Montana HB 907

[Forkyfinder]

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.

Correct. And that is true - in either case.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Really? "Receive" is a weird word for "purchase"View attachment 367074

Keep reading. You’ll see it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Keep reading. You’ll see it.

I still dont see that.

Did you read the part out about ag leasing of property being elgible? Theres no limit on the amount of ag business done or anything (just need to have 2500 acres) and a "crop" per 80-8-102A few chickens butchered or eggs should do to meet the definition legally.

Kind of a weird carve out, no?

 

[Gerald Martin]

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

So you are telling me that Block Management areas get a free either sex tag for elk or deer? What about when they are in permit areas?

I hunted a block management area in the Elkhorns this year that was also a bulls for billionaires participant. So they gave me access to land that I already had access to through Block Managment so they could get an extra license and you are telling me they already had an extra license because they were in block management too? They got 3 licenses through the "Bulls for Billionaires" program and they also get one for it being a block managment area?! So the landowners for that particular land get 4 LE permits for elk EVERY YEAR for putting their worthless piece of land into the block management program?

This piece of land they give access to is by the way worthless for hunting and is largely a wasteland. The land next door that they own that they don't give over to block management is where all the animals are.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So you are telling me that Block Management areas get a free either sex tag for elk or deer? What about when they are in permit areas?

I hunted a block management area in the Elkhorns this year that was also a bulls for billionaires participant. So they gave me access to land that I already had access to through Block Managment so they could get an extra license and you are telling me they already had an extra license because they were in block management too? They got 3 licenses through the "Bulls for Billionaires" program and they also get one for it being a block managment area?! So the landowners for that particular land get 4 LE permits for elk EVERY YEAR for putting their worthless piece of land into the block management program?

This piece of land they give access to is by the way worthless for hunting and is largely a wasteland. The land next door that they own that they don't give over to block management is where all the animals are.

They get a free general elk and deer license for the BMA enrollment. If they’re in a permit area they get the opportunity to buy an additional bonus point for the LO preference pool permit draw.

I don’t know the particulars of how the 454 program works in terms of whether LE permits are granted automatically along with licenses.

Your experience is one reason that giving free licenses for an indeterminate amount of unknown quality habitat and then paying them BMA dollars paid into the BMA program by full price NR applicants can be problematic.

Great concept, great program. Very little accountability in regards to quality access provided.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I still dont see that.

Did you read the part out about ag leasing of property being elgible? Theres no limit on the amount of ag business done or anything (just need to have 2500 acres) and a "crop" per 80-8-102A few chickens butchered or eggs should do to meet the definition legally.

Kind of a weird carve out, no?

The leasing portion only applies to acreage they’re allowed to hunt. Eligibility for preference is dependent on deeded acreage owned.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The leasing portion only applies to acreage they’re allowed to hunt. Eligibility for preference is dependent on deeded acreage owned.View attachment 367086

Right. I am saying how further pointless the "on your own land" myth is.

Plenty of people can hunt on public land or other private land (via chicken lease) their ranch leases by means of this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So you are telling me that Block Management areas get a free either sex tag for elk or deer? What about when they are in permit areas?

I hunted a block management area in the Elkhorns this year that was also a bulls for billionaires participant. So they gave me access to land that I already had access to through Block Managment so they could get an extra license and you are telling me they already had an extra license because they were in block management too? They got 3 licenses through the "Bulls for Billionaires" program and they also get one for it being a block managment area?! So the landowners for that particular land get 4 LE permits for elk EVERY YEAR for putting their worthless piece of land into the block management program?

This piece of land they give access to is by the way worthless for hunting and is largely a wasteland. The land next door that they own that they don't give over to block management is where all the animals are.

Your experience is one of the reasons why I am not convinced that lowering the acreage from 2500 to 640 is going to practically be a better deal for residents.

This is already happening in some situations where some landowners are playing by the rules of the law if not by the fair deal spirit of the incentives granted.

I doubt this can be legislated well. Knowing human nature, it is my opinion that these types of marginal quality access agreements in exchange for free licenses and extra bounus points will probably increase if 907 passes. It’s totally unprovable but I know that if I were a NR landowner who had been granted preference under 635 and had allowed formal or informal public access in the spirit of being a good neighbor in the community, I would be far more inclined to employ several of these other strategies to secure near guarantees for licenses and permits that would be far less generous to the general public for access if 907 passes than I would be under 635.

Maybe that makes me a bad person. I’m just being honest and trying to figure out how I would feel if it were my property.

 

[Badlandcat]

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.

In ND there is a land description sheet stapled to your gratis tag

 

[Forkyfinder]

In ND there is a land description sheet stapled to your gratis tag

Great idea.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

Your experience is one of the reasons why I am not convinced that lowering the acreage from 2500 to 640 is going to practically be a better deal for residents.

This is already happening in some situations where some landowners are playing by the rules of the law if not by the fair deal spirit of the incentives granted.

I doubt this can be legislated well. Knowing human nature, it is my opinion that these types of marginal quality access agreements in exchange for free licenses and extra bounus points will probably increase if 907 passes. It’s totally unprovable but I know that if I were a NR landowner who had been granted preference under 635 and had allowed formal or informal public access in the spirit of being a good neighbor in the community, I would be far more inclined to employ several of these other strategies to secure near guarantees for licenses and permits that would be far less generous to the general public for access if 907 passes than I would be under 635.

Maybe that makes me a bad person. I’m just being honest and trying to figure out how I would feel if it were my property.

All of this is just overly complicated. It needs to be simplified. All these special programs need to go away. Make it simple.

I read the regs and pay attention as much as I can and things still surprise me. Among my group of friends I am always the one that has to explain the regulations and what is going on but even I can't keep up with all the intricacies of all the programs/tags/regs and other things.

Make it SIMPLE!

 

[Forkyfinder]

I were a NR landowner who had been granted preference under 635 and had allowed formal or informal public access in the spirit of being a good neighbor in the community, I would be far more inclined to employ several of these other strategies to secure near guarantees for licenses and permits that would be far less generous to the general public for access if 907 passes than I would be under 635.

Why dont you show the math on 70k acres?

Was it 1 cancer stricken kid hunting a 30k acre ranch, and 2 wounded vets hunting 20k acre ranches? Would it be a good deal then?

 

[Labman]

In ND there is a land description sheet stapled to your gratis tag

For deer yes.

In ND for Elk the LO can hunt the whole unit. And it isn’t 1x in a lifetime. No access incentive. If I lived in ND I’d probably have a bit of an issue with the way that system operates.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Your experience is one of the reasons why I am not convinced that lowering the acreage from 2500 to 640 is going to practically be a better deal for residents.

This is already happening in some situations where some landowners are playing by the rules of the law if not by the fair deal spirit of the incentives granted.

I doubt this can be legislated well. Knowing human nature, it is my opinion that these types of marginal quality access agreements in exchange for free licenses and extra bounus points will probably increase if 907 passes. It’s totally unprovable but I know that if I were a NR landowner who had been granted preference under 635 and had allowed formal or informal public access in the spirit of being a good neighbor in the community, I would be far more inclined to employ several of these other strategies to secure near guarantees for licenses and permits that would be far less generous to the general public for access if 907 passes than I would be under 635.

Maybe that makes me a bad person. I’m just being honest and trying to figure out how I would feel if it were my property.

Gerald. This is either intellectually dishonest or misunderstanding what is going on.

If 907 - does not pass - a NR LO (even with less than 2500 acres) can still enroll dumpy acreage that wont hold wildlife in BMA and get the extra bonus point anyway.

If you believe thats a problem (and im with you) thats a seperate problem that neither 625 (23 session) or 907 (25 session) address.

 

[Labman]

… can still enroll dumpy acreage that wont hold wildlife in BMA and get the extra bonus point anyway.

With the BMA application process acceptance isn’t an absolute guarantee. You have to meet with the local BMA rep and a few other FWP folks; it gets reviewed by quite a few sets of eyes. If the land is of no value for hunters it won’t be enrolled in the program.

 

[Forkyfinder]

With the BMA application process acceptance isn’t an absolute guarantee. You have to meet with the local BMA rep and a few other FWP folks; it gets reviewed by quite a few sets of eyes. If the land is of no value for hunters it won’t be enrolled in the program.

@Gerald Martin cant use @Stone_Ice_1 's experience with a bad bma to discredit the benefits of 907 - was my point.

I dont think it will be fruitful to deal with BMA usefulness audits in this thread.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gerald. This is either intellectually dishonest or misunderstanding what is going on.

If 907 - does not pass - a NR LO (even with less than 2500 acres) can still enroll dumpy acreage that wont hold wildlife in BMA and get the extra bonus point anyway.

If you believe thats a problem (and im with you) thats a seperate problem that neither 625 (23 session) or 907 (25 session) address.

How is it either intellectually dishonest or not understanding what is going on?

It’s already happening, whether that’s a function of the BM incentive program or EHA’s independent of 635 or on property enrolled under 635, those types of schemes aren’t going to decrease under 907.

I’m inclined to see it as a separate problem overall.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It’s already happening, whether that’s a function of the BM incentive program or EHA’s independent of 635 or on property enrolled under 635, those types of schemes aren’t going to decrease under 907.

That - is sort of my point exactly. The bm incentive program exists with both 635 and 907. Less incentives exist to enroll if 635 remains and is not repealed via 907.

So your point is that less enrolled acres in Bma, because theres more ways around it via 635 as compared to 907, is a good thing? Am i correct?

I assumed your position was the opposite. Typically public land hunters want more access.

 

[brockel]

Does it say what the BMA has to be good for in order to get the tags? There’s a non resident land owner over here that has his land in BMA for upland game birds but does Land Trust for everything else