More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[Deleted member 28227]

Only in MT are white people considered "native" because they were born there, and actual natives are shunned.

 

[Bambistew]

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC1964.pdf

What, no sponsors? Who wrote this the #MAGA Klan?

 

[Bambistew]

Respectuflly, I don't read it like that.




This is the new language in bold. It clearly adds the spouse of a natural or adoptive child.

Agreed. It means my wife can get a tag, and then sponsor my daughter and get her a 1/2 price NR youth combo (no cap). So in effect we can go from just 2 of us getting tags (me and my son) to my whole family.

#nativepride

 

[406dn]

Pulling them out of the 17K would reduce funding for Block Management & Habitat MT, so I'd likely be less than supportive of that, personally.

The B10 & B11 are statutorily attached to those programs, so it would be a net reduction in access funding.

Meh,

Too many bad ideas get thru because they are packaged with a sweetener of not raising (fees, taxes, licenses, yada, yada) on a voting constituency. I'd offer the ubiquity of casinos across the state as another blight that is allowed to continue largely because they are also a cash cow, with out directly taxing residents.

Here's an idea. Just like there is a two level option for state land access, offer a separate opt in fee on resident licenses that allows a person to use block management areas.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

No reason to care, residents don't, why should anyone else?

Shoulder seasons.

Saturday opener.

Kids deer hunt.

Muzzleloader season.

Lower age to 10 for kids deer hunting.

$20 resident elk tags, $16 deer tags.

Elk b tags.

6 weeks archery hunting, brown it's down.

5 weeks rifle, brown it's down.

Multiple mule deer per hunter in region 7.

202 observed elk in the Bob.

8 observed elk in unit 202.

"Lost" 100+ elk north of Missoula in the north hills.

3.6 bulls per 100 cows good enough to consider adding 2 weeks and more limited tags in 313.

But, but, those dang native tags.

Funny...take a guess who allowed all that shit to pass.

Keep pulling that R lever...you're doing great.

Like I said, I've voiced my opposition to all of it, residents knew better and allowed it all to pass.

You want to blame someone for your woes, go look in the mirror.

Can we get a "senior citizen" (over 55) tag too....that would help me with odds.... LOL...Maybe that's next....

 

[Straight Arrow]

Can we get a "senior citizen" (over 55) tag too....that would help me with odds.... LOL...Maybe that's next....

Bull-anytime-anywhere-4 twenty buck$. There's got to be an old timer who will sponsor it.
Got to kill those pesky wapiti down to objectives.

 

[nygc-randy-banned]

<Sent>

Hello Senator McGillvray, Senator Regier, and Senator Fuller,

My name is Scott and I live in Kalispell. I've just reviewed a draft of a bill being supported by Senator McGillvray to expand the definition of non-resident hunters and in turn increase the number of people who would qualify for special discounts. Given the recent discussion here in Kalispell regarding the challenges of increased non-resident hunting pressure on our natural resource, I'm asking that this bill not get carried forward at this time. As was made evident in that discussion, we need to resolve how to manage our current non-resident load on our natural resource which could, and perhaps should, include restricting the definition, not expanding it.

Sincerely,
Scott

Excellent letter.

Mentioning NR Pressure three times makes it clear that the issue (for you, and many Montanans) is very specifically pressure from specific persons, non-residents. And not pressure from any source (hunters, generally).

After all, those NR (but MT Born) kids-in-law and NR (but MT born) grandkids (who still have a resident MT parent/grandpa) might have a parent/grandpa in Colorado they can go hunt with. They don’t need Montana to have fun…

 

[nygc-randy-banned]

Respectuflly, I don't read it like that.




This is the new language in bold. It clearly adds the spouse of a natural or adoptive child.

It is NOT easy language to dissect.

MT FWP is already enforcing the current version of 87-2-514 and their NR MT Native Hunt app/form clearly requires the NR be MT born (himself) and then also have a qualifying resident remaining in MT. So, FWP is concurring with how Sen McGilvray and I interpret this language. (As to the MT born requirement)

The only NR folks proposed to be added here are:

1. Kids-in-law (that were BORN in MT)
2. Grandkids (that were BORN in MT)

The “spouses of” is only to capture kids in law (watch the comma placement carefully). That “spouses of” does NOT capture all spouses generally or even spouses of grandkids (grandkids-in-law).

But keep in mind that most Grandkids would already have qualified before as kids. Unless their parents left MT or died (and now they would qualify if a grandparent remained in MT).

The footer on the page indicates that this proposed revision has already passed through Montana “Legislative Services Division” and they are experts on statutory construction and constructing lists of this type. They KNOW state law as to how these types of commas and lists are interpreted by MT courts.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is NOT easy language to dissect.

MT FWP is already enforcing the current version of 87-2-514 and their NR MT Native Hunt app/form clearly requires the NR be MT born (himself) and then also have a qualifying resident remaining in MT. So, FWP is concurring with how Sen McGilvray and I interpret this language. (As to the MT born requirement)

The only NR folks proposed to be added here are:

1. Kids-in-law (that were BORN in MT)
2. Grandkids (that were BORN in MT)

The “spouses of” is only to capture kids in law (watch the comma placement carefully). That “spouses of” does NOT capture all spouses generally or even spouses of grandkids (grandkids-in-law).

But keep in mind that most Grandkids would already have qualified before as kids. Unless their parents left MT or died (and now they would qualify if a grandparent remained in MT).

The footer on the page indicates that this proposed revision has already passed through Montana “Legislative Services Division” and they are experts on statutory construction and constructing lists of this type. They KNOW state law as to how these types of commas and lists are interpreted by MT courts.

Again, respectfully, the bill seeks to literally change the definition of a non resident relative to include spouses & grandchildren. That's the entirety of the bill: to add those two to the definition of who qualifies.

 

[sacountry]

Excellent letter.

Mentioning NR Pressure three times makes it clear that the issue (for you, and many Montanans) is very specifically pressure from specific persons, non-residents. And not pressure from any source (hunters, generally).

After all, those NR (but MT Born) kids-in-law and NR (but MT born) grandkids (who still have a resident MT parent/grandpa) might have a parent/grandpa in Colorado they can go hunt with. They don’t need Montana to have fun…

It's a small number of folks who qualify for the expanded definition, but it's continuing down a path that needs to be reversed not enhanced. Is it a beachhead that needs to be taken? Probably not, but it could become one in light of the strong anti NR sentiment expressed at the FWP Citizens Advisory meeting held here in late November.

Keep in mind you're painting an absolute picture that grandkids can't hunt here which is a false narrative. They absolutely can. Either participate in the NR drawing or have mom and dad move back to MT as I did to become a resident. It's literally that straightforward.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Figured that I would copy & paste this here rather than bump the original thread.

If things don't change in a "BIG" way, hunting on Montana's public lands will be nothing more than a nature hike with beautiful vistas to view and no game on the landscape.

Mtnhunter1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[IMG alt="Big Fin"]https://www.hunttalk.com/data/avatars/m/12/12015.jpg?1571925455[/IMG]
Big Fin

Administrator​

Staff member Joined Dec 27, 2000 Messages 15,905 Location Bozeman, MT





In response to all the recent comments about the MT draw system, I’m putting this in the Montana specific forum, hoping folks who have ideas for their state will do the same.

A few things we know for sure:

- Montana’s licensing system is a dilapidated and outdated system from the 1970s.

- Montana FWP has shown struggles in administering this system, many years having drawing problems that results in more tags being issued.

- Montana has become the “handout” state when it comes to way to circumvent the statutory 17,000/4,600 elk/deer tag limit most refer to.

- “Institutional Inertia” prevents the Department from making necessary changes or advocating to the legislature the benefits of change.

- Huge risk comes with asking the Legislature to tweak or change anything.


With that, I’m, interested in ideas that would help Montana get into the current millennium as it relates to licensing systems. I’ll throw out ideas that have been bouncing in my mind for a long time, some of which I have shared with the Director and Commissioners over the last six months.

Since I know I’d be lucky to convince anyone of major reform, here are small tweaks I would make:

1. Conduct the Landowner Draw as the first part of the process. Any non-resident LE tags awarded in this draw apply toward the 10% NR quota limit and come out of the 17,000/4,600 combo tag allocation. (I have some pretty strong feelings about what a terrible deal we are getting from these tags, but that is for a different discussion).

2. After the Landowner Draw, do the Limited Entry draw. That eliminates this crazy hurdle that NRs must draw a General Combo license in order to be in the LE draw. And it eliminates the “released” combo tags when NRs return their general license when not drawn in the LE draw. If a non-resident draws an LE tag, it comes out of the 17,000/4,600. After all the NRs that drew LE tags are awarded their combo tag, do a draw for the remaining NR General licenses.

3. Decouple the deer portion of the Elk/Deer combo tags. If people want a deer tag, apply for that, also. The give away of deer tags as part of a combo is a relic of the 70's and Montana is the only state still doing it. Maybe it would require increasing the NR deer tags some, but let's stop the "add-on" discount for a commodity that is getting hammered.

4. With regard to the Come Home To Hunt, the Montana Native, or the College Student programs that let NRs get tags without being in the General NR draw, I would eliminate all of those programs. If that was not palatable, then those tags need to come out of the 17,000/4,600 that is always pitched to us a hard cap on NR tags.

5. Eliminate the 454 Program and the abuse that program has demonstrated to foster.

6. Require anyone buying a General Tag for deer or elk, whether resident or non-resident, to pick their unit. If that is too restrictive, then at least force them to pick their Region. Whatever area you pick, that is your hunt for the year, for all weapons/seasons.

7. Eliminate the Preference Point system for NR combo tags and make it a bonus point system. Convert PP to BPs and put no cap on how many BPs someone can accumulate, at the rate of one per year without any BS that outfitted clients can accumulate more than one BP per year.

8. If #7 above can't be done, allow the remaining 25% of NR combo tags not issued to highest point holders to be allocated in a draw to all who did not draw in the 75% portion of the draw. Starting at the bottom of the PP pile for this 25% pool of the tags makes no sense; it makes 1-point holders have lower draw odds than 0-point holders. The current manner was not the intent when it was discussed in the legislature.

9. Get rid of the Landowner Sponsored NR Deer Tag. Add that to the NR General Deer pool.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






My name is Randy Newberg and I approved this post. What is written is my opinion, and my opinion only.

"Hunt when you can. You're gonna run outta health before you run outta money."

 

[Big Fin]

@nygc and @nygc-randy-banned

You might think you are funny plugging up the forum with multiple registrations and using one to say you were banned. You weren't banned. If you were banned, it would have a line through your user registration. Example below.


Here is what your registration looks like ten seconds ago. You've not been banned.



The fact that you can't figure out how to use a forum or that the software has identified you as a "suspicious" registrant is your problem. I haven't banned anyone for a month. But, thanks to you, that's likely to change over the weekend when I have time to go through the other folks who the software has identified as "suspicious." History, and the software, tells me there is a lot more to this than just your last two registrations and your tantrum on this thread.

Regardless of your claims that you've been banned, the more important issue is your interaction with members. You come here under a new registration, instantly telling people how ignorant they are, that they can't read legislation, stating how their emails are incorrect (even though you haven't seen the emails), and taking a big shit on the forum and the members who use it for a good purpose. And in the process you give a strong impression that you have something at stake with this piece of legislation, something that is a pretty small issue on the radar of the huge issues that are coming our way this session.

So, in about five minutes, both of your registrations will have a line through them. This forum and the purpose it serves for communicating important issues is not going to be polluted with people who interact as you have. If you had a differing opinion and communicated that, no problem. Acting like an ass, then making multiple registrations to imply you been banned and the world is picking on you, is a quick path to the door.

If anyone watching wonders why forum owners tire of dealing with this shit, Mr. NYGC is a good example. This is a never ending issue with the world of anonymity, lack of maturity, and a society with too many folks who think the world revolves around them and their opinions. End result, a forum used as a community gathering for important issues of hunting, conservation, and access gets shit on by folks who think they and their opinions are bigger than the issues at hand.

We've got a long off season ahead, with every state in legislative session. Stunts like NYGC pulled and similar whining, sniveling, and being an ass or a prick isn't helpful and isn't why this forum exists.

 

[nygc-randy-banned]

... You state that it is a punch at the Wyoming Task Force, I'd be interested in how to connect those dots. I couldn't have dreamed up that connection of these issues with 1,000 guesses. I bet the bill sponsor couldn't tell you what the Wyoming Task Force was/is, so I doubt he could craft a bill in response to that task force he is unaware of....

Sorry, I will connect the dots more explicitly.

Like many others, many Montanans felt slighted by the actions of the WY Task Force. Especially regarding 90/10 on Big 5 and how WY raised Moose/Sheep points to $150 only to massively devalue those points a couple years later. Residents of ALL states walked away from that experience and looked to how their home state agency could be used to get even. E.g., tighten up leftover/reissue rules, change allocations and close NR loopholes.

The email campaign of this thread will be more successful because of the bad taste in the mouths of Montanans left by what the Wyoming TF did to them. Thus, part of what underlies this thread is Montana “returning the punch” inflicted by the Wyoming task force.

If not for what WY Task Force, I believe the good folks of Montana would not be so up-in-arms over giving some tags to NR (but MT born) Kids-in-law and NR (but MT born) grandkids. When those same persons have a MT resident parent/grandparent to host them in their historical familial state. Those are the only NEW folks that this proposed revision of 87-2-514(a) applies to.

 

[Big Fin]

Sorry, I will connect the dots more explicitly.

Like many others, many Montanans felt slighted by the actions of the WY Task Force. Especially regarding 90/10 on Big 5 and how WY raised Moose/Sheep points to $150 only to massively devalue those points a couple years later. Residents of ALL states walked away from that experience and looked to how their home state agency could be used to get even. E.g., tighten up leftover/reissue rules, change allocations and close NR loopholes.

The email campaign of this thread will be more successful because of the bad taste in the mouths of Montanans left by what the Wyoming TF did to them. Thus, part of what underlies this thread is Montana “returning the punch” inflicted by the Wyoming task force.

If not for what WY Task Force, I believe the good folks of Montana would not be so up-in-arms over giving some tags to NR (but MT born) Kids-in-law and NR (but MT born) grandkids. When those same persons have a MT resident parent/grandparent to host them in their historical familial state. Those are the only NEW folks that this proposed revision of 87-2-514(a) applies to.

You are clueless. I don't even apply for moose/goat/sheep in Wyoming. What you state in your comment doesn't have the slightest impact on me and provides not a single ounce of reason for me to start this thread.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sorry, I will connect the dots more explicitly.

Like many others, many Montanans felt slighted by the actions of the WY Task Force. Especially regarding 90/10 on Big 5 and how WY raised Moose/Sheep points to $150 only to massively devalue those points a couple years later. Residents of ALL states walked away from that experience and looked to how their home state agency could be used to get even. E.g., tighten up leftover/reissue rules, change allocations and close NR loopholes.

The email campaign of this thread will be more successful because of the bad taste in the mouths of Montanans left by what the Wyoming TF did to them. Thus, part of what underlies this thread is Montana “returning the punch” inflicted by the Wyoming task force.

If not for what WY Task Force, I believe the good folks of Montana would not be so up-in-arms over giving some tags to NR (but MT born) Kids-in-law and NR (but MT born) grandkids. When those same persons have a MT resident parent/grandparent to host them in their historical familial state. Those are the only NEW folks that this proposed revision of 87-2-514(a) applies to.

"You know not of what you speak." anon Until you so aptly informed me, I had absolutely no knowledge about the "WY Task Force".
To phrase it more succinctly and clearly in traditional Montana lingo, you are full of shit!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Incidentally, nygc, most on here reveal their residency for context (seen in upper right hand corner of posts).
Also even if an acronym or series of letters such as "nygc", the handle's meaning is clear.
Would you be forthright enough to clarify?

 

[Hunting Wife]

Sorry, I will connect the dots more explicitly.

Like many others, many Montanans felt slighted by the actions of the WY Task Force. Especially regarding 90/10 on Big 5 and how WY raised Moose/Sheep points to $150 only to massively devalue those points a couple years later. Residents of ALL states walked away from that experience and looked to how their home state agency could be used to get even. E.g., tighten up leftover/reissue rules, change allocations and close NR loopholes.

What Montanans are you talking about?

I am one. I really don’t have any idea what the WY Task Force is, nor have any bent towards some kind of retribution for something they decided to do in WY.

I also don’t know a single other Montanan that has ever mentioned the WY TF, nor any punitive intentions towards WY. I haven’t heard one mention of any of the things you claimed above.

So who are all of these vengeful Montanans?

As many other Montanans on this thread have stated, we oppose the addition of set-asides of any kind. I was not a fan of this MT Native bill before, and I’m not a fan of expanding it now.

 

[rogerthat]

Been following this thread since the beginning but now I am really confused how Wyoming played into this. Sometimes I think I’m too dumb to participate in this forum but I know I oppose any proposal that expands tag opportunities right now in Montana. Resident, nonresident, youth, senior citizen, alien, illegal or legal, etc,etc. it’s not personal but just no!

 

[TheTone]

If all these people that moved out of montana need to come back and hunt so bad why don’t they move back? What opportunities were they chasing that made them want to leave in the first place?

Life offers you a lot of choices, seems some were made that people don’t like in hindsight

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Been following this thread since the beginning but now I am really confused how Wyoming played into this. Sometimes I think I’m too dumb to participate in this forum but I know I oppose any proposal that expands tag opportunities right now in Montana. Resident, nonresident, youth, senior citizen, alien, illegal or legal, etc,etc. it’s not personal but just no!

Hey....Don't crush my dream ! LOL