Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Straight Arrow]

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.

I understand your point and concern. I'm just pointing out that as far as interest in buying Montana real estate, hunting is really a minor consideration nowadays.

And I'll bet what kind of tags were available on the N-Bar was not even a negligible factor of concern to the Wilks.

 

[SAJ-99]

I understand your point and concern. I'm just pointing out that as far as interest in buying Montana real estate, hunting is really a minor consideration nowadays.

And I'll bet what kind of tags were available on the N-Bar was not even a negligible factor of concern to the Wilks.

They probably figured they could just buy whatever they wanted through the legislature.

 

[cgasner1]

I would be for it with how it should be adding access with you block programs. I believe some of our bigger problem ranches wouldn’t participate due to that. They don’t want to let people have the run of the place which makes sense.

 

[Carnage2011]

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.

This is true, but many of these landowners would draw permits in their units if they could draw the combo. Wilks for example would have better odds of drawing the combo tag through this Bill and due to surplus permits for 411/595 they would basically be guaranteed a permit. If that’s the case we could potentially lower the excess permits being issued through the 454 agreements.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

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

I don’t like it lol. Maybe I’m naive but that sounds again, like we’re rewarding the rich landowners to get them to maybe try and help us, or our cause. It doesn’t seem to work.

 

[Finnman]

I don’t like it lol. Maybe I’m naive but that sounds again, like we’re rewarding the rich landowners to get them to maybe try and help us, or our cause. It doesn’t seem to work.

I don't either. Another kick in the ass for the public DIY Hunter.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

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.

First off, well said. I always appreciate your thoughtful arguments and the way you approach these professionally. That said, what is this little “carrot” going to do for those of us that are just starting to learn of point creep and hoping to land a great tag one day? These rich folks are going to start getting EXTRA points!? And don’t they get to choose the appointee(s) that gets to hunt their land in one of these access programs??
Type 1 BMA—- sure I’m down for it. Type 2? 454? Forget about it…..

 

[Ben Lamb]

First off, well said. I always appreciate your thoughtful arguments and the way you approach these professionally. That said, what is this little “carrot” going to do for those of us that are just starting to learn of point creep and hoping to land a great tag one day? These rich folks are going to start getting EXTRA points!? And don’t they get to choose the appointee(s) that gets to hunt their land in one of these access programs??
Type 1 BMA—- sure I’m down for it. Type 2? 454? Forget about it…..

This won't apply to resident hunters, just the NR's. So your bonus point creep isn't really affected since this comes out of the NR quota for limited entry permits (up to 10%).

They also do not get to choose who hunts on their property under block mgt, PAL agreements etc. That's the 454 program where the landowner gets to choose who the hunters are.

 

[Labman]

This is true, but many of these landowners would draw permits in their units if they could draw the combo. Wilks for example would have better odds of drawing the combo tag through this Bill and due to surplus permits for 411/595 they would basically be guaranteed a permit. If that’s the case we could potentially lower the excess permits being issued through the 454 agreements.

In 2022 only 4 NR LO’s, out of 77 applicants in that category, DIDN’T draw limited entry elk permits; that occurred in units (1)447, (1)590, and (2)799. So, if a NR LO draws the combo they are almost guaranteed the permit in every unit except those three above. This extra bonus point isn’t going to have much of an impact since the LO drawing is a separate drawing. So, I don’t see much of a reason to be opposed to this bill.

Under current rules LO’s or their designated family member/employee (R and NR) are already gifted a deer/elk combo if they are enrolled in Block Mgt.

I admire the attempts to decrease crowding on public lands and it’s debatable if these little bits adds up to something, but without doing away with general/unlimited permits in favor of limited permits, pick your season, split seasons, separating deer/elk seasons, or some other “drastic measure” the problem of crowding on public lands will never get resolved.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Given the small number of non-residents who own 2.5K, 5K, 7.5K, etc. acres this becomes a de facto guaranteed or very high probability tag based on land ownership/wealth, and that is both offensive (the vastly wealthy get the biggest bang here as additional tags are awarded for acreage in 2.5K increments) and a slippery slope. I think these guaranteed tags will reduce participation in the 454 program, which I don’t like but at least provides some access. Why give access when you know you are getting tags? And Ben, isn’t that access carrot you cite pretty small, given that the bonus points only mean something (and not a lot) for permit areas—about 15% of the state?

When I bought my place on the Flathead rez I accepted the limitations on hunting and water rights (and the effects of valuation that went with those limitations) without complaint. I knew what I was getting into, just as these landowners did.

My strong suspicion is that most large NR LO’s hunt their own place anyway—and likely keep it in good shape. I have nothing against wealthy, large landowners—a number of them are nice people and good neighbors and highly competent—but I’m not real interested in rewarding them because they are wealthy landowners.

 

[Carnage2011]

In 2022 only 4 NR LO’s, out of 77 applicants in that category, DIDN’T draw limited entry elk permits; that occurred in units (1)447, (1)590, and (2)799. So, if a NR LO draws the combo they are almost guaranteed the permit in every unit except those three above. This extra bonus point isn’t going to have much of an impact since the LO drawing is a separate drawing. So, I don’t see much of a reason to be opposed to this bill.

Under current rules LO’s or their designated family member/employee (R and NR) are already gifted a deer/elk combo if they are enrolled in Block Mgt.

I admire the attempts to decrease crowding on public lands and it’s debatable if these little bits adds up to something, but without doing away with general/unlimited permits in favor of limited permits, pick your season, split seasons, separating deer/elk seasons, or some other “drastic measure” the problem of crowding on public lands will never get resolved.

You’re wrong on the first part. Only 4 landowners didn’t draw the permit but there were more that weren’t even in the permit draw because they didn’t draw the combo.

 

[Labman]

You’re wrong on the first part. Only 4 landowners didn’t draw the permit but there were more that weren’t even in the permit draw because they didn’t draw the combo.

I mentioned that -
“So, if a NR LO draws the combo they are almost guaranteed the permit in every unit except those three above.”

 

[Jock Conyngham]

On reading Ben’s statement of benefits closely, it seems the one real benefit to the resource and public land pressure issues is the displacement of 2550 outfitter and DIY NR hunters (never mind that a lot of outfitters are on private land, and that that displacement affects the rural economy benefits we hear so much about).

I accept that statement at face value, but isn’t that wholly drowned out by the explosion in NR license sales?

Sportsmen worry nonresident hunting license sales misrepresented

In 2021, the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks sold more than 66,600 nonresident deer and elk licenses.

billingsgazette.com

 

[GeorgeBlack]

Not from Montana,just a NR.
My opinion based on experience here up north....I would question the Moga motives.
This guys are not working for the residents or NR,work for themselves.
Their interests are not in line with yours.
Don't know why your Wildlife federation got in bed with them.
When our federation got in bed with G/O here it stunk and some people sold us out.
Always follow the money,never loose sight.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

This won't apply to resident hunters, just the NR's. So your bonus point creep isn't really affected since this comes out of the NR quota for limited entry permits (up to 10%).

They also do not get to choose who hunts on their property under block mgt, PAL agreements etc. That's the 454 program where the landowner gets to choose who the hunters are.

Is the bonus point only for deer and elk? Or do they get an extra bonus point for all species including the big 3 ?

 

[SAJ-99]

Is the bonus point only for deer and elk? Or do they get an extra bonus point for all species including the big 3 ?

Sorry, misread. Thought it was a pref point, given it was just the combo tag I thought they would be tied together. Feels like edging further towards “The King’s” elk or deer.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

It was a preference point, not a bonus point.

There is a bonus point component further down in the bill.

 

[SAJ-99]

There is a bonus point component further down in the bill.

Shoot, my bad. You are right and I was wrong. I will edit. I still am not sure on this one.

 

[rogerthat]

To me, one distinction of this program is that these tags are carved out of the existing allotment of tags vs adding more like all the others. It’s a step in the right direction from a hunting pressure standpoint on public land however minuscule. I support it for that reason. Part of righting this sinking ship in Montana is compromise. If there are parts you like but some you don’t….well that’s probably the best you can hope for.

 

[SAJ-99]

To me, one distinction of this program is that these tags are carved out of the existing allotment of tags vs adding more like all the others. It’s a step in the right direction from a hunting pressure standpoint on public land however minuscule. I support it for that reason. Part of righting this sinking ship in Montana is compromise. If there are parts you like but some you don’t….well that’s probably the best you can hope for.

Yeah but it’s a carve out for those that own $2m ranches. That’s the part that I keep getting hung up on.