Montana HB 907

[Labman]

A NR landowner can't get a ND elk tag. I do know that for a fact, because I am a NR landowner with a LO elk permit eligible ranch.

Yep. That sucks. Some great bulls over there too.

 

[Forkyfinder]

HB907 is going to the senate fish and game committee tomorrow, believe you have to sign up before 1 (meeting begins at 3) to testify remotely.

If you think block management is a good thing and subsidizing NR landowners with no incentives is bad, itd be good to sign up.

Home - Montana Legislature

Notice MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE MCA Search Bill/LC Search Event Details Legislative Meetings & Events Today's Committee Schedule Full Event Calendar Session Calendar Quick Links Committee Hearing Reports A hearing report is a list of bills to be considered by a committee at an upcoming meeting...

www.legmt.gov

Happy to help anyone sign up that needs it - im a millenial and i find the website to be annoying.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Heres a post from BHAs fb page summarizing their support of 907. Plenty of talking points for someone to deliver on:

The Senate Fish & Game Committee should support resident hunters and landowners instead of preserving handouts to wealthy nonresidents.
Tell them to Vote YES on HB 907 (which fixes HB 635).
Last session’s HB 635 created guaranteed no-strings-attached combination deer and elk tag for nonresident landowners for every 2,500 acres they own, up to five combos (10 licenses). There are no additional requirements – if you are a nonresident with money and land, you get a tag. Its gross.
· HB 635 failed to reduce nonresident pressure on public land as promised. Only 131 licenses were awarded last year.
· HB 635 guarantees up to 5 combo tags to nonresidents landowners for owning land with no other strings attached. This is a major violation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which maintains access to Montana’s wildlife should be equitable and not based on the size of one’s bank account.
· HB 635 discourages enrollment in Block Management and other public access programs. When nonresident landowners are guaranteed licenses, with no other requirements in return, it eliminates incentive to participate with resident hunters.
· HB 635 accelerated land sales to the richest out-of-staters as trophy ranch brokers call it a “game-changer” and use it widely as a marketing tool.
· This “game-changer” is pricing Montana’s resident ranchers out of the market as the uber wealthy are willing to pay a premium for exclusive access to our wildlife over agriculture value.
· HB 635 encourages subdivision. A 30K acre ranch could be subdivided into 10K acres to cheat the system and get more corporate owners no-strings-attached elk tags.
Those 131 licenses are important to those 131 nonresidents, though; that’s why they hired a team of high-priced team of lobbyists to prevent any changes to HB 635.
Here is what HB 907 does:
· HB 907 eliminates the guaranteed no-strings-attached combination deer and elk tag to nonresident landowners.
· HB 907 dramatically expands incentives for Block Management participation.
· HB 907 adds more than $200K a year to FWP’s budget through a $5 increase in the non-resident bonus point fee.
· HB 907 discourages current hyper-valuation of ranch land created by nonresident buyers and gives our own resident ranchers a shot to keep their family in ranching.
· HB 907 discourages subdividing because nothing is guaranteed, therefore no incentive to subdivide.
· HB 907 expands incentives for Block Management participation, meaning more lands enrolled Block Management and less pressure on our public lands.
HB 907 passed out the House 74-24 on the 3rd reading, which is remarkable show of bipartisan support. Not one resident hunting group supports 635 at this point. The only people opposing HB 907 are the lobbyists hired by the wealthiest nonresidents.
HB 907 aids resident ranchers, benefits resident hunters, rewards nonresident landowners if they participate with the public, it supports Block Management, it adds significant money to FWP all while canceling 635’s damage.
If you are tired of nonresidents coming here and changing the rules to their benefit through their high-priced lobbyists hammering on our legislators, you must get engaged.
Please contact the Senate Fish & Game Committee before the hearing tomorrow at 3PM Tuesday, April 15 (members can be found at link in the comments). Call, email and text them. We’re being told they are receiving calls from the nonresident landowners – they need to hear from residents. Tell them to represent resident hunters and vote YES on HB 907.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

Isn't the fact that the licenses obtained via HB 635 are only valid on the tag holder's private land a fairly significant detail that should be noted (i.e. there are strings attached)? As a BHA member and Montana NR DIY hunter undecided on the matter it'd be nice to be provided the full picture. It's pretty clear to me that this detail is being purposely omitted to make HB 635 appear worse than it is. I'm not necessarily saying that HB 635 is a great bill but it'd be nice to have organizations you support provide all the facts.

Also, I fail to see how the $5 bonus point fee hike could not just be a separate bill instead of a reason to pass HB 907.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Isn't the fact that the licenses obtained via HB 635 are only valid on the tag holder's private land a fairly significant detail that should be noted (i.e. there are strings attached)? As a BHA member and Montana NR DIY hunter undecided on the matter it'd be nice to be provided the full picture. It's pretty clear to me that this detail is being purposely omitted to make HB 635 appear worse than it is. I'm not necessarily saying that HB 635 is a great bill but it'd be nice to have organizations you support provide all the facts.

Also, I fail to see how the $5 bonus point fee hike could not just be a separate bill instead of a reason to pass HB 907.

If youre a NR DIY guy ive got no idea why youd be for 635.

Under 635:

2500 acre NR LO skip preference points and can "hunt their own property" including leased public land. Note that a majority of ranches for sale in MT over 2500 acres lease some public land. However - this is plainly not enforceable in any fashion and notably no means of verification of that was included in 635 originally. The NR LO using this program directly take from the tags allocated to you as a NR up to 2550 elk gen tags.

Under 907:

No way around PP and getting a license except enrolling in block management with an option to purchase an extra bonus point (that has significant value if theyre applying for a LO permit in their district). The landowners enrolling in this do not directly count against the cap of NR.

Although as R, i dont want more NR tags (no offense) if we are to award above the cap a NR enrolled in BMA is one i dont mind rewarding above the cap.

Ultimately - theres two ways to improve crowding, reduce hunters or grow huntable acreage. 635 over sells a reducing hunters at the expense of NR diy opportunity and 907 (repeal and replace) focuses on adding huntable acreage.

 

[Carnage2011]

Isn't the fact that the licenses obtained via HB 635 are only valid on the tag holder's private land a fairly significant detail that should be noted (i.e. there are strings attached)? As a BHA member and Montana NR DIY hunter undecided on the matter it'd be nice to be provided the full picture. It's pretty clear to me that this detail is being purposely omitted to make HB 635 appear worse than it is. I'm not necessarily saying that HB 635 is a great bill but it'd be nice to have organizations you support provide all the facts.

Also, I fail to see how the $5 bonus point fee hike could not just be a separate bill instead of a reason to pass HB 907.

This is 100% accurate. The fact that they can only hunt private land is a big piece that seems to get left out conveniently. 907 seems like a poorly pieced together bill that does very little.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is 100% accurate. The fact that they can only hunt private land is a big piece that seems to get left out conveniently. 907 seems like a poorly pieced together bill that does very little.

You are misunderstanding - also can hunt leased public and theres literally not one way to know if someone should or should not be on their own land.

 

[Labman]

…HB 907 aids resident ranchers, …

I don’t see how this statement is accurate. The entire Bill is focused on NR LOs. It literally puts R LOs at a disadvantage in the LO draw.

I’m all for the Bill if it is amended to provide the same incentive (additional BP if enrolled in an access program) to R LOs.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t see how this statement is accurate. The entire Bill is focused on NR LOs. It literally puts R LOs at a disadvantage in the LO draw.

I’m all for the Bill if it is amended to provide the same incentive (additional BP if enrolled in an access program) to R LOs.

I follow what you mean - i hadnt connected the dots that the LO pool is in one place (r and nr) until 10% have drawn.

Please write the comittee and seek the amendment.

I will as well.

 

[Labman]

I follow what you mean - i hadnt connected the dots that the LO pool is in one place (r and nr) until 10% have drawn.

Please write the comittee and seek the amendment.

I’ve emailed, texted, and signed up to provide comment.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

If youre a NR DIY guy ive got no idea why youd be for 635.

Under 635:

2500 acre NR LO skip preference points and can "hunt their own property" including leased public land. Note that a majority of ranches for sale in MT over 2500 acres lease some public land. However - this is plainly not enforceable in any fashion and notably no means of verification of that was included in 635 originally. The NR LO using this program directly take from the tags allocated to you as a NR up to 2550 elk gen tags.

Under 907:

No way around PP and getting a license except enrolling in block management with an option to purchase an extra bonus point (that has significant value if theyre applying for a LO permit in their district). The landowners enrolling in this do not directly count against the cap of NR.

Although as R, i dont want more NR tags (no offense) if we are to award above the cap a NR enrolled in BMA is one i dont mind rewarding above the cap.

Ultimately - theres two ways to improve crowding, reduce hunters or grow huntable acreage. 635 over sells a reducing hunters at the expense of NR diy opportunity and 907 (repeal and replace) focuses on adding huntable acreage.

You've pretty much ignored my main point which is that a key detail of HB 635 is being strategically omitted to argue in favor of HB 907. Whether HB 907 is a better bill is a different matter entirely. My main point is that I'd appreciate (particularly as a BHA member) to feel like I'm not being misinformed when trying to make a decision (not that I have much to do on this particular bill as a NR).

I'd also question the logic that HB 635 incentivizes subdividing but HB 907 does not. Even if a bonus point does not guarantee anything it still has value that could incentivize owning exactly 640 acres. Now, perhaps HB 907 will not incentivize subdividing because a bonus point is not much return on opening up your property to the the free-for-all that occurs on many BM properties (not that I don't appreciate BM for what it is and could be).

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t see how this statement is accurate.

As far as the benefit - reduced competition in land purchasing is huge imho. All kinds of ranches have major value based on their hunting opportunities (wildlife) and are marketed as such.

While im glad theres a market for that (wildlife being valued is great!) - its sad to see generational families seeing their neighbors ranches bought up by people with deep pockets wanting their own exclusive slice of huntiing in Montana. To me - the traditional montana land owner isnt a lot different than the people who grew up here who are now getting crowded out of affording housing by the people who didnt.

The fact this (635) was marketed by land agencies to out of state buyers is evidence to me that this is driving up already high land prices that hurt those families via estate and also hurts when they try to acquire more property to compete in agriculture with the ever increasing scale required.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You've pretty much ignored my main point which is that a key detail of HB 635 is being strategically omitted to argue in favor of HB 907. Whether HB 907 is a better bill is a different matter entirely. My main point is that I'd appreciate (particularly as a BHA member) to feel like I'm not being misinformed when trying to make a decision (not that I have much to do on this particular bill as a NR).

I'd also question the logic that HB 635 incentivizes subdividing but HB 907 does not. Even if a bonus point does not guaranteed anything it still has value that could incentivize owning exactly 640 acres. Now, perhaps HB 907 will not incentivize subdividing because a bonus point is not much return on opening up your property to the the free-for-all that occurs on many BM properties (not that I don't appreciate BM for what it is and could be).

I addressed that, and pointed out that its a farce for 2 reasons. 1. They can also hunt public land that was leased (for cattle, as example). 2. Theres literally no way to even check/verify that they are or should be on their own property. The intent of the legislation is to have them hunt their own property - but its just words in a book without some enforcement mechanism.

While it would add incentive to sub divide - if there are many NR LOs in the area applying for permits they will run out of LO permits quickly and there would no longer be as significant reason to subdivide.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I follow what you mean - i hadnt connected the dots that the LO pool is in one place (r and nr) until 10% have drawn.

Please write the comittee and seek the amendment.

There’s also the potential for these LO’s with additional bonus points to forego the LO preference pool and apply for permits in direct competition with other DIY NR’s and R’s until the 10% NR cap is reached.

Within the LO preference pool the max amount of tags NR landowners can draw is 1.5% of total tags.
(10% of 15%)


I’m sure there will be some units where the math works better if they apply in the regular pool for up to 10% of total tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There’s also the potential for these LO’s with additional bonus points to forego the LO preference pool and apply for permits in direct competition with other DIY NR’s and R’s until the 10% NR cap is reached.

Within the LO preference pool the max amount of tags NR landowners can draw is 1.5% of total tags.
(10% of 15%)


I’m sure there will be some units where the math works better if they apply in the regular pool for up to 10% of total tags.

Explain how you enforce a 635 nr land owner hunting their own property.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m sure there will be some units where the math works better if they apply in the regular pool for up to 10% of total tags.

I would love to see that. NR LOs have significantly better odds than R - let alone NR who dont own land.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Explain how you enforce a 635 nr land owner hunting their own property.

The price of rice in China is also not connected to the merits of 907.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The price of rice in China is also not connected to the merits of 907.

Okay. Why does 635 award NR LOs an extra BP and R LOs nothing? Thats relevant enough for you to either deflect or ignore im sure.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would love to see that. NR LOs have significantly better odds than R - let alone NR who dont own land.

907 will actually amplify that. The discrepancy between LO odds whether NR or R non landowners is because they qualify for LO preference and has no connection to 635.

907 will give extra bonus points to wealthy individuals just because they own property….

 

[Carnage2011]

Explain how you enforce a 635 nr land owner hunting their own property.

That’s an enforcement issue, not a bill issue. I think that could be solved through the department.