Montana HB 907

[Forkyfinder]

Gerald is cool. And who said I won’t?

You’re no one to talk about posting grip-and-grins, you posted one antelope with your face covered.

I’m left to wonder… do you really even hunt?

Why havent you bought an eplus tag, if you post weekly about them being a better deal?

Third times gotta be the charm.

 

[Treeshark]

Why havent you bought an eplus tag, if you post weekly about them being a better deal?

Third times gotta be the charm.

Because Colorado is closer and I like hunting there.

I’m not sure why you’re so focused on what I do personally- this discussion is about improving game populations and access for everyone.

Montana’s structure is needlessly complex- a lot of people are way too preoccupied with getting as much as they can without paying for it that they miss the boat actually creating meaningful change.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Because Colorado is closer and I like hunting there.

I’m not sure why you’re so focused on what I do personally- this discussion is about improving game populations and access for everyone.

Eplus systems are the opposite of impoving access for everyone. Im open to being wrong, and ive begged you to start a thread proving the merits of it.

What you personally do, as someone living in an elkless place, is absolutely relevant because you personally choose not to, even though you are personally the only person ive met or interacted with online that feels its a better system for access to all.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana’s structure is needlessly complex- a lot of people are way too preoccupied with getting as much as they can without paying for it that they miss the boat actually creating meaningful change.

Im not sure what you mean here. Why dont you expand.

Id hope its not about NR tags. I literally just defended guys like you getting more of them.

 

[Treeshark]

Im not sure what you mean here. Why dont you expand.

Id hope its not about NR tags. I literally just defended guys like you getting more of them.

Sure thing.

1. Montana’s game regulations are far too complex. It does not need to be this way.

2. The NR cap is abused. The worse part is a lot of the tags over the cap aren’t even full NR price. If I was a resident, this would piss me off to no end.

3. BMA is dying. The overall enrollment is diminishing despite great effort and money being spent to reverse course. Type 2 is badly abused by landowners, and the quality of land being enrolled is arguably getting worse.

4. Mule deer (and antelope) are hurting. Same as many other states, but the difference is they do something about it. Simple solution: change season dates and jack the price up for everyone. But people would lose their minds if this ever happened for residents.

5. As a general observation: Game populations on public= bad. Game populations on private= better (in the case of elk, perhaps too much so in some spots). There is a simple and effective solution to this: E-Plus or a Colorado-style system.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sure thing.

1. Montana’s game regulations are far too complex. It does not need to be this way.

2. The NR cap is abused. The worse part is a lot of the tags over the cap aren’t even full NR price. If I was a resident, this would piss me off to no end.

3. BMA is dying. The overall enrollment is diminishing despite great effort and money being spent to reverse course. Type 2 is badly abused by landowners, and the quality of land being enrolled is arguably getting worse.

4. Mule deer (and antelope) are hurting. Same as many other states, but the difference is they do something about it. Simple solution: change season dates and jack the price up for everyone. But people would lose their minds if this ever happened for residents.

5. As a general observation: Game populations on public= bad. Game populations on private= better (in the case of elk, perhaps too much so in some spots). There is a simple and effective solution to this: E-Plus or a Colorado-style system.

1. I agree and disagree. Theres nuance to every western state. Montana is a very diverse state - regions with little to no public land and regions that are dominated by public land are very different to manage, with federally protected predators in much of the state. Its not at all like the south or midwest where theres essentially one big game species and isolated plots of public land.

2. It sure is. We need a cap on NR upland hunters especially - given their outsized use of BMA. It sure does piss me off, i think it does most here.

3. Ive hunted some great type 2. Some of it being abused is bad - i agree. We should probably all email fwp, and let them know of the frauding of other landowners thats going on rather than bitch on the internent. I would say that we need to look at incentives for BMA, thats sort of the point of the bill (907) and the thread.

4. Thats a lot of winter/disease/covid hunters/aggressive doe management stacking together. Its been a hard time for deer and antelope. But i have hope with the corrections being made to doe tags and the conversations about changing the season and the better weather things can and will change.

5. Ive killed (wounded last year, cause i f'ing blew it) an elk on public land 3 consecutive years. Got a couple before that. Most of the days ive hunted here over 10ish years, ive encountered elk on public land. We speak negatively too often about hunting here, me included and especially. I encourage you to come try it

 

[Elky Welky]

Montana’s game regulations are far too complex. It does not need to be this way.

All I've ever had to do is hop online and buy my licenses, then crack open the regs, decide where I want to go, and find out what I'm allowed to hunt in that region. It's pretty straightforward for people willing to pay Montana income taxes.

 

[Treeshark]

It's pretty straightforward for people willing to pay Montana income taxes.

It has taken 9 pages to accurately identify what exactly 635 and 907 actually do.

 

[Elky Welky]

It has taken 9 pages to accurately identify what exactly 635 and 907 actually do.

Regulations are not legislative bills.

 

[cgasner1]

It has taken 9 pages to accurately identify what exactly 635 and 907 actually do.

It’s been accurately identified?

 

[Treeshark]

It’s been accurately identified?

Ha. Fair point. I feel like they are definitely getting warmer though.

 

[Elky Welky]

Ha. Fair point. I feel like they are definitely getting warmer though.

I think it has been pretty straightforward actually. 635 gives handouts to the rich and asks nothing in return, 907 attempted to rectify that.

The rest is just Gerald spinning his wheels trying to justify why we owe the wealthiest and most entitled among us our public resources, and Forky spinning his wheels in response. Lots of dead horses getting pummeled into the ground.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It has taken 9 pages to accurately identify what exactly 635 and 907 actually do.

The more complex it is the easier it is to conceal your intent on who to benefit and how.

I'll try so summarize why its ugly for you as short as possible:

Tldr; 635 granted bonus points (to improve their odds) for NR LO permits enrolling in sham 454 access programs and promised them a general licence for purchase so they dont risk not drawing it via preference points. Previously, a NR LO could only enter into the LE draw after geting a general license via preference points. Now wealthy NR buying hunting paradises can hunt LE units more often (and not just on their own land) than every other class of hunter. Especially BS to the R LO in LE units in the eastern part of the state- Heres how:

1. Buy a preference point for 3 consecutive years, but enroll in the NR LO preference pool. 3 years of obviously unverifiable hunting of land you own or lease (including public) in a LE unit.
2. Enroll in a 454 program all 3 of those years, smile with 6 bonus points in the "LO pool" of which includes very few NR. Putting you on equal footing.
3. Take your 6 bonus points and 3 preference points and have near certainty of drawing a coveted LE permit relative to any other applicant.

Hunting the breaks with a rifle every year would be pretty cool i imagine.

@Gerald Martin - did i lie anywhere, and if so, specifically please point me to where i said something thats impossible?

 

[Treeshark]

That is all so needlessly complex.

BMA is dying. Things like 635/907 won’t save it. Most landowners don’t want to give free access to their land (at least not the good parts), and it’s not really fair or reasonable to expect them to. The financial incentive provided under current programs is not proving to be a sufficient incentive.

Give them a few transferable tags in exchange for access to their land. This is so much easier than you are making it out to be.

 

[Elky Welky]

Give them a few transferable tags in exchange for access to their land.

Over our dead body. That's not the Montana way.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Most landowners don’t want to give free access to their land, and it’s not fair or reasonable to expect them to.

Absolutely agree here treecarp.

What i dont agree with is that block management or anything else requires access.

LOs (NR and R) have dramatically higher chances of getting permits than R and NR. Its actually a pretty good setup as is (prior to 635). Id argue the areas should be larger but whatever. Complicated or not its a lot better than transferable LO tags.