Non resident Landowner incentive.
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
Changes aren’t made by the people that should make them. Changes are made by legislation and the commission. It doesn’t make much sense but that’s the way it is. Any bill that will lessen pressure on wildlife I would support even if that cuts my opportunity to do so. There is a lot of opportunity to hunt something every year.
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
Thanks for the update. What out of the bill did they eliminate?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
A bill that makes it clear harassing hunters will be punished and increases the punishment for trespassing while hunting....I can't fathom the arguments against it unless you wanna harass hunters or trespass more.
As @Nameless Range said.....
Carnage2011
Well-known member
F*ck UPOM
Jock Conyngham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 106
635 passed second reading narrowly today, 54-45.
I know many here don’t agree with me, but I feel sick. If it goes through it’s a clear stick in the eye to one of the core tenets of the North American Model. And guaranteed permits for NR’s were one of the first tools Don Peay used to gain power for SFW in New Mexico.
He’s gone and can’t speak for himself, but I’m pretty certain what Jim Posewitz would say about 635. I have a call scheduled with his son tomorrow about it.
I know many here don’t agree with me, but I feel sick. If it goes through it’s a clear stick in the eye to one of the core tenets of the North American Model. And guaranteed permits for NR’s were one of the first tools Don Peay used to gain power for SFW in New Mexico.
He’s gone and can’t speak for himself, but I’m pretty certain what Jim Posewitz would say about 635. I have a call scheduled with his son tomorrow about it.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
Which one?
Jock Conyngham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 106
Equal opportunity.
Different organizations verbalize that principle differently, but here is TRCP’s:
7) The democracy of hunting and fishing. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.
So yeah, that’s a problem.
Different organizations verbalize that principle differently, but here is TRCP’s:
7) The democracy of hunting and fishing. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.
So yeah, that’s a problem.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
Key phrase: “Different organizations verbalize that principle differently.” The one I just read talks about opportunity being restricted to those who have special status, such as land ownership. This isn’t a barrier to entry, it’s a certain percentage of landowner set asides. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for the vast majority of states in the Western US, and with a state that is ~62% private land, is a 15% set a side really that big of a concern?
canadiantuxedo
Active member
I'm not sure how you can provide equal opportunity to hunting and fishing without regard to land ownership, when land harboring game animals can be privately owned.
I took a nice muley on my folks property one year that I am positive I had the exclusive opportunity to hunt.
Jock Conyngham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 106
That’s an interesting cast to it. I’ve read several different versions and a book about the North American Model, and I didn’t have a sense that it was meant as a binary, all-or-nothing concept. We already toe this line here with resident landowner preference points—but you don’t get additional points based on the size of your holding, as 635 would award.
Re: the 15% set aside, I’ll point to some earlier posts. Bad things start in small ways. Principles can be important.
Last edited:
Jock Conyngham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 106
I’m sorry, but you’re talking about the rights of the landowner, and I’m talking about the algorithm by which an agency—the trustee of a public resource—distributes coveted tags to non-residents. Respectfully, that’s apples to oranges.
canadiantuxedo
Active member
You are mistaken. I am not talking about the rights of the landowner. I am talking about the opportunity provided to the hunter.
If game animals are on privately owned land, no hunter has the opportunity to hunt them without the landowner's permission. On the other hand, if the landowner can buy a tag where he or she owns the land harboring game animals, the landowner can hunt such animals at his or her whimsy.
Therefore, it is not possible to provide equal opportunity to hunters without regard to land ownership, when land harboring game animals can be privately owned.
Jock Conyngham
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2023
- Messages
- 106
I suggest we are arguing over different things. The North American Model doesn’t assume to instruct landowners how to do things. It is a set of principles for agencies that manage the wildlife resource. No argument that the experience of the hunter is affected in the way you describe, at all, I completely agree, but again—the NAM addresses managers, not landowners. The rights of the landowner supersede the principles of the NAM relative to hunter access, but if the managing agency doesn’t award a hunting tag, the landowner can’t do much about that relative to hunter opportunity.
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I have wondered, if by furthering our distance from equal opportunity in the drawing process, whether we are making a deal with the devil. We abandoned equal opportunity in the drawing process when we initially created landowner preference for resident landowners. That 15% of our precious LE permits was an acknowledgement of their contribution to our wildlife. And yet, the demand for "more" never seems to stop. The 454 program being a current bastardization of theoretic good will. Will NR landowners want more after this? Does that matter?
I am luke warm on this bill, but do think it could help in some places with crowding on public lands, albeit a little, and because it is a product of collaboration between historic opponents who year after year were increasingly ossified before this session, I think a case could be made for its net-goodness. What it harms or helps won't be catastrophic in my mind.
I can't help but feel with increasing demands across the entire hunting and fishing spectrum, the pressure has to be released somewhere, and it will be nonresidents who will jettisoned first. I have a personal hierarchy of hunter categories, though I know I am really describing two venn diagrams which overlap within themselves. When it comes to who should have the most weight in our management descisions, I value the average DIY Montana hunter most, followed by big landowning and outfitting Montanans, followed by the DIY NR hunters, followed by the NR landowner/outfittee/er. I think one of the great virtues of hunting in Montana in my life and the life of my friends was its DIY-ness. Whether for dirt poor dipshits or families showing the way, there's something deep in the ability of everyone to get after it. I believe strongly in fighting for that. In the political world, that heirarchy is a bit different. No doubt the DIY NR hunter is last in line, and across the west will be the one who takes it in the teeth, and loses the most opportunity relative to what they had in the coming decades.
I can see both sides of opposition and support and feel I could argue for either. It almost feels like we are arguing over the color of the next drapes we are gonna buy while arsonists stand outside trying to dry their matches- wet for now (SB 297, 497).
Then again, the longer I have paid attention it has become harder for me to understand whether or not my expectations have fallen over the years or if I just see a different picture.
I am luke warm on this bill, but do think it could help in some places with crowding on public lands, albeit a little, and because it is a product of collaboration between historic opponents who year after year were increasingly ossified before this session, I think a case could be made for its net-goodness. What it harms or helps won't be catastrophic in my mind.
I can't help but feel with increasing demands across the entire hunting and fishing spectrum, the pressure has to be released somewhere, and it will be nonresidents who will jettisoned first. I have a personal hierarchy of hunter categories, though I know I am really describing two venn diagrams which overlap within themselves. When it comes to who should have the most weight in our management descisions, I value the average DIY Montana hunter most, followed by big landowning and outfitting Montanans, followed by the DIY NR hunters, followed by the NR landowner/outfittee/er. I think one of the great virtues of hunting in Montana in my life and the life of my friends was its DIY-ness. Whether for dirt poor dipshits or families showing the way, there's something deep in the ability of everyone to get after it. I believe strongly in fighting for that. In the political world, that heirarchy is a bit different. No doubt the DIY NR hunter is last in line, and across the west will be the one who takes it in the teeth, and loses the most opportunity relative to what they had in the coming decades.
I can see both sides of opposition and support and feel I could argue for either. It almost feels like we are arguing over the color of the next drapes we are gonna buy while arsonists stand outside trying to dry their matches- wet for now (SB 297, 497).
Then again, the longer I have paid attention it has become harder for me to understand whether or not my expectations have fallen over the years or if I just see a different picture.
Last edited:
canadiantuxedo
Active member
Yes and yes. Go check out the hunting in New Mexico and Texas for what the short-term and long-term future looks like if we continue to get railroaded by NR landowners.
Similar threads
