Non resident Landowner incentive.

[BuzzH]

Former House FWP chairman & sponsor of the bridge access bill Kendall Van Dyk had this opinion piece today in the Butte paper. I'd note that this bill does not allow for the hunting of public inholdings, but only private land, and private land leased for agricultural production.

Kendall Van Dyk: A rare opportunity for a win-win on elk management

In the last decade there have been few policy issues in Montana more contentious than elk management. The arguments about what ought to be done take place in our communities,

mtstandard.com

Question...how would that be enforced?

I mean really, I'm a rich dude with 3-4-10 sections of public mixed into my deeded acres and a big giant bull elk is standing on a public piece. What are the odds that bull isn't shot in 2 seconds flat? I'd say less than 1%, and that's the 1% amount of time it would take to load the rifle to kill it the following 2 seconds.

Secondly, does the bill spell out what exactly "public inholding's" are? Because State lands typically are NOT considered public land. So I'm assuming, the definition of public lands is spelled out in the bill?

Apologize for not having read the bill in great detail.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think the general counter argument is if you want to reduce hunter days just reduce hunters (permits). I'm now a NR but I would feel the same if I still lived there. The bill just re-slices the pie - public vs private. You reduce hunter days on public and redistribute to private with some hope of a positive result. We really can't quantify the impact, so some people have the argument that hope isn't much of a strategy so be more direct on targeting hunter days and reduce hunter permits. I get that this is a compromise and it's how things get done in politics, but it's more of the same. To @JLS point, once you give these NR landowners something, it's not like they reciprocate in kind. Rather they tend to demand more next session.

If we go through that exercise, and we did, what you find out quickly is that if you open up the cap on the the 17K for the B10 and the 4600 for the B11 you lose a ton of funding for block management, the Upland Game Bird program, fishing access sites and Habitat Montana. The USFWS has sent letters saying that programs that had earmarks before 2009 or so can't continue once you start to whittle away at them, so we'd need to completely reconfigure the funding mechanisms for these programs in order to have the stability that we have had for decades.

Furthermore, with the legislature looking to take the recreational marijuana revenue away from Habitat Montana, that push to simply cut those licenses further erodes funding for the cornerstone conservation & access programs in the west.

We tried a simple bill to cap the non-resident reduced price licenses already this session and it died in committee. So, while HB 635 isn't going to solve every problem, it is a thoughtful approach to limiting the impact of NR hunters on public land while trying to increase the success rate of resident hunters and not cratering funding for the most beloved of programs. I view it similarly to needing $100 for some ammo, and your buddy can give you $25. Do you turn that down because it's not the whole $100 or do you grab it and go raise the rest of the money so you can miss a lot more ducks?

As far as people coming back for more - that will never change so long as there is a legislature full of people. Look at the push for banning Styrofoam, the anti-trapping crowd's approach to issues, charter schools, abortion, right-to-work, etc. The legislature is the marketplace of ideas, and every session there are a lot of good and bad ideas that come forward. That's the entire basis of the citizen legislature - that we meet once every two years to make decisions. Those bad ideas tend to come back more frequently in Montana because we've ceded the institutional knowledge of the past sessions away from the legislators themselves to those who profit off of the conflict

 

[Ben Lamb]

Question...how would that be enforced?

I mean really, I'm a rich dude with 3-4-10 sections of public mixed into my deeded acres and a big giant bull elk is standing on a public piece. What are the odds that bull isn't shot in 2 seconds flat? I'd say less than 1%, and that's the 1% amount of time it would take to load the rifle to kill it the following 2 seconds.

Secondly, does the bill spell out what exactly "public inholding's" are? Because State lands typically are NOT considered public land. So I'm assuming, the definition of public lands is spelled out in the bill?

Apologize for not having read the bill in great detail.

Kendall mispoke. There is no public inholding open for hunting in this bill. It is only private deeded land of the landowner, and private land leased for ag purposes.

As far as enforcement, there is the same notion relative to hunting in different HD's and claiming you shot something in one when it was really another. Does it happen? Sure. Is it rampant, probably not. Most people will follow the rules and regulations set out before them and if they're caught breaking those rules then they're not going to be eligible for the program again. Rule making will have to follow this bill if passed, and that's where you put the finer details into the program.

 

[BuzzH]

Kendall mispoke. There is no public inholding open for hunting in this bill. It is only private deeded land of the landowner, and private land leased for ag purposes.

As far as enforcement, there is the same notion relative to hunting in different HD's and claiming you shot something in one when it was really another. Does it happen? Sure. Is it rampant, probably not. Most people will follow the rules and regulations set out before them and if they're caught breaking those rules then they're not going to be eligible for the program again. Rule making will have to follow this bill if passed, and that's where you put the finer details into the program.

I would need clarity that State lands are excluded...they aren't public, and nearly ever acre is leased for "ag purposes" (grazing primarily).

Just sayin'...

Uh, and I tend to disagree about most people following the rules, Montana would write 4x as many wildlife violations if they had 4x as many wardens in the field.

Again...Just sayin'.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's literally the 1st section of the bill, Buzz:

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/HB0635.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

It's literally the 1st section of the bill, Buzz:

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/HB0635.pdf

State lands are not public lands, yes or no?

Also, the leasing could be a problem and a work around...big-time.

Say I have a landowner buddy, say one south of Great Falls that I went to high school with and has a nice spread near Sand Coulee. What if I "leased" his farm ground from him to grow crops, for oh, I don't know how about $20.

I plant small row of wheat once a year. Do I qualify for a tag?

I would remove the leasing language...its going to be abused, you heard it hear first.

 

[Ben Lamb]

State lands are not public lands, yes or no?

did you read the bill, yes or no?

 

[BuzzH]

did you read the bill, yes or no?

I think there's wiggle room in the language in regard to State lands, even though the bill says, "other private"...good luck with that.

You're too trusting Ben, people do read these bills and in particular those looking for a work around. Words like "or", "and"...leave things open, all I'm going to say about that.

It will be abused unless its tightened up.

Its a good bill and I support it.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Hearing tomorrow at 3. Should be an interesting one to watch. Room 422.

Montana Legislature

 

[bigsky2]

Hearing tomorrow at 3. Should be an interesting one to watch. Room 422.

Montana Legislature

What committee?

 

[MTelkHuntress]

What committee?

Senate Fish and Game

Hmm I guess I could have just posted the link video, whoops. https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230315/-1/47152

 

[Ben Lamb]

Some thoughts on the bill from the Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association:

Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association: HB 635 is good for Montana hunters

Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association wants to clarify our position on the Consensus Elk Management Package agreed upon by outfitters and guides and the Citizen Elk Coalition, which includes HB 635.

mtstandard.com

 

[Nameless Range]

Some thoughts on the bill from the Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association:

Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association: HB 635 is good for Montana hunters

Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association wants to clarify our position on the Consensus Elk Management Package agreed upon by outfitters and guides and the Citizen Elk Coalition, which includes HB 635.

mtstandard.com

That is good to read.

The divisive reaction to this bill will warrant an After Action Review someday.

I appreciate the Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association saying that this bill is a small part of a larger mission: "By working together to find some common ground, our hope is that we can build better relationships with those that we usually fight with over these issues."

It seems like a lot of folks struggle with this.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is good to read.

The divisive reaction to this bill will warrant an After Action Review someday.

I appreciate the Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association saying that this bill is a small part of a larger mission: "By working together to find some common ground, our hope is that we can build better relationships with those that we usually fight with over these issues."

It seems like a lot of folks struggle with this.

It is my opinion that if this bill should pass the potential goodwill gained from the landowner/outfitter community might (might) offset the fracturing of relationships within the conservation community. If it fails, both landowners/ranchers and the conservation community are going to see a major setback in trust and working relationships…

I plan to testify in favor of its passage on the basis of several points.

1. Given the political climate now and for the foreseeable future, this bill is probably the best shot we have of seeing a bill passed that expressly forbids transferable tags and takes the landowner NR tags from the existing pool of NR tags rather than adding them in addition. It is my opinion that we’re more likely to have a bill like last session’s HB 505 signed into law eventually if there is no easing of landowner/hunter tensions.



2. Renegotiation of elk objective numbers are going to be coming up in the future as the new EMP is undertaken. Opportunity to access the wildlife that lives on their own property is a powerful incentive to increase landowner appreciation for elk and deer. More elk and deer tolerated with higher objectives will benefit Montana hunters as harvest strategies can adjust towards quality of experience rather than reducing elk populations to an arbitrary and unrealistic number.


3. I don’t buy the argument that giving NR landowners preference in the NR draw is any different than giving resident landowners a 15% preference. Montana has been giving resident landowners preference for decades and no one is trying to pass legislation to take that away with the argument that resident landowner preference is in violation of the North American Model of Wildlife.

4. It will serve in a small way to ease public land pressure. This isn’t my biggest appreciation of the bill but some easing of pressure is a step in the right direction.

 

[Nameless Range]

3. I don’t buy the argument that giving NR landowners preference in the NR draw is any different than giving resident landowners a 15% preference. Montana has been giving resident landowners preference for decades and no one is trying to pass legislation to take that away with the argument that resident landowner preference is in violation of the North American Model of Wildlife.

People are so hung up on this and I don’t get it. Not only is it not different, it’s far less of a big deal.

The landowner preference we have had for the last few decades actually carves into to the opportunity of most Montanans - reducing it. This proposed set aside would have no effect whatsoever on the opportunities of Montanans, and if anything, might improve most’s hunting experience a little bit.

It marginally reduces the opportunity of the NR DIY guy, which I sympathize with, but for all the other reasons you’ve listed, that “sacrifice” is worth it in my mind.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

That is good to read.

I appreciate the Butte Skyline Sportsmen's Association saying that this bill is a small part of a larger mission: "By working together to find some common ground, our hope is that we can build better relationships with those that we usually fight with over these issues."

Agreed, I'm fully supportive of a compromise action that's not "perfect" for one "side". One key they mentioned that I'm supportive of are that the permits are just on the private land of the landowner, which theoretically should increase private land pressure on the elk and possibly push some back onto public.

s

(sorry if these same statements were in a previous comment, as I didn't read all pages)

 

[Elky Welky]

People are so hung up on this and I don’t get it. Not only is it not different, it’s far less of a big deal.

The landowner preference we have had for the last few decades actually carves into to the opportunity of most Montanans - reducing it. This proposed set aside would have no effect whatsoever on the opportunities of Montanans, and if anything, might improve most’s hunting experience a little bit.

It marginally reduces the opportunity of the NR DIY guy, which I sympathize with, but for all the other reasons you’ve listed, that “sacrifice” is worth it in my mind.

As a resident, if you don't draw a special permit in an area you want to hunt because landowner preference decreased your odds slightly, are you still able to purchase a general deer and elk tag in Montana?

 

[antlerradar]

As a resident, if you don't draw a special permit in an area you want to hunt because landowner preference decreased your odds slightly, are you still able to purchase a general deer and elk tag in Montana?

No, because you should have already bought one to apply for the special permit.

 

[Elky Welky]

No, because you should have already bought one to apply for the special permit.

Thanks @antlerradar. This was a rhetorical question. So just to be clear to all here: residents still get to hunt deer and elk even if they don't draw a special permit, they just might not get to hunt a big bull/buck in an area where a resident landowner received preference. Whereas NR big game combo licenses are capped at 17,000, so this bill directly reduces that NRs ability to hunt deer and elk entirely, statewide, by separating them into the haves and have-nots. Resident landowner preference and nonresident landowner preference are not the same.

It's one thing to differentiate between residents and nonresidents, but entirely another to take it a step further and split nonresidents based on land ownership. And many here seem very comfortable with the idea of discriminating between those with land and those without because, "what the heck, it doesn't affect me, and maybe (and it's a very big maybe) will make things better for me."

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Another point of difference is that 635 awards tags by landholdings in increments of 2500 acres. A NR LO with 12,500 acres gets 5 tags—500% the benefit that one with 2500 gets. That’s not true of the resident landowner program, and, to be blunt, it both offends me and makes me suspicious of MOGA’s future plans in supporting this bill.