Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere. I can see both sides of this.

https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...cle_c422b588-b478-11ed-af53-b31f2da5c768.html

 

[Treeshark]

Interesting proposal. I wonder what is in it for MOGA for them to be supporting this?

 

[belshawelk]

IF (big IF) landowners are providing habitat for wildlife at their own expense they should get something in return. All hunters benefit from landowners who do this.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Interesting proposal. I wonder what is in it for MOGA for them to be supporting this?

I thought the same thing. I give them bad motives immediately. Can't help it.

 

[Treeshark]

It just runs counter to normal human behavior in these types of things, right?

When a group like them makes a move to support something that at first glance would be to their detriment, there is usually a reason.

 

[TheTone]

Interesting a montana legislator would write a bill to benefit non residents and not his constituents that vote for him.

 

[JLS]

“To me, it looks like it stinks a little bit,” he said

I would agree with Mr Winfield.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Interesting a montana legislator would write a bill to benefit non residents and not his constituents that vote for him.

It really has no bearing on residents. There is gonna be 17,000 tags to NRs one way or another. If and a big if... it relieves pressure it helps locals in a way. Plus landowners pay taxes in Montana. I just don't see how it can negatively affect residents? Like I said you guys are giving 17,000 NRs tags one way or another. But I'm not well versed in Montana madness.

 

[cgasner1]

It really has no bearing on residents. There is gonna be 17,000 tags to NRs one way or another. If and a big if... it relieves pressure it helps locals in a way. Plus landowners pay taxes in Montana. I just don't see how it can negatively affect residents? Like I said you guys are giving 17,000 NRs tags one way or another. But I'm not well versed in Montana madness.

None of us really are

 

[bigsky2]

Good bill in my opinion.

 

[DFS]

With all the add ons there are way more tags than 17k. One of the biggest mistakes Montana has made is getting rid of guaranteed tags for outfitters. Sorry if that is hard to hear. I fully know the problems go way beyond that.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I'm not a fan of this at all. In my opinion all this does is encourage even more rich out of state people to buy land here, thus driving land prices higher. Only way I would remotely support this is if some public access was a requirement of the bill, not just the landowner gets an extra bonus point for being in block management. The 454 program seems to be a better route.

 

[Carnage2011]

I'm not a fan of this at all. In my opinion all this does is encourage even more rich out of state people to buy land here, thus driving land prices higher. Only way I would remotely support this is if some public access was a requirement of the bill, not just the landowner gets an extra bonus point for being in block management. The 454 program seems to be a better route.

The problem with the 454 program is that those tags are in addition to the original quota. At least with landowner preference we aren’t giving out extra tags.

 

[SAJ-99]

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere. I can see both sides of this.

https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...cle_c422b588-b478-11ed-af53-b31f2da5c768.html

My question is why is Mac so strongly for this? It seems if anything, it would be a negative for outfitters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a link to the bill: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW02...P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=

When this first came forward, my initial reaction was "hell no." Now, I support it.

Here's why: MT resident hunter numbers are declining while NR's are increasing. With this switch, and longer seasons, we are seeing resident hunter success (success against all license holders really) go down as season length and intensity of hunters increases. This bill would move up to 15% (same as any other landowner preference program) into the preference pool for NR landowners with at least 2500 acres of fee title land. That means up to 2550 fewer licenses for outfitters and DIY NR hunters. On average, those NR hunters are spending about 10-14 days hunting for each license. By moving those licenses into private land only category (only to be held by the family members) this could potentially see between 25500 and 35700 fewer hunter days on public land and publicly accessible lands while applying pressure on lightly pressured private lands. That benefits the wildlife resource and the resident hunter

This kind of re-allocation also does not impact FWP's revenue stream as these are still full price. There is also an access carrot in the bill where a landowner could purchase an extra bonus point for permit areas if they enroll in a state sponsored access program.

The 15% matches other Landowner preference programs in statute, although those apply for LE permits. This program does not take anything from the permit system in terms of allocating it to those preference pool. It also does not add any permits or licenses to the 17,000 cap.

Furthermore, when you look at this piece in the entire elk consensus package, it looks like this:

1.) SB 58: Double the cap on Block Management to $50K with rule changes coming to increase the hunter day use formula.
2.) SB 281: Reduce the number of B8 licenses available for OTC purchase: This could cut as much as 3000 B licenses, and another 12K hunter days.
3.) HB 635: 2550 B10's going to the NRLO preference pool
4.) HB 361: Hunter Harassment/Hunting w/o landowner preference (amendments for this bill are posted)
5.) HB 243: Mandatory in person field day for Hunters Ed
6.) HB 596: Tightening the law around the 454 program to put a heavier focus on wildlife management
7.) HB2: New fte for data gathering for the Hunt Planner to include DNRC road system, access easements & other data that can then be scraped by GoHunt, OnX, etc for better apps.

I understand and respect the opposition, but the 454 program is the easiest to corrupt statutorily for ranching for wildlife, and bartering tags for access is how the CO, NM and NV systems started and then were taken over by privatized interests. MT's landowner preference system simply provides licenses/permits for landowners as a benefit of providing habitat. While there are some who abuse this program, it has been well run in the past and there is a side group that is likely to be taking this issue up in the interim for further reforms to the LO Preference program in 2025.

Like it or not, NR landowners have always been in the west. The Scots and English ran the range from the 1860's until the early 1900's. Hell, even Evelyn Cameron, the heroine photographer of eastern MT was an English upper crust member who came out west. TR was a large NR landowner as well. The ranches are providing conservation uplift in that they are being maintained as large, intact landscapes rather than being chopped up for 20 acre horse ghettos or new subdivisions for 5 acre ranchettes. This approach is about helping those NR landowners become a bigger part of their rural communities while extending a courtesy license for their stewardship. It's not that much different than the current LO preference program that all - Residents and NR's are using today.

Also, by segregating these landowners out, it improves the odds for resident landowners to improve the success in drawing their LO preference, further (albeit in a very small way) reducing more pressure on public land.

As to why MOGA supports the bill - their board and leadership are seeing the same thing we all are: increased use of private land due to public hunting pressure, decreased success rates and bad outcomes for people and critters. To their credit, this takes a hit out of their potential client base, but they're supporting this as a part of the whole package.

 

[Flynarrow]

Please explain why the opportunity for landowner tags does not increase the incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Please explain why the opportunity for landowner tags does not increase the incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land.

A $1200 tag isn't going to make anyone spend $5 - $10 million on a ranch. For that same $5 million, you can go on a ton of guided hunts.

The people buying large ranches are not simply doing this for the license potential. It's far larger than that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Please explain why the opportunity for landowner tags does not increase the incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land.

"... incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land." could not increase any higher than it already exists. This won't mean an iota of difference.

 

[SAJ-99]

"... incentive for non residents to buy large blocks of Montana land." could not increase any higher than it already exists. This won't mean an iota of difference.

There was a strong argument on other legislation on Wilks buying N-Bar that they should have known land they had to participate in the same draw process as everyone else. This is a step away from that, even though I'm not sure how a LE unit would work in the new system. Maybe Ben can provide clarity. I get the argument for and against. It puts me on high alert for changes to units over objective from LE to general.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There was a strong argument on other legislation on Wilks buying N-Bar that they should have known land they had to participate in the same draw process as everyone else. This is a step away from that, even though I'm not sure how a LE unit would work in the new system. Maybe Ben can provide clarity. I get the argument for and against. It puts me on high alert for changes to units over objective from LE to general.

This is just for the B10 license. No permits are included. NR LO's would still have to go through that process. The Wilks would likely keep the 454 agreements that they have. The access carrot is to enroll in Block, PAL, etc in order to qualify for the purchase of another bonus point.