Montana HB 907

[Gerald Martin]

View attachment 366801

It seems like theyd have to have purchased a traditional b10 tag. So i dont follow?

Why would they buy what they can get for free?

 

[MTGomer]

All this discussion makes it clear that nothing is confusing and convoluted and that they’re doing a great job with simplicity.

 

[Labman]

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?

Spot on.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

An extra permit?

 

[Forkyfinder]

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?

They arent in the same LO preference pool?

 

[Forkyfinder]

i think this is specifically reversing what gerald is referring to.

Passed the house this morning. Good news!

 

[Forkyfinder]

NRs enrolled in BMA get a b10 license. That is true independent of 635 (2023) and 907 (2025)

 

[Labman]

They arent in the same LO preference pool? View attachment 366807

For the special draw permits where Bonus Points are utilized, yes R and NR LOs are in the same LO applicant pool. But just like the regular drawing NR LOs are limited to, but not guaranteed 10% of the permits.

 

[cgasner1]

All this discussion makes it clear that nothing is confusing and convoluted and that they’re doing a great job with simplicity.

 

[Gerald Martin]

An extra permit?

Extra Bonus point.

 

[TheTone]

Why would Montana legislators, that are elected to represent the people of Montana, introduce legislation to benefit non residents that aren’t their constituents?

 

[cgasner1]

Why would Montana legislators, that are elected to represent the people of Montana, introduce legislation to benefit non residents that aren’t their constituents?

Opening up more land for us to hunt benefits us.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Why would Montana legislators, that are elected to represent the people of Montana, introduce legislation to benefit non residents that aren’t their constituents?

Incentivizing landowners to open access to private property can be mutually beneficial to both NR and R. The question for any incentive plan always remains, is the deal of sufficient benefit to residents to justify the incentive?


Essentially, both 635 and 907 are incentive legislation that ostensibly benefit residents by opening up public access to private property. The overall goal is the same for both bills.

Proponents of 907 are making a generalized argument that 635 is not a good deal for residents and 907 will be a better deal for residents by repealing 635 and reducing the acreage requirement from 2500 to 640 for the bonus point incentive.

I disagree that 907 will be a better deal. I haven’t seen any credible projections of how much more private access residents can expect to see under 907 when compared to 635.

In my opinion, 907 is essentially a piece of vanity legislation advanced because folks didn’t like how 635 passed last session.

635 is current law. I want to know how 907 is going to be better with credible projections of what I as a resident stand to gain rather than hearing that 635 is “bad”. Show me the benefits, not just conceptual abstracts of why in theory 635 is bad and 907 is better.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It is telling that Billionaires need to have trophy bull tags before even considering letting kids with cancer & wounded war veterans hunt their kingdoms.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It is telling that Billionaires need to have trophy bull tags before even considering letting kids with cancer & wounded war veterans hunt their kingdoms.

This anti-landowner rhetoric is a bullshit line of logic for advancing any legislation. What are the numbers that benefit me as a resident of private land I can expect to see opened under the incentives of 907?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Incentivizing landowners to open access to private property can be mutually beneficial to both NR and R. The question for any incentive plan always remains, is the deal of sufficient benefit to residents to justify the incentive?


Essentially, both 635 and 907 are incentive legislation that ostensibly benefit residents by opening up public access to private property. The overall goal is the same for both bills.

Proponents of 907 are making a generalized argument that 635 is not a good deal for residents and 907 will be a better deal for residents by repealing 635 and reducing the acreage requirement from 2500 to 640 for the bonus point incentive.

I disagree that 907 will be a better deal. I haven’t seen any credible projections of how much more private access residents can expect to see under 907 when compared to 635.

In my opinion, 907 is essentially a piece of vanity legislation advanced because folks didn’t like how 635 passed last session.

635 is current law. I want to know how 907 is going to be better with credible projections of what I as a resident stand to gain rather than hearing that 635 is “bad”. Show me the benefits, not just conceptual abstracts of why in theory 635 is bad and 907 is better.

Gerald - they have to be enrolled in block management. Thats the difference. Access is the trade.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This anti-landowner rhetoric is a bullshit line of logic for advancing any legislation. What are the numbers that benefit me as a resident of private land I can expect to see opened under the incentives of 907.

Oh? Just pretend someone else said that.

Post in thread 'Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/bu...eqc-meeting-today-1-30-pm.312404/post-3364269

 

[Gerald Martin]

How many acres?

Why is the new deal better than the old deal?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Oh? Just pretend someone else said that.

Post in thread 'Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/bu...eqc-meeting-today-1-30-pm.312404/post-3364269

And the point of Ben’s post in that thread was that MT residents were not getting a good deal in the 454 exchanges.

What is a reasonable comparison of acres residents can expect to access comparing 635 incentives to 907 incentives? Isn’t that the measurement of which is the better deal?

 

[Forkyfinder]

And the point of Ben’s post in that thread was that MT residents were not getting a good deal in the 454 exchanges.

What is a reasonable comparison of acres residents can expect to access comparing 635 incentives to 907 incentives? Isn’t that the measurement of which is the better deal?

Well - how does 635 grant access, at all? Via 454, right? They can still do that.

If one landowner enrolls with 640 acres - seems like a real one sided score. 0 to 640.