Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Schaaf]

“will reduce participation in the 454 program, which I don’t like but at least provides some access.”

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.

First quote is from two pages back. I’m having a hard time following this logic. So a measly bonus point in a squared bonus point system tied to a public access program (BMA, Unlocking Public Lands Program, etc..) is more worrisome than the 454 program where 3 people get their hand held by the ranch manager and is told which cow to plug while the LO gets a bull permit for any of our actual highly coveted units?

I think if I was BHA, I wouldn’t be using the talking point that HB 635 disincentives the 454 program as a reason for opposition. Far and away, the majority of Montanan’s see it for what it is and want it dead.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I’ll need to reread that in the morning. As I said above, resident landowner preference points kind of toe a line—but we don’t stack them up for larger landholdings, as this does.

I’ve been pondering that heirarchy you mention, because it raises questions I can’t answer. Do NR DIY hunters leave more money in rural areas than outfitted hunters? Do they cause more landowner anger and require more enforcement actions by FWP? Both? I do think your heirarchy idea is useful, and I certainly want to emphasize opportunity for resident DIY.

In terms of private land/public wildlife issues, how do you legislate neighborliness or stewardship? Does that work ever, and particularly with the wealthiest non-residents? I’m excited to see block management caps heading up, but are there other tools?

There is a bill in legal review to cap non-resident access to all tags—game, waterfowl, upland, etc. Given the risks of incentives, I lean more and more in that direction. And it means searching for FWP money elsewhere—residents, non-hunters, tourist businesses, etc.—all of which will likely be met with howls of protest.

If this were easy we would have figured it out long ago.

 

[mtnkid85]

Im wondering how is this bill going to be enforced? The bill states the license are only valid on deaded or leased land owned by said land owner. Will these properties be printed on each individual license?
As I see it one of the main benefits of this bill is it essentially shifts 15% of the NR pressure to private property only. But what is the actual mechanism that will ensure that happens? What’s to keep these license holders from also hunting public?

 

[Jock Conyngham]

First quote is from two pages back. I’m having a hard time following this logic. So a measly bonus point in a squared bonus point system tied to a public access program (BMA, Unlocking Public Lands Program, etc..) is more worrisome than the 454 program where 3 people get their hand held by the ranch manager and is told which cow to plug while the LO gets a bull permit for any of our actual highly coveted units?

I think if I was BHA, I wouldn’t be using the talking point that HB 635 disincentives the 454 program as a reason for opposition. Far and away, the majority of Montanan’s see it for what it is and want it dead.

Well, you quoted the part that said I don’t like it. I also want it dead. And I’m not talking here about the single bonus point, which is close to irrelevant. I’m talking about de facto guaranteed NR tags, multiplied by acreage.

 

[Schaaf]

Im wondering how is this bill going to be enforced? The bill states the license are only valid on deaded or leased land owned by said land owner. Will these properties be printed on each individual license?
As I see it one of the main benefits of this bill is it essentially shifts 15% of the NR pressure to private property only. But what is the actual mechanism that will ensure that happens? What’s to keep these license holders from also hunting public?

Well mainly, the dinks on public land should keep that in check. Saves on the LEO budget.



Kidding, sort of.

 

[canadiantuxedo]

I think if I was BHA, I wouldn’t be using the talking point that HB 635 disincentives the 454 program as a reason for opposition. Far and away, the majority of Montanan’s see it for what it is and want it dead.

The majority of Montanans love bulls for billionaires. We re-elected all the representatives who passed it.

 

[Treeshark]

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.

It is difficult to reconcile any type of “hierarcy” with this principle in my view.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The majority of Montanans love bulls for billionaires. We re-elected all the representatives who passed it.

Bulls for billionaires is literally the 454 program, the one the opponents to HB 635 are touting as a better alternative to this. That kind of "tags for access" programs are how the ranching for wildlife program in Colorado started out, how the Nevada transferable license system started out, and how New Mexico's program has started out.

This bill does not trade premium bull tags for cow elk access. It simply follows the same path that the landowner preference statutes do, with the added benefit of being only on private land.

Folks are right to be concerned about mission creep on all of these. That's why there is an organization that has stood in the halls in Helena for 86 years fighting against the transferable license system, and successfully I'd add.

 

[MTLivin]

I’m mildly in support of this bill for a couple of reasons:
1. These landowners are paying big state taxes and many improve the habitat for wildlife.
2. It only allocates tags from the allocated non-res pool. No add ons and they are good for deeded property only.
3. We can’t win everything. If this pacifies the wealthy NR LO we shoudn’t see more horrible bills like HB 505 from the 2021 legislature, which damn near passed!!! I know a landowner that bought a ranch for $12M, and he couldn’t hunt his own property every year. There has to be some give from us for them to respect the MT sportsman.
4. It could reduce the pressure on public land and the number of leased up properties by big game outfitters. The outfitters have a huge voice is the legislature and greed drives their motives, might check their growth. Let the outfitters and wealthy NR LOs deal with that between themselves for a change instead of both of them opposing us. Maybe a stretch there but who knows.

 

[canadiantuxedo]

Bulls for billionaires is literally the 454 program, the one the opponents to HB 635 are touting as a better alternative to this. That kind of "tags for access" programs are how the ranching for wildlife program in Colorado started out, how the Nevada transferable license system started out, and how New Mexico's program has started out.

This bill does not trade premium bull tags for cow elk access. It simply follows the same path that the landowner preference statutes do, with the added benefit of being only on private land.

Folks are right to be concerned about mission creep on all of these. That's why there is an organization that has stood in the halls in Helena for 86 years fighting against the transferable license system, and successfully I'd add.

Yeah the sarcasm must not have made it through.. We keep electing representatives that propose/enact laws directly opposed by a majority of Montanans on a whole host of outdoor issues. It's frustrating.

HB 635 and bulls for billionaires are like Keystone light and natural light. They are both trash, but I'd rather have a keystone aka 635.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yeah the sarcasm must not have made it through.. We keep electing representatives that propose/enact laws directly opposed by a majority of Montanans on a whole host of outdoor issues. It's frustrating.

HB 635 and bulls for billionaires are like Keystone light and natural light. They are both trash, but I'd rather have a keystone aka 635.

The GOP opposition to this bill is largely centered around wanting more NR opportunity, so there was an attempt to try and make these "in addition too" the already allocated 17K. It's strange to see some of the opposition from conservation take this approach as well, especially as so many are calling for fewer NR licenses.

HB 773 was killed in House FWP because it would have cut NR licenses by 400 or so. The refrain from some of the majority members was that this would be awful if folks couldn't come here and hunt cheaply. Yet they are supporting this effort, which does remove up to 2550 NR's from public land and puts more pressure on inaccessible private land to help redistribute the animals. In reality, if this program gets to full subscription, then we would get back to about 17,000 NR elk hunters that are able to hunt public land, and not the almost 20,000 we have now.

We take the steps we can during the session to reduce NR pressure on public land without causing massive issues with the budget and ending fund balance of our wildlife management agency. This bill does shuffle the deck, and if it doesn't move a significant number of people on to private and off of public, then it should be revisited in the future.

Rep France, someone I've known and admired for 20 years, said on the floor tonight that this will bring more NR landowners just for this license. I strongly disagree with that. Nobody spends $10 million for a $1200 elk tag. That kind of rhetoric is not based in any sort of economic reality.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Bulls for billionaires is literally the 454 program, the one the opponents to HB 635 are touting as a better alternative to this. That kind of "tags for access" programs are how the ranching for wildlife program in Colorado started out, how the Nevada transferable license system started out, and how New Mexico's program has started out.

This bill does not trade premium bull tags for cow elk access. It simply follows the same path that the landowner preference statutes do, with the added benefit of being only on private land.

Folks are right to be concerned about mission creep on all of these. That's why there is an organization that has stood in the halls in Helena for 86 years fighting against the transferable license system, and successfully I'd add.

I haven’t heard any opponents to 635 tout 454. I and others have pointed out that 454 did create a little access (at excessive cost and unacceptable risk in my view, and it is best killed), and this doesn’t. It moves some of the 17 K false cap of NR tags off public land, which will be overrun with the 60K non-res big game tags FWP actually sells. So I just don’t see the benefit of this except to make some wealthy NR landowners happy. If that is the desired goal and there are no risks of demand escalation in the future, have at it. But until the legislature’s NR tag fetish reverses, there will be no reduction in public land pressure, and there’s no point claiming it. In my opinion.

 

[MTLivin]

I haven’t heard any opponents to 635 tout 454. I and others have pointed out that 454 did create a little access (at excessive cost and unacceptable risk in my view, and it is best killed), and this doesn’t. It moves some of the 17 K false cap of NR tags off public land, which will be overrun with the 60K non-res big game tags FWP actually sells. So I just don’t see the benefit of this except to make some wealthy NR landowners happy. If that is the desired goal and there are no risks of demand escalation in the future, have at it. But until the legislature’s NR tag fetish reverses, there will be no reduction in public land pressure, and there’s no point claiming it. In my opinion.

The number of bills our Montana elected officials have created to benefit non-resident landowner, that sure as hell didn’t vote them, is astonishing. If this is the victory they need to slow down or stop the introduction of MUCH worst legislation I can support it. We cannot stand on top of a hill and throw rocks all day, and that is how some of the elected offices view us. The NR LOs pay taxes and have the same elected officials on speed dial. I didn’t write the bill, but I can swallow this pill knowing what’s in it. Much more so than choking on some considerably worst future bill that gets shoved through in the last hour of the last day. If you don’t think that’s coming you didn’t take notes from 2021.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

The GOP opposition to this bill is largely centered around wanting more NR opportunity, so there was an attempt to try and make these "in addition too" the already allocated 17K. It's strange to see some of the opposition from conservation take this approach as well, especially as so many are calling for fewer NR licenses.

HB 773 was killed in House FWP because it would have cut NR licenses by 400 or so. The refrain from some of the majority members was that this would be awful if folks couldn't come here and hunt cheaply. Yet they are supporting this effort, which does remove up to 2550 NR's from public land and puts more pressure on inaccessible private land to help redistribute the animals. In reality, if this program gets to full subscription, then we would get back to about 17,000 NR elk hunters that are able to hunt public land, and not the almost 20,000 we have now.

We take the steps we can during the session to reduce NR pressure on public land without causing massive issues with the budget and ending fund balance of our wildlife management agency. This bill does shuffle the deck, and if it doesn't move a significant number of people on to private and off of public, then it should be revisited in the future.

Rep France, someone I've known and admired for 20 years, said on the floor tonight that this will bring more NR landowners just for this license. I strongly disagree with that. Nobody spends $10 million for a $1200 elk tag. That kind of rhetoric is not based in any sort of economic reality.

According to Brett French’s January 23 article in the Lee Newspapers, in 2021 FWP sold 24,000 NR elk licenses. Not just NR elk hunters hunt public land, of course; NR deer hunters do also. Here is the scariest part of that story:
“Added together, the total nonresident elk and deer licenses sold in 2021 amounted to more than 66,600, or about 17% of what resident deer and elk hunters purchased. Yet this is a 40% increase from 1974, just before nonresident licenses were supposedly capped. In contrast, resident elk and deer license sales have increased only about 5% since 1974.”

The 2022 numbers were likely higher yet. So I don’t see how significant non-resident numbers are going to get moved off of public. There would be some more elk killed on private, and that’s a good thing.

 

[Schaaf]

I haven’t heard any opponents to 635 tout 454.

“4) And finally, compared side-by-side, the controversial 454 program is more attractive. Because under that program, the public at least benefits from limited public opportunity (at least 3 members of the public are allowed for every landowner license). Whereas this bill, HB 635, gives large absentee landowners up to five elk tags with the public getting nothing in return, and is likely to lead to less participation in the 454s.”

From an opposing groups action alert yesterday.

 

[Carnage2011]

According to Brett French’s January 23 article in the Lee Newspapers, in 2021 FWP sold 24,000 NR elk licenses. Not just NR elk hunters hunt public land, of course; NR deer hunters do also. Here is the scariest part of that story:
“Added together, the total nonresident elk and deer licenses sold in 2021 amounted to more than 66,600, or about 17% of what resident deer and elk hunters purchased. Yet this is a 40% increase from 1974, just before nonresident licenses were supposedly capped. In contrast, resident elk and deer license sales have increased only about 5% since 1974.”

The 2022 numbers were likely higher yet. So I don’t see how significant non-resident numbers are going to get moved off of public. There would be some more elk killed on private, and that’s a good thing.

You’re trying to turn tags sales into hunter numbers. They aren’t the same.

Also, we don’t know how many nonresident hunters we have as our process is so messed up that we could have 34,000 or 52,0000 but we don’t know. Hunter days would be a much more comparable statistic. It is much easier to see how many residents we have.

If we take 2,550 of these people and move them to private land then great. Also, if any of these people are purchasing a B tag as well then that’s less pressure on public. If these people are drawing permits in whatever unit they own land then that again is less people on public.

 

[Carnage2011]

From an opposing groups action alert yesterday.

I find it funny that they use “less participation in the 454’s” as a bad thing. LOL

 

[Jock Conyngham]

From an opposing groups action alert yesterday.

I had not seen that. BHA, I’m guessing?

 

[antlerradar]

Rep France, someone I've known and admired for 20 years, said on the floor tonight that this will bring more NR landowners just for this license. I strongly disagree with that. Nobody spends $10 million for a $1200 elk tag. That kind of rhetoric is not based in any sort of economic reality.

Not sure I agree with you on this one Ben. I can think of several ranches that have sold recently where one of the primary motivations of the new owner is to have a hunting ranch. It may seam like silly economics to spend 10 million on land when you could buy a near unlimited amount of quality elk hunts for the same money, but you also have to consider the new owners are also looking at owning a ranch as an investment. You can not underestimate the attractions of hunting on your own property and not having a guaranteed license was always at least a strike and often three strikes against Montana when compared to some other states. How many more NR landowners will give Montana a new look is hard to know, but it will be more, but likely not a flood.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not sure I agree with you on this one Ben. I can think of several ranches that have sold recently where one of the primary motivations of the new owner is to have a hunting ranch. It may seam like silly economics to spend 10 million on land when you could buy a near unlimited amount of quality elk hunts for the same money, but you also have to consider the new owners are also looking at owning a ranch as an investment. You can not underestimate the attractions of hunting on your own property and not having a guaranteed license was always at least a strike and often three strikes against Montana when compared to some other states. How many more NR landowners will give Montana a new look is hard to know, but it will be more, but likely not a flood.

Art,
Absolutely the wildlife and the opportunity to hunt are big parts of the marketing schemes for real estate companies and these kinds of landowners are purchasing large spreads based on the habitat quality. As you note, that's an investment as well as it is an amenity. Land investments in Montana that are 640 acres and under are the ones that are primarily being used to game the landowner preference system as it is today. Someone buying 14,000 acres is buying far more than the potential license, even though that is part of the equation. Just like Theodore Roosevelt did in North Dakota: He bought a ranch to be a cattleman first, and the hunting was a bonus.

The Montana Wildlife Federation issued this letter to House members last night.