Montana HB 907

Forkyfinder

Forkyfinder

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2023
Messages
3,623
I was curious if others had read this bill and had thoughts on it - it seems like a very good deal to benefit landowners who are in BMA programs.

Essentially - it gives a NR landowner with more than 640 acres an option to buy an additional bonus point if they are enrolled in a block management access program.

www.citizenportal.ai

Montana Legislature approves public access easements through private land

Legislature allocates funds for public access easements on private land for wildlife.
www.citizenportal.ai www.citizenportal.ai

 
Forkyfinder said:
View attachment 366788
Click to expand...
Point of emphasis here. This was a motion to "Do not pass" meaning those who supported HB907 voted red. Including all the D's and the following R's.

If your a fan of this bill it would be worth reaching out to them and letting them know.

Rep. Jodee Etchart - [email protected] - 406-318-9773

Rep. Jane Gillette - [email protected] - 406-868-1549

Rep. Caleb Hinkle - [email protected]

Rep. Jedediah Hinkle - [email protected] - 406-992-1686

Rep. Kathy Love - [email protected] - 406-360-1878

Rep. Bill Mercer - [email protected] - 406-698-1671

Rep. Tom Millett - [email protected] - 406-212-3613

Rep. Greg Oblander - [email protected] - 406-652-3553

Rep. Lukas Schubert - [email protected] - 406-609-6099

Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe - [email protected] - 406-208-6587

Rep. Tracy Sharp - [email protected] - 406-407-2197

Rep. Katie Zolnikov - [email protected]
 
R LO’s already have the provision to get an extra bonus point in similar fashion.

907 repeals 635 from last session in order to get “a better deal” for residents. Only problem is I can’t follow proponents logic of why it’s a better deal.

It’s way more complicated than just expanding public access opportunity.

Currently, under 635, NR landowners who own at least 2500 contiguous acres are given up to 15% preference over other NR applicants within the 17,000 cap. They must pay full price for licenses and hunt their own deeded property only. Up to a maximum of 5 licenses can be purchased by immediate family members at the rate of 1 license per 2,500 acres. They can also buy an additional bonus point for permit areas if they enroll into an FWP administered public access program ( EHA, PALA, or Block Management.

Last year there were 131 licenses sold under this preference and 30 of those properties participated in an FWP access program. By my math that means a minimum of 75,000 private acres had some form of public access.

907 repeals 635 and lowers the acreage requirement to 640 acres to be able to qualify for buying an extra bonus point for the permit draws.

At face value the argument of proponents seems to be a good one until it is understood in context of what else is already allowed under existing law not addressed by either 907 or 635.

Additional law not in 635 or 907 awards a free general deer and elk license to any landowner participating in Block Management. This is valid for both residents and nonresidents and the nonresident licenses given for free are in excess of the 17,000 cap.

Also, those free NR licenses may be used in any part of the state on public or private where a general license is valid.

Also in current law, nonresidents who contract with a licensed outfitter may buy two preference points to buy a B-10 license.

The way I see it, if 907 passes, Montana residents stand to lose more than they gain.

Those landowners who participated in the 635 preference last year and opened up their property will still have a couple strategies to be almost guaranteed licenses every year.


They can either book with an outfitter to gain 2 preference points for an 80% chance of drawing a B-10 license or enroll an unspecified amount of indeterminate quality of land into Block Management and get a free license and an extra bonus point as well as receiving payment from FWP for hunters using a portion of their property.

Under both scenarios those landowners who would have been limited to hunting their own property under 635 can now hunt the entire state.

Also, with the drop in acreage requirement from 2500 to 640 for additional bonus points NR landowners will be competing directly with R landowners in the landowner preference permit draw. ( That’s not really a big deal to me, just making the point)

There’s nothing in 907 that quantities how much or what kind of quality of land is required to be enrolled into BM to get the free license and the additional bonus point, only that the landowner must own 640 acres.

I’m not seeing the “win” with 907.
 
Gerald Martin said:
R LO’s already have the provision to get an extra bonus point in similar fashion.

907 repeals 635 from last session in order to get “a better deal” for residents. Only problem is I can’t follow proponents logic of why it’s a better deal.

It’s way more complicated than just expanding public access opportunity.

Currently, under 635, NR landowners who own at least 2500 contiguous acres are given up to 15% preference over other NR applicants within the 17,000 cap. They must pay full price for licenses and hunt their own deeded property only. Up to a maximum of 5 licenses can be purchased by immediate family members at the rate of 1 license per 2,500 acres. They can also buy an additional bonus point for permit areas if they enroll into an FWP administered public access program ( EHA, PALA, or Block Management.

Last year there were 131 licenses sold under this preference and 30 of those properties participated in an FWP access program. By my math that means a minimum of 75,000 private acres had some form of public access.

907 repeals 635 and lowers the acreage requirement to 640 acres to be able to qualify for buying an extra bonus point for the permit draws.

At face value the argument of proponents seems to be a good one until it is understood in context of what else is already allowed under existing law not addressed by either 907 or 635.

Additional law not in 635 or 907 awards a free general deer and elk license to any landowner participating in Block Management. This is valid for both residents and nonresidents and the nonresident licenses given for free are in excess of the 17,000 cap.

Also, those free NR licenses may be used in any part of the state on public or private where a general license is valid.

Also in current law, nonresidents who contract with a licensed outfitter may buy two preference points to buy a B-10 license.

The way I see it, if 907 passes, Montana residents stand to lose more than they gain.

Those landowners who participated in the 635 preference last year and opened up their property will still have a couple strategies to be almost guaranteed licenses every year.


They can either book with an outfitter to gain 2 preference points for an 80% chance of drawing a B-10 license or enroll an unspecified amount of indeterminate quality of land into Block Management and get a free license and an extra bonus point as well as receiving payment from FWP for hunters using a portion of their property.

Under both scenarios those landowners who would have been limited to hunting their own property under 635 can now hunt the entire state.

Also, with the drop in acreage requirement from 2500 to 640 for additional bonus points NR landowners will be competing directly with R landowners in the landowner preference permit draw. ( That’s not really a big deal to me, just making the point)

There’s nothing in 907 that quantities how much or what kind of quality of land is required to be enrolled into BM to get the free license and the additional bonus point, only that the landowner must own 640 acres.

I’m not seeing the “win” with 907.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that that the free tag was for the NR landowner, only who enrolls in BMA, and counted against the 17k? Is that incorrect?

As far as "hunting your own property" i think thats a pretty strange wish to hope for any level of enforcement. No one could even know by looking at your license.
 
My understanding is that it is in excess of the NR cap and not counted against the 17K.

As far as efficiency of enforcement of hunting only their property that’s a separate issue. I’m speaking of legality of what the law constrains or allows.

I’m open to correction of my facts about the free licenses being in excess of the cap are incorrect.

However, if they are correct, adding additional NR licenses in excess of the cap at a time when the same folks who are proponents of 907 are complaining about too many NR licenses being sold seems counterintuitive to me.
 
Last edited:
Labman said:
If the word “preference” was being used then I would agree with you. “Bonus” is the language though and that would mean special draw permit, none of those are OTC.
Click to expand...

Correct. But I think R landowners who enroll in BM are also eligible to buy an extra permit.

NR landowners were already allowed as well under 635. The acreage requirement was just 2500 not 640.
 
Gerald Martin said:
My understanding is that it is in excess of the NR cap and not counted against the 17K.

As far as efficiency of enforcement of hunting only their property that’s a separate issue. I’m speaking of legality of what the law constrains or allows.

I’m open to correction of my facts about the free licenses being in excess of the cap are incorrect.

However, if they are correct, adding additional NR licenses in excess of the cap at a time when the same folks who are proponents of 907 are complaining about too many NR licenses being sold seems counterintuitive to me.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20250404_212957_OneDrive.jpg

It seems like theyd have to have purchased a traditional b10 tag. So i dont follow?
 
Labman said:
Are you sure? The only info I’ve ever seen on the subject is contained in HB635 and that language only addresses NR LOs. The forms on the FWP web site only pertain to NRs.

Click to expand...

If you’re correct @Labman, you are absolutely right to ask the question why we would give NR landowners preference over R landowners?

My argument from the other direction asks why we differentiate between residency if it’s appropriate to grant landowner preference to anyone since the land and wildlife habitat is in MT regardless of residency of the owner.

If there isn’t existing preference for R landowners enrolled in BM to buy an extra bonus point then why should they have to compete directly against NR landowners who can buy an extra bonus point and are in the same LO preference pool as they are?
 
As a side tangent, I just ran some numbers from that NR license report I linked to earlier.

In 2024 we sold an additional 7,214 ES deer and elk licenses to 3,506 hunters that were in excess of the NR cap. Even better we sold them at half price at the loss of $1,841,975 to FWP’s budget when compared to full price licenses. WINNING! 🤡🤡🤡

I guess half price hunters only bring half competition and pressure to residents and full price NR.

I guess 18% of all the ES deer and elk licenses sold being in excess of the NR Cap and sold for a loss of $1,841,975 to FWP’s budget isn’t that big a deal…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gerald Martin
Montana HB-139 Why Should You Care?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Schaaf
Schaaf
P
BMA Thank You
Replies
0
Views
784
Pagosa
P
atlas
Thank A BMA Landowner.
Replies
0
Views
1K
atlas
atlas
Big Fin
Montana HB - 462: Worth your time Marijuana Taxes & Access
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
10K
Ollivver
Ollivver
BuckRut
Montana Block Management Program
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
BuckRut
BuckRut

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,253
Messages
2,089,799
Members
37,002
Latest member
UtahArcher

Share this page

Back
Top