the intent of 907 is to allow for recipients of the free B-10’s to apply for additional bonus points but I don’t think the language in 907 allows it.View attachment 367482

I’m now thinking you’re right, Gerald, and my apologies to you for being kind of numb at this point in the session.. This was certainly not the intent of 907, and no one who worked on this bill caught it. I’m calling FWP tomorrow to discuss this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m now thinking you’re right, Gerald, and my apologies to you for being kind of numb at this point in the session.. This was certainly not the intent of 907, and no one who worked on this bill caught it. I’m calling FWP tomorrow to discuss this.

I’m sure it wasn’t the intent. If you’re speaking with anyone about making an amendment to the bill to clear up language, please consider including R LO’s as eligible for the extra bonus point as well if they’re enrolled in BM. It would make the overall incentive to enroll in BM that much broader.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I’m sure it wasn’t the intent. If you’re speaking with anyone about making an amendment to the bill to clear up language, please consider including R LO’s as eligible for the extra bonus point as well if they’re enrolled in BM. It would make the overall incentive to enroll in BM that much broader.

Agreed. Those are solid points, Gerald, and the development group is now discussing that as an amendment—along a strikeout of that line about purchasing a B-10.

It had not been addressed because LO’s already have a very high chance of drawing relative to non-landowners, as discussed in the attachment below…but no doubt that it would broaden incentives for BM. Thanks for pointing that out.

OPINION: Can Landowners Really Not Hunt Their Own Land?

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[Elky Welky]

Agreed. Those are solid points, Gerald, and the development group is now discussing that as an amendment—along a strikeout of that line about purchasing a B-10.

I am pretty sure that resident landowners still need to purchase a license if they enter block management, but just a couple of things to consider Jock when you take this back to the development group:

The CA ranch sold a few years ago for around $136.25 million dollars. A nonresident big-game combo tag cost $1278. That's .000008% the value of the ranch, which certainly someone who can afford to buy such a property in Montana--and not even live here and work it--can afford.

Further, by entering block under 907, that landowner will almost immediately recoup that cost, because they also make money through block management. This seems to be missing from this conversation: the trade a landowner would make under 907 also benefits them financially.

I'm not sure I could support striking out the tag cost requirement and giving a NR Landowner a $1278 discount, along with the benefit of a guaranteed income stream through BM. It's a difficult enough pill to swallow trying to explain why someone who simply owns land here is more entitled to privileges than a DIY NR who has to pay full price, without a guaranteed draw.

 

[Forkyfinder]

131 out 213(according to bha) NR property owners used it. Not sure how many are in permits areas.

1. If there are apparently 70k acres of access, how many hunter days are there? One hunter day on 70k acres would "open up" 70k acres of access - for example. Without hunter days included its pretty easy to not give much credit to the acreage. Oddly that metric is never used in this case.
2. Why/how do you see this as in its infancy and not utilized/matured when over 60% of applicable nr landowners use it?

These should be comically easy to answer if its been as beneficial as the proponents say.

 

[Labman]

I am pretty sure that resident landowners still need to purchase a license if they enter block management.

Any Resident Block Management cooperator gets one free sportsmen’s w/o bear. It can be transferred to a family member or employee - even a NR family member, then it becomes a deer/elk combo.

 

[Elky Welky]

Any Resident Block Management cooperator gets one free sportsmen’s w/o bear. It can be transferred to a family member or employee - even a NR family member, then it becomes a deer/elk combo.

Thanks Labman, I stand corrected on that point.

It would be a huge loss for the department if all the NR landowners with B10s suddenly don't have to pay for them though. It risks the $200,000 positive fiscal note attached to this bill.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Thanks Labman, I stand corrected on that point.

It would be a huge loss for the department if all the NR landowners with B10s suddenly don't have to pay for them though. It risks the $200,000 positive fiscal note attached to this bill.

Something to add to the discussion is that all NR
B-10’a given to Block Management Enrollees are in excess of the 17,000 cap. Last year 220 participated.


Without giving NR LO enrollees the B-10 license, 907’s incentives are not that attractive.

Giving NR LO enrollees the B-10 and opportunity to buy an extra permit has a high potential to add additional NR on the landscape at a time when we already have too many NR.


These are some of the reasons that on the whole, when weighed against the alternatives 635 is actually not a bad bill. I am still in favor of leaving it in place and working within the current structure of 635 to foster relationships with landowners to increase public access along the way.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Something to add to the discussion is that all NR
B-10’a given to Block Management Enrollees are in excess of the 17,000 cap. Last year 220 participated.


Without giving NR LO enrollees the B-10 license, 907’s incentives are not that attractive.

Giving NR LO enrollees the B-10 and opportunity to buy an extra permit has a high potential to add additional NR on the landscape at a time when we already have too many NR.


These are some of the reasons that on the whole, when weighed against the alternatives 635 is actually not a bad bill. I am still in favor of leaving it in place and working within the current structure of 635 to foster relationships with landowners to increase public access along the way.

So, just so I understand, the NR’s 907 would add to the landscape are bad, but the ones 635 have and will add are better?

 

[Gerald Martin]

So, just so I understand, the NR’s 907 would add to the landscape are bad, but the ones 635 have and will add are better?

All of the NR’s under 635 preference are buying the B-10 at full price and are counted against the 17,000 cap.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The 220 B-10’s given to BM enrollees that are in excess of the 17,000 cap are done outside of 635. Those licenses are being accessed under MCA-87-1-266.

For 907 to give BM enrollees a free B-10 it would be including the provision of MCA-87-1-266 to gift enrollees a B-10 and then add the ability to purchase an extra bonus point per the language of 907.

MCA-87-1-266 exists independently of 635 or 907 and will continue to grant NR BM enrollees a free B-10. Every B-10 accessed through MCA-87-1-266 is given in excess of the cap with no maximum amount set.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As far as whether additional B-10’s given to BM enrollees are “good” or “bad” my opinion is they do provide public access so they are better than other types of NR in excess of the cap.

I have far less angst over those than I do the 3500 other NR licenses sold at half price in excess of the cap. Those additional licenses are sold at a $1.8 million loss to FWP when compared with full price value.


Currently, 18% of all NR either sex deer and elk licenses issued are sold at 50% discount and are in excess of the cap.

 

[Forkyfinder]

EHAs are touted as "beneficial" by proponents of 635. Make your own determinations - but my hope is thay you read these surveys before listening to more sales about 454/eha.

Elk Hunting Access Agreements | Montana FWP

Learn about the various programs Montana FWP offers to landowners to support conservation and public access.

fwp.mt.gov

To make it easy - this is the part from the survey in 2023 sent from the public hunters selected by fwp.


Heres some comments from the landowners who utilized it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@cgasner1 you could probably teach some folks a thing or two about muzzy season by the sounds of it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Perhaps this is my personal favorite bit of feedback.

"The amount of times I was told these owners bought the ranch in part because they wanted tags is astonishing."

635, providing these tags every year, and allowing NR landowners to skip the NR PP process is important. If you are buying the property as a rich playground in a permit area - hunting 6 in 10 years isnt good enough. The fallacy of putting a NR LO "on the same footing" as R LO in a practical sense means putting resident landowners, behind anyone in the rest of America with enough money to buy a ranch here. Which is exactly why it got marketed the way it did. BS like this is feeding the beast thats killing montana.