Montana HB 907

[Gerald Martin]

We can track 635 acreage currently and show that out of the 30 landowners who utilized the bonus point incentive, at least 75,000 acres had some form of public access.

That’s just in permit areas alone. 75,000> 640.


Also, an additional 220 NR landowners are already incentivized to enroll in BM by the free B-10 license.

Are we going to find that many more properties owned by NR in that 640+ category in permit areas that aren’t currently enrolled to offset potential losses from landowners in non permit areas?

 

[Forkyfinder]

We can track 635 acreage currently and show that out of the 30 landowners who utilized the bonus point incentive, at least 75,000 acres had some form of public access.

That’s just in permit areas alone. 75,000> 640.

Also, an additional 220 NR landowners are already incentivized to enroll in BM by the free B-10 license.

If 454 EHA didnt exist, how many acres? 0 is the answer - no need to complicate it. 454 agreements still exist if 635 is repealed.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Are you saying the only form of access under 635 is through the 454 program? That’s not what opponents who were representing landowners testified. Multiple landowner reps testified they were enrolled in BM.

I honestly don’t know the breakdown of EHA acres vs BM acres vs PALA acres. Does anyone?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Are you saying the only form of access under 635 is through the 454 program? That’s not what opponents who were representing landowners testified. Multiple landowner reps testified they were enrolled in BM.

I honestly don’t know the breakdown of EHA acres vs BM acres vs PALA acres. Does anyone?

Yes. Thats exactly what im saying.

What does 635 have to do with bma/pala?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Yes. Thats exactly what im saying.

What does 635 have to do with bma/pala?

635 includes all public access agreements. EHA, BMA, PALA.

Multiple opponents of 907 testified that they were enrolled in BMA programs. I don’t have any way to verify or disprove those claims and am accepting them at face value.


As I understand 907, the target for positive recruitment into BMA who may be likely to be incentivized by 907 are those NR landowners who own property larger than 640acres but less than 2,500 acres in permit areas.

In the discussions surrounding 635 last session there were between 500-600 properties in the state that were identified as potentially qualifying for 635.

Do we have any idea of how many properties stand to be incentivized by 907?

NR owned properties in general areas are already incentivized to join BMA by the free B-10 license. 220 participate already so those won’t be added by 907.

 

[Forkyfinder]

635 includes all public access agreements. EHA, BMA, PALA.

Multiple opponents of 907 testified that they were enrolled in BMA programs. I don’t have any way to verify or disprove those claims and am accepting them at face value.


As I understand 907, the target for positive recruitment into BMA who may be likely to be incentivized by 907 are those NR landowners who own property larger than 640acres but less than 2,500 acres in permit areas.

In the discussions surrounding 635 last session there were between 500-600 properties in the state that were identified as potentially qualifying for 635.

Do we have any idea of how many properties stand to be incentivized by 907?

NR owned properties in general areas are already incentivized to join BMA by the free B-10 license. 220 participate already so those won’t be added by 907.

No. 635 doesnt include any of that.

Its - heres a tag for your 2500 acres. Theres not shit in there related to access. If you think there is - find it in the bill.

 

[Gerald Martin]

No. 635 doesnt include any of that.

Its - heres a tag for your 2500 acres. Theres not shit in there related to access. If you think there is - find it in the bill.

 

[Forkyfinder]

View attachment 366830

View attachment 366830

This is to receive a bonus point. They receive the license, for nothing. Thats the point. Under 907 - they enroll in bma - they can get an extta BP and combo. Under 635 - 2500 acres entitles you to a license - period.

907 has the same bonus point for someone enrolled in block management.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Under 635 NR landowners receive up to 15% preference over other NR to buy a full price license that is counted against the 17,000 B-10 cap and can only hunt on their deeded land or land rented for agricultural purposes.
They may also buy an additional bonus point for permit areas if enrolled in an FWP administered access program (. EHA, PALA, or BMA)


Outside of 635, NR landowners enrolled in BMA can receive a free B-10 license that is in excess of the 17,000 cap.

Under 907, those landowners who received preference to buy a full price license will lose that preference, but will still qualify for a free license if enrolled BMA.

Additionally, NR landowners owning 640 acres that enroll in BMA can qualify for an additional bonus point for permit.

Generally, we think the argument centers around bonus points for deer and elk but those bonus points can actually be applied towards any permit including moose, sheep, and goat.

 

[Gerald Martin]

They receive the license, for nothing. Thats the point.

This is not true in terms of cost. They pay full price.

NR landowners under 635 receive preference by the same rationale that R landowners receive preference. Because they contribute value to MTcresidents in the form of wildlife habitat. Access is not the rationale for granting preference to landowners, either R or NR. If it were, we should be demanding that R landowners grant public access since they receive preferential treatment in the form of LO preference.


This is one reason why I think the logic of either supporting or opposing NR landowner preference from the standpoint of access is the wrong way to address this issue.

MT law and policy has different standards of access requirements for LO preference depending on residency even though the habitat is all in MT. In my opinion, standardization of how we award LO preference and why we do so is deserving of much broader conversation than what happens with the hodgepodge policy of all these piecemeal pieces of legislation.

It’s confusing and it’s a tinderbox for contention because of the inconsistency of logic.

 

[Labman]

Generally, we think the argument centers around bonus points for deer and elk but those bonus points can actually be applied towards any permit including moose, sheep, and goat.

Deer or elk only. Page 2 on that application.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/buyandapply/hunting/applications/2024/2024_nonresident-combination-license-priority-pool-for-montana-landowners.pdf

 

[Gerald Martin]

Deer or elk only. Page 2 on that application.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/buyandapply/hunting/applications/2024/2024_nonresident-combination-license-priority-pool-for-montana-landowners.pdf

Hmm.. I was understanding that to be a deer or elk license or any permit drawing. I might not be correct. It’s a much better thing if the bonus point is limited only to deer and elk permits.

Otherwise, LO in general units outside of deer/elk permit areas would be eligible for an additional bonus points and enter into direct competition with residents for those permits that don’t have an LE preference pool.

I hope your interpretation is the correct one.

 

[Labman]

Hmm.. I was understanding that to be a deer or elk license or any permit drawing. I might not be correct. It’s a much better thing if the bonus point is limited only to deer and elk permits.

Otherwise, LO in general units outside of deer/elk permit areas would be eligible for an additional bonus points and enter into direct competition with residents for those permits that don’t have an LE preference pool.

I hope your interpretation is the correct one.

It is odd that they don’t have a box to check for which one you want, but in part C on page 2 it does say deer or elk only.

It’s crazy that Resident landowners enrolled in an access program are not afforded the same perk to buy an additional point but that luxury is given to NRs.

Hands down, without question, MT has the most complex and difficult to understand system to issue licenses, permits, and points.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana hunters fight nonresident landowner license giveaway

Resident hunters are hoping to reverse a 2023 law that gives free deer and elk licenses to nonresident landowners just because they own large properties.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Forkyfinder]

Viewpoint: Wrong to give wealthy landowners special tag access

Steve Platt writes, HB 635 violated one of the tenets of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, guaranteeing wealthy non-residents special access to deer and elk tags, while ordinary non-resident hunters and resident hunters got nothing in return.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Gulf of America]

Under 635 NR landowners receive up to 15% preference over other NR to buy a full price license that is counted against the 17,000 B-10 cap and can only hunt on their deeded land or land rented for agricultural purposes.
They may also buy an additional bonus point for permit areas if enrolled in an FWP administered access program (. EHA, PALA, or BMA)

Outside of 635, NR landowners enrolled in BMA can receive a free B-10 license that is in excess of the 17,000 cap.

Does this mean that a NR landowner enrolled in BMA could get two bull/buck tags, or is there a statutory limit or 1 for either-sex tags somewhere else?

 

[Forkyfinder]

"Worse, giving non-residents tags for nothing in return actually disincentivizes Block Management. One of the existing perks for Block Management cooperators, both resident and non, is that they’re given a deer and elk license (in addition to cash from license sales) as a thank you for providing public access. But if non-residents who own chunks of Montana can get these tags (actually 5 tags if they own over 12,500 acres) for providing nothing, what does that do to the existing access incentives? It makes them worthless."

I hope folks read the article. They are better writers than i am.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Does this mean that a NR landowner enrolled in BMA could get two bull/buck tags, or is there a statutory limit or 1 for either-sex tags somewhere else?

R and NR landowners enrolled in Block Management are given a free deer/elk combination license. ( 1 either sex elk and 1 either sex deer). If it is given to a NR that’s called a B-10 license. The NR Block Management B-10’s are in excess of the 17,000 NR cap.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Montana hunters fight nonresident landowner license giveaway

Resident hunters are hoping to reverse a 2023 law that gives free deer and elk licenses to nonresident landowners just because they own large properties.

missoulacurrent.com

Lundquist’s article contains materially false information in that 635 does not give landowners free licenses as she claims.

They pay full price.


The only free licenses given to either R or NR landowners are when landowners are enrolled in BLock Management they are give a free elk/deer combination license.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Lundquist’s article contains materially false information in that 635 does not give landowners free licenses as she claims.

They pay full price.


The only free licenses given to either R or NR landowners are when landowners are enrolled in BLock Management they are give a free elk/deer combination license.

Really? "Receive" is a weird word for "purchase"

i believe your claim they are purchased is false.