Montana nonresident landowner get elk tags every year?

[mtmuley]

All I want for Christmas is for you to one of my posts instead of always ’ing at me.

I feel too, @mtmuley.

Sorry. Coal incoming. mtmuley

 

[jimh406]

People with a lot of money hunt all over the world and kill "trophies" ... well, if you call it hunting, some don't. Paying a full service guide, so that all you have to do is pull the trigger isn't very interesting to me. But, if it's legal, it's ok with me.

Change the laws if you don't like it. As it is, there is still plenty of game in MT. Maybe I won't kill a giant, but that's not a problem for me.

 

[cgasner1]

Where did 8% come from? 50 states don’t offer them, so that’s the wrong denominator.

The sad thing is it’s probably like the gun/government joke. If 8% of states have tags for purchase how many states can I purchase tags in. 15% I know some shady people

 

[Ought Six]

On the resident landowner preference side of things, the devils advocate might say that some landowners might host animals year round that are unkillable during legal shooting light, entering and leaving their property in the dark year round, and the only way to catch them is on the adjacent public. I know a few that would have a difficult time killing an elk during shooting light on their place. Just another thought

 

[belshawelk]

Should there even be resident landowner tags?

Yes. Only if they are willing to either increase or restore habitat as I do. My property provides water, food and shelter all year. It is only used for hunting and some cattle in summer. we are losing more and more space. Without GOOD landowners critters would be in more trouble.

 

[jimh406]

Yes. Only if they are willing to either increase or restore habitat as I do. My property provides water, food and shelter all year. It is only used for hunting and some cattle in summer. we are losing more and more space. Without GOOD landowners critters would be in more trouble.

And, it's not every landowner. The bar is fairly high at 160 contiguous acres for Mule Deer and 640 contiguous for Elk in MT.

 

[LopeHunter]

In my mind it would be a lot easier to understand if they could only hunt their land but it’s tough when you run into them on the public lands hunting for their trophy of a lifetime that they get to hunt way more often than the average person

I am against any "set asides" for landowners, veterans, disabled, conservation mentors etc. Nor guides. Nor more than two tags per species can be pulled from the tag pool of which the first is for a state-run lottery and one more can be for a state-run auction and all proceeds go to F&G. Turn in a poacher that does a plea or is convicted then you get a tag. If you are a youth then perhaps one lifetime tag for a low demand item in the resident state such as a doe or cow or turkey tag. Landowners will point out that the animals they help water and feed are not always on the property when the tag is valid. Simple solution. No tags for landowners.

Is easy to make an argument that if you don't love this group or that group then you hate the military, emergency response, etc. Those men and women volunteer for those jobs with eyes wide open that those careers are challenging and might mean lower take home pay than if chose another path. Please, chose a path you have a passion for and good luck drawing a hunting tag.

 

[LopeHunter]

Yes. Only if they are willing to either increase or restore habitat as I do. My property provides water, food and shelter all year. It is only used for hunting and some cattle in summer. we are losing more and more space. Without GOOD landowners critters would be in more trouble.

The state has ways to reward certain behaviors. Property tax breaks. You can do conservation easements in some states that are permanent. You can do 10-year CRP commitments. Awarding tags seems a disconnect. What if I like habitat but am anti-hunter? I can use a property tax break or state income tax break but a hunting tag is an insult.

 

[jimh406]

The state has ways to reward certain behaviors. Property tax breaks. You can do conservation easements in some states that are permanent. You can do 10-year CRP commitments. Awarding tags seems a disconnect. What if I like habitat but am anti-hunter? I can use a property tax break or state income tax break but a hunting tag is an insult.

Sounds like you are against all of the groups that you don't belong to.

 

[WanderWoman]

There’s a couple things being talked about on this thread. Landowner preference, and 454, aka EHA tags.

Landowner preference is part of the draw, in which case 15% of a permit/license quota is set aside for landowners to possibly draw. Because it’s a draw permit/license, said landowner draws a permit/license that’s valid across the entire HD, just like any other hunter drawing that same permit or license. The idea behind providing a landowner the opportunity at landowner preference is to recognize that game animals cause impacts to private land. @rogerthat, the reason FWP says it’s a permit valid HD-wide vs. only on that deeded land is that game animals may not be on a landowner’s property during hunting season. Perhaps they’re only there in the winter, spring, or summer. Yet those game animals can still cause impacts. This program does not have access tied to it.

Now the EHA program awards a permit to a landowner only valid on their deeded land, with the purpose of providing additional access. This is a permit beyond what the regular HD permit quota is. Landowners apply for this program in exchange for allowing 3 hunters on their property. The hunter’s licenses or permits are from the regular draw/pool and are thus valid district wide; those hunters just have an additional opportunity to hunt a certain landowner’s property. The original law was interpreted as landowner gets a bull (ES) permit in exchange for allowing 4, and then later reduced to 3 ES hunters. It has since changed to not be as such; I think FWP administers it as at least one ES hunter and 2 cow hunters minimum. The law and rules have changed a few times.

None of these opportunities are transferable, but a LO can designate a family member or full time employee to receive their permit during the application process.

 

[rogerthat]

And, it's not every landowner. The bar is fairly high at 160 contiguous acres for Mule Deer and 640 contiguous for Elk in MT.

Depends which side of the state your talking about

 

[Nameless Range]

And, it's not every landowner. The bar is fairly high at 160 contiguous acres for Mule Deer and 640 contiguous for Elk in MT.

It’s lower for the 454 permits. I’ve seen landowners who don’t qualify for LO preference get LE permits via that route.

Lots of benefits for landowners out there.

 

[rogerthat]

There’s a couple things being talked about on this thread. Landowner preference, and 454, aka EHA tags.

Landowner preference is part of the draw, in which case 15% of a permit/license quota is set aside for landowners to possibly draw. Because it’s a draw permit/license, said landowner draws a permit/license that’s valid across the entire HD, just like any other hunter drawing that same permit or license. The idea behind providing a landowner the opportunity at landowner preference is to recognize that game animals cause impacts to private land. @rogerthat, the reason FWP says it’s a permit valid HD-wide vs. only on that deeded land is that game animals may not be on a landowner’s property during hunting season. Perhaps they’re only there in the winter, spring, or summer. Yet those game animals can still cause impacts. This program does not have access tied to it.

Now the EHA program awards a permit to a landowner only valid on their deeded land, with the purpose of providing additional access. This is a permit beyond what the regular HD permit quota is. Landowners apply for this program in exchange for allowing 3 hunters on their property. The hunter’s licenses or permits are from the regular draw/pool and are thus valid district wide; those hunters just have an additional opportunity to hunt a certain landowner’s property. The original law was interpreted as landowner gets a bull (ES) permit in exchange for allowing 4, and then later reduced to 3 ES hunters. It has since changed to not be as such; I think FWP administers it as at least one ES hunter and 2 cow hunters minimum. The law and rules have changed a few times.

None of these opportunities are transferable, but a LO can designate a family member or full time employee to receive their permit during the application process.

Oh I’m very aware of the intent of the landowner preference. That doesn’t change the gaming of the system that is currently happening as referenced in posts in this thread.