Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Gerald Martin]

@goodhunt, what exactly is the public land resident hunter giving up?

 

[goodhunt]

At least one guaranteed bull elk tag, which is clearly undervalued at $1200.00. Guaranteed being the key word. My guess is within 10 years your average resident won't even have that. But I guess we can cross that bridge when we get there. Great discussion here, but I need to sign off. I hope brighter minds can come up with amenable solution. In the end I don't think this bill moves the needle too much either way for anyone but a select few. Maybe the support it buys from them will be worth it. Time will tell.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That one guaranteed bull tag is gone to a NR regardless. All of the NR landowner preference comes from the existing pool of B-10 licenses.

If a NR landowner doesn’t get it, another NR will.

 

[rogerthat]

Can someone explain exactly where the "compromise" was on this whole thing? It escapes me. Was it the entry of some of these NR-owned lands into BM?

The “compromise” is that this is the first proposal I am aware of that actually tries to reduce pressure on public land, however small, in the last 30 years I have hunted in Montana. Every other proposal has increased it since I have been alive. And yes I consider offsetting the increasing resident population as trying to reduce pressure.

Nothing is ever perfect but this isn’t a chit sandwich for the resident public land hunter like every other damn proposal I have heard in my lifetime.

 

[SAJ-99]

I want to hope it is step in the right direction and will help landowner-hunter relations, but I remain skeptical. It will be interesting to see how many NRs who own multi-million $ ranches rush into BM, and if those that do choose Type I or the Type II-Sorry-we-are-full-five-minutes-after-the-reservation-process-starts group. Sorry if I missed it, but if this passes does it start in 2023 or 2024?

 

[SAJ-99]

The “compromise” is that this is the first proposal I am aware of that actually tries to reduce pressure on public land, however small, in the last 30 years I have hunted in Montana. Every other proposal has increased it since I have been alive. And yes I consider offsetting the increasing resident population as trying to reduce pressure.

Nothing is ever perfect but this isn’t a chit sandwich for the resident public land hunter like every other damn proposal I have heard in my lifetime.

I'm going to guess you won't notice the difference.

 

[rogerthat]

I'm going to guess you won't notice the difference.

Your correct. Maybe it’s symbolic at best. But it acknowledges that pressure on public lands is an issue. Got to start somewhere. Lack of hunting pressure on private lands is also an issue for public land hunters as well. This hits that one too

 

[SAJ-99]

Your correct. Maybe it’s symbolic at best. But it acknowledges that pressure on public lands is an issue. Got to start somewhere. Lack of hunting pressure on private lands is also an issue for public land hunters as well. This hits that one too

Just think what could be accomplished if MT hunters would pay $50 for the license.

 

[rogerthat]

Just think what could be accomplished if MT hunters would pay $50 for the license.

I agree but it appears to be a nonstarter in todays current climate. I would pay $200 for a resident deer tag if they would put in place the reforms needed to fix our public land deer hunting. Unfortunately none of it is do-able so we take what we can get at this point. I support anything that isn’t a giant crap sandwich. That’s where things are in Montana with no hope in sight.

 

[SAJ-99]

I support anything that isn’t a giant crap sandwich. That’s where things are in Montana with no hope in sight.

I get that, but the reality is MT residents are just kicking the can and avoiding making the hard choices. I reject the use of the word "compromise" here. There was no compromise other than determining which group to shaft without impacting the budget. The chosen group was the one without any voice at the table - Non-landowning NR hunters. I agree with Gerald that "NR’s in any state receive licenses at the preference of the residents of the state." I am concerned that NRs need to support MOGA in order to have their voice heard, or just hunt another state.

Per the article
Butte Skyline’s support for HB 635 comes with an expectation that further legislation will be pursued that reduces the number of nonresident big game combo licenses that are available. Compromise is difficult, but this approach has already helped create a better legislative session than 2021.

 

[DFS]

Sign me up for the hard choices, take away my unlimited opportunity for better wildlife management. The narrative that we can’t change anything this is what the people want is pushed by the people that have the power, not by residents. Residents would love to see less nonresidents in the field during hunting season. Anything that can help at this point is good.

 

[TheJason]

Between this and the point system built to benefit outfitter clients, the NR hunter composition will look markedly different in a few years.

These efforts WILL likely lead to less pressure on public land, and less competition from NR.

However, in the long run I see this as creating even more motivation for landowners to harbor elk.

 

[Treeshark]

I am concerned that NRs need to support MOGA in order to have their voice heard

Bingo.

 

[Schaaf]

Sign me up for the hard choices, take away my unlimited opportunity for better wildlife management. The narrative that we can’t change anything this is what the people want is pushed by the people that have the power, not by residents. Residents would love to see less nonresidents in the field during hunting season. Anything that can help at this point is good.

Season structure changes are next. I'm guessing it will see similar opponents.

 

[rogerthat]

Season structure changes are next. I'm guessing it will see similar opponents.

I love your optimism. I will buy beer for life for anyone that can get this done. However I bet we have the same seasons when I die.

 

[Schaaf]

I love your optimism. I will buy beer for life for anyone that can get this done. However I bet we have the same seasons when I die.

You’re probably right but I worded that wrong. That’s next on the coalition’s agenda.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

@Jock Conyngham, other than “No” what is the solution that opponents to 635 are bringing to the table for consideration to ease tensions between landowners and hunters?

All I heard yesterday was a unified “We don’t like this bill” (paraphrased) but what bills is BHA and other groups bringing to the legislature that landowners are willing to sign onto?

MOGA testifying in support of a bill that only harms their members financially and PERC walking back from their preference for transferable tags is significant progress in my mind.

We are negotiating from a position of political weakness in this (and foreseeable future) legislative session. HB-505 or a variation thereof being brought up and passed without regard for our objections with a veto proof majority is not something that should be dismissed without concern.

Standing in opposition for the sake of principle is admirable until the lack of practical application of that principle renders the principle irrelevant as power brokers with different principles dictate the policies and terms of wildlife management for the next several decades.

Gerald, these are excellent questions that I think about quite a bit. I don’t have time right now for an adequate answer, but I’ll throw this right out—that Montana hunters have a lot more important work to do building bridges with Montanan ag and forestry owners as a priority before we get all hung up with NR LO’s. There is work currently underway there, some of which would be premature to share.

 

[brockel]

Montana could do lots for mending hunter/landowner relations just by shortening seasons. Landowners get tired of their door being knocked on or their phone ringing for 6 months straight

 

[DFS]

Montana could do lots for mending hunter/landowner relations just by shortening seasons. Landowners get tired of their door being knocked on or their phone ringing for 6 months straight

I can’t tell you how many landowners I have heard this from. The solutions are there, the people in charge aren’t looking for them. No sides want to give anything, the fwp thinks they are knocking it out of park, and things keep moving towards privatization of wildlife through unlimited opportunity, which at the end of the day is no opportunity on accessible lands.

 

[brockel]

I can’t tell you how many landowners I have heard this from. The solutions are there, the people in charge aren’t looking for them. No sides want to give anything, the fwp thinks they are knocking it out of park, and things keep moving towards privatization of wildlife through unlimited opportunity, which at the end of the day is no opportunity on accessible lands.

Even the ones I know in block management are shit full of hunters by thanksgiving weekend