Non resident Landowner incentive.

[John B. Sullivan III]

Why didn’t BHA reference the most recent and actual number from 2022, it’s easy to obtain. In total it was most recently 95% or 73/77, so not a guarantee overall but damn close.
Funny how they could hire a GIS analyst to figure out a number that is somewhat difficult to obtain but couldn’t look at a readily available spreadsheet for some simple and accurate data. Does that number not fit in with their narrative so it was conveniently left out?
That’s the rub I have with some of these outfits, they just utilize the data that fits their agenda they are trying to push, never mentioning the data that doesn’t help to further their goals.

I think you are referring to a different data set. The GIS report we commissioned was to determine how many nonresident landowners owns 2500+ acres in Montana.

Are you referring to the draw wood for nonresidents in permitted areas?

 

[SAJ-99]

I have no idea which GIS person BHA hired. To be clear, I don't think we can trust any numbers thrown out there on either side of the debate with a whole lotta confidence.

The Montana Cadastral dataset has an attribute for the tax address of all landowners in Montana. Using those landowners whose tax address is not Montana, who, when all their parcels are dissolved into a single multipart polygon, own more than 2499 acres, I get 591 "nonresident" (based on the tax address assumption) landowners owning more than 2499 acres.


That list of landowners and the acres they own, is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouid=113353896550246742805&rtpof=true&sd=true



Here's a rough map.

Sketchy data in, sketchy data out, but for a GIS person, a 10 minute exercise. The software I use is a personal license, so I do not do it for money or political reasons, just for personal interest. My own reasons for supporting the bill are more broad than the actual negative or positive potentially purported affects it may have.

View attachment 269289

I suspect a lot of those are corporate entities. I'm not sure how many tags they get and what name they are under.

 

[Labman]

I think you are referring to a different data set. The GIS report we commissioned was to determine how many nonresident landowners owns 2500+ acres in Montana.

Are you referring to the draw wood for nonresidents in permitted areas?

I’m referring to the number of current LOP applicants in permitted areas.

"We included the total numbers (also low), then we removed permitted areas because there's no guarantee these will be drawn, and we can't honestly point to those as folks who will be moved from public to private."

 

[Elky Welky]

I have no idea which GIS person BHA hired. To be clear, I don't think we can trust any numbers thrown out there on either side of the debate with a whole lotta confidence.

The Montana Cadastral dataset has an attribute for the tax address of all landowners in Montana. Using those landowners whose tax address is not Montana, who, when all their parcels are dissolved into a single multipart polygon, own more than 2499 acres, I get 591 "nonresident" (based on the tax address assumption) landowners owning more than 2499 acres.


That list of landowners and the acres they own, is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouid=113353896550246742805&rtpof=true&sd=true



Here's a rough map.

Sketchy data in, sketchy data out, but for a GIS person, a 10 minute exercise. The software I use is a personal license, so I do not and can not do it for money or political reasons, just for personal interest. My own reasons for supporting the bill are more broad than the actual negative or positive potentially purported affects it may have.

View attachment 269289

Of course you can't stop the analysis there though, if you want to get down to the meat and potatoes of what the bill does (which is what you should do, if you are trying to make something the law of the land), you do need to include the factors listed in MT-BHA's post, such as duplicates, timber companies, how many of these folks are actually hunters or interested in hunting, etc. The more you think about, the less there is. Particularly when the bill is being touted as being of some kind of benefit to sportsmen.

But if you look at FWP's numbers, there are far more NR deer and elk hunters in MT than the 17,000 cap: 59,000. So if every single one of the landowners you found here got a tag and wasn't already hunting on their own property (591/59,000), then the number moved from public to private is 1%. Again, that is if you choose to not include a significant amount of relevant information.

Finally, go back to the original post: MT-BHA winnowed it down but did not exclude that information from you, as @Schaaf portended. Its the very first part of the post, wherein they told you that the raw data showed 554 parcels.

 

[antlerradar]

I have no idea which GIS person BHA hired. To be clear, I don't think we can trust any numbers thrown out there on either side of the debate with a whole lotta confidence.

The Montana Cadastral dataset has an attribute for the tax address of all landowners in Montana. Using those landowners whose tax address is not Montana, who, when all their parcels are dissolved into a single multipart polygon, own more than 2499 acres, I get 591 "nonresident" (based on the tax address assumption) landowners owning more than 2499 acres.


That list of landowners and the acres they own, is here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...ouid=113353896550246742805&rtpof=true&sd=true



Here's a rough map.

Sketchy data in, sketchy data out, but for a GIS person, a 10 minute exercise. The software I use is a personal license, so I do not and can not do it for money or political reasons, just for personal interest. My own reasons for supporting the bill are more broad than the actual negative or positive potentially purported affects it may have.

View attachment 269289

That map does not include Diamond Cross, a small 130 thousand acres

 

[Nameless Range]

That map does not include Diamond Cross, a small 130 thousand acres

That's a great example of why I said Sketchy data in, Sketchy data out.

Heal Holdings LLC, which now owns the Diamond Cross, has a tax address of Bozeman, Montana. I do not think the Tax Address method, which is what I wager the GIS analyst that BHA hired utilized (but I don't know), tells the whole story. It's not clear to me there is an easy way to tell wholesale who is a NR landowner on a statewide scale in an automated fashion.

 

[antlerradar]

That's a great example of why I said Sketchy data in, Sketchy data out.

Heal Holdings LLC, which now owns the Diamond Cross, has a tax address of Bozeman, Montana. I do not think the Tax Address method, which is what I wager the GIS analyst that BHA hired utilized (but I don't know), tells the whole story. It's not clear to me there is an easy way to tell wholesale who is a NR landowner on a statewide scale in an automated fashion.

I am betting that some have out of state tax addresses, but may be Montana residents.

 

[Elky Welky]

That's a great example of why I said Sketchy data in, Sketchy data out.

Heal Holdings LLC, which now owns the Diamond Cross, has a tax address of Bozeman, Montana. I do not think the Tax Address method, which is what I wager the GIS analyst that BHA hired utilized (but I don't know), tells the whole story. It's not clear to me there is an easy way to tell wholesale who is a NR landowner on a statewide scale in an automated fashion.

Which is probably why a 3rd party hired professional is more likely to give good data than someone with a vested interest in an outcome, or taking 10 minutes to do it in their basement. And proponents have suddenly gone quite quiet when it comes to the sketchiest data they provided and were relying heavily upon: "hunter days" which are incredibly speculative at best.

Which then, of course, brings us back to a point made much earlier in this ever-growing thread: what does this bill actually do, and who actually benefits? It is pretty clear now that it doesn't really help sportsmen in any meaningful way. And I certainly can't buy the new argument that by giving the opposition what they want for nothing in return, the opposition will suddenly stop asking for more. That's not how the world works. Once the door is opened it can't be closed.

More than anything, this has all gone to show that by advancing a bill prematurely and without the full support of the coalition behind it, this was incredibly reckless and exposed a weakness in the sporting community. Someone pointed it out earlier in this thread, and it is very true. We are all no doubt the laughing stock of the UPOMs of the world.

 

[Nameless Range]

Which is probably why a 3rd party hired professional is more likely to give good data than someone with a vested interest in an outcome, or taking 10 minutes to do it in their basement. And proponents have suddenly gone quite quiet when it comes to the sketchiest data they provided and were relying heavily upon: "hunter days" which are incredibly speculative at best.

Which then, of course, brings us back to a point made much earlier in this ever-growing thread: what does this bill actually do, and who actually benefits? It is pretty clear now that it doesn't really help sportsmen in any meaningful way. And I certainly can't buy the new argument that by giving the opposition what they want for nothing in return, the opposition will suddenly stop asking for more. That's not how the world works. Once the door is opened it can't be closed.

More than anything, this has all gone to show that by advancing a bill prematurely and without the full support of the coalition behind it, this was incredibly reckless and exposed a weakness in the sporting community. Someone pointed it out earlier in this thread, and it is very true. We are all no doubt the laughing stock of the UPOMs of the world.

BHA's hire came up with a very similar number to what I did - they then stripped out what they deemed were duplicates, and those who were in permit areas. If you know someone at BHA and are supremely confident in the work of a hired professional, I'd be curious the methodology used to determine who is a NR landowner and who isn't. I told you exactly how I arrived at the data I shared above, why it is likely unreliable, and why I am skeptical a reliable dataset exists regardless of the "vested interest" sharing it.

It's not a secret who this bill benefits and in turn satiates. What it does on a broader and more tactical scale - the tone of this session - is where its true merit lies in my mind. The harm/help discussions are much ado about not much. I can't see where Montanans themselves - are really giving up much at all.

Also, I'm in my kitchen.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

That's a great example of why I said Sketchy data in, Sketchy data out.

Heal Holdings LLC, which now owns the Diamond Cross, has a tax address of Bozeman, Montana. I do not think the Tax Address method, which is what I wager the GIS analyst that BHA hired utilized (but I don't know), tells the whole story. It's not clear to me there is an easy way to tell wholesale who is a NR landowner on a statewide scale in an automated fashion.

The tax address assumption is correct. It's not perfect, however it's great you ran your own GIS analysis and found numbers that were very close to the GIS reports commissioned by Montana BHA and MWF. Each were slightly different, but each under 600 and over 550. These GIS reports are likely the best info we have to determine the potential effects of this bill and I think they should be considered. I'm open to other idea though, too.

I believe them to be far more accurate than the 30,000 nonresident hunter-day-reduction originally claimed by proponents. Sketchy data in, sketchy data out indeed.

What problem will this bill be solving and how will it solve those problem? It was claimed this bill will reduce nonresident hunter pressure on public land by 30K hunter days. It was claimed this it part of an elk package of bills and all need to be passed for the sake of the elk package. Now it's a being called a compromise that will stop transferable tags.

Rewarding nonresidents with our publicly owned wildlife will not solve any of the stated problems.

The three GIS reports show the imperceivable effects this bill will have on reducing nonresident hunter pressure on public land.

Each bill in the elk package of bills can stand alone. They are not dependent on one another. In fact, some have already failed, yet the rest of the bills are still moving.

Prioritizing wildlife based wealth is privatization. How is privatization the best solution to stop privatization? What compromise are participants making to stop the push of privatization? What compromise are nonresidents making? What about PERC and MOGA, what compromise are they offering? The bill doesn't even say these tags are not transferable.

Luckily, selling tags is already illegal in Montana. We don't need this bill to save us from that terrible problem... however it surely sets the stage for overturning that law.

The only thing we know for certain about this bill is it gives up to 5 elk tags to nonresident landowners based only their ability to buy large tracts of land in Montana. It guarantees we violate our best wildlife management principles. That's it.

This is such a bad bill.

 

[Elky Welky]

BHA's hire came up with a very similar number to what I did - they then stripped out what they deemed were duplicates, and those who were in permit areas. If you know someone at BHA and are supremely confident in the work of a hired professional, I'd be curious the methodology used to determine who is a NR landowner and who isn't. I told you exactly how I arrived at the data I shared above, why it is likely unreliable, and why I am skeptical a reliable dataset exists regardless of the "vested interest" sharing it.

It's not a secret who this bill benefits and in turn satiates. What it does on a broader and more tactical scale - the tone of this session - is where its true merit lies in my mind. The harm/help discussions are much ado about not much. I can't see where Montanans themselves - are really giving up much at all.

Also, I'm in my kitchen.

Fair enough, so was your math done on the back of a napkin?

In all seriousness, I can't for the life of me wrap my head around the "broader and more tactical" benefit of giving up something for nothing. The sweep of coalition bills would have been just as strong minus this one, and would have shown a unified front and the ability to work together. There's nothing tactical about ramrodding bad or, at best, useless legislation through and--instead of showing strength and holding the line where it matters--showing weakness.

And if you are wondering who is at MT-BHA to talk to, @John B. Sullivan III in this thread is the board chair, and I would certainly echo every point he just made above.

 

[Gerald Martin]

All this discussion about what Montana residents are giving up does not acknowledge the indisputable fact that all 17,600 B-10 licenses are already “given up” to N.R. hunters.

Designating that up to 15% of those NR tags are set aside in a separate drawing process that prefers NR landowners (fitting the parameters of 635) to buy a full prized NR tag above other NR applicants doesn’t mean that Montana residents are “giving up” anything additional if 635 passes.

Folks are entitled to whatever their opinion is over whether the bill is worthy of support or opposition but let’s at least keep the arguments as accurate as possible.

 

[Elky Welky]

All this discussion about what Montana residents are giving up does not acknowledge the indisputable fact that all 17,600 B-10 licenses are already “given up” to N.R. hunters.

Designating that up to 15% of those NR tags are set aside in a separate drawing process that prefers NR landowners (fitting the parameters of 635) to buy a full prized NR tag above other NR applicants doesn’t mean that Montana residents are “giving up” anything additional if 635 passes.

Folks are entitled to whatever their opinion is over whether the bill is worthy of support or opposition but let’s at least keep the arguments as accurate as possible.

What's being "given up" is the idea that our wildlife belongs to the public, regardless of wealth or landownership. It's sacrificing the core values many of us believe in, regardless of where we live. And it is sacrificing those values at the alter of some undefined "broader and more tactical benefit."

 

[Gerald Martin]

If I were emperor and my interpretation of strict adherence to the principle of democratic allocation of access to wildlife as outlined in the principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Management were followed, all forms of preference would be outlawed. That includes all bonus points, preference points, landowner preference or allowances of how many tags can be applied for at one time. In fact, established US law that has settled the legal realities that states may set limitations on NR hunters is in itself a
violation of that same principle. Same thing could be said for any application fee or license fee that limits participation because of a high cost.


In summary, it is my opinion that the principle of democratic allocation does not have uniform practical application across the states or even within a state. Who gets to determine what exactly constitutes an application in harmony with or in violation of the principle?

 

[Gerald Martin]

What's being "given up" is the idea that our wildlife belongs to the public, regardless of wealth or landownership. It's sacrificing the core values many of us believe in, regardless of where we live. And it is sacrificing those values at the alter of some undefined "broader and more tactical benefit."

Access does not determine ownership. Ownership does not determine access. In Montana those “core values” must have been sacrificed decades ago when we granted resident landowners preferential treatment in the drawing of permits and licenses in the units they own property.

Where are the bills that will roll back this violation? Resident landowner preference directly affects other resident shareholders by reducing their ability to draw tags or licenses at the same rate as landowners.

 

[Elky Welky]

Access does not determine ownership. Ownership does not determine access. In Montana those “core values” must have been sacrificed decades ago when we granted resident landowners preferential treatment in the drawing of permits and licenses in the units they own property.

Where are the bills that will roll back this violation? Resident landowner preference directly affects other resident shareholders by reducing their ability to draw tags or licenses at the same rate as landowners.

As soon as I said it I expected you would come full circle with the comparison between resident preference and this bill. Now we're truly just eating our tail. I'm not going to go down that road again, you can refer back about however many pages you want on that one and why this is different.

The GIS stuff is interesting and worthwhile towards understanding the impact of this bill and moves this conversation forward. The Missoula Current article shows what happened last week. Now we wait and find out what the senate and governor want to do with it.

I actually hope you are right, and that if this passes it doesn't open the door to more problems, hunting gets better for us all, and PERC and others stop pushing for transferable tags, privatizing wildlife, and turning hunting in Montana to something only the rich and famous get to enjoy.

And if the bill passes, hopefully we can just get back to fighting the good fight. Next time, together.

 

[SAJ-99]

All this discussion about what Montana residents are giving up does not acknowledge the indisputable fact that all 17,600 B-10 licenses are already “given up” to N.R. hunters.

Designating that up to 15% of those NR tags are set aside in a separate drawing process that prefers NR landowners (fitting the parameters of 635) to buy a full prized NR tag above other NR applicants doesn’t mean that Montana residents are “giving up” anything additional if 635 passes.

Folks are entitled to whatever their opinion is over whether the bill is worthy of support or opposition but let’s at least keep the arguments as accurate as possible.

Wait,what? The $1200 paid by NRs for the elk/deer combo is discretionary?

Seriously though, I think there is a lot in the bill to support even if I don’t like not having a good idea of the numbers. I also saw the same “let’s try it to see if it works” comment in the article. How did that work out on shoulder seasons? A lot of the bad ideas don’t go away even after they prove themselves as bad.

I’m just not sure this NR Landowner piece is a great idea. It turns NR against NR. Residents don’t care but when they need support against UPOM or MOGA and whatever BS they cook up, it is going to be tough to support given residents casually throw the NR public land hunter under the bus if they get access and get to keep opportunity. Like I half-joked earlier, seems like a NR needs to cozy up to MOGA ideas because that if the chosen direction.

The word for 2025 will be “transferable”.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Elky Welky, I’m in full agreement with your last paragraph.

Respectfully though, no one has ever clearly explained the difference between resident landowner preference and NR landowner preference.

Am I wrong to conclude that there is no difference when it comes to being in harmony with or in violation of the NAMWM? The only difference is in people’s opinion of whether NR preference is a line too far. To be clear, I respect everyone’s right to have their opinions about how far is too far. In a democratic society when it comes to best policy and best practices a majority of opinion determines how a principle is applied.

As noted above, at this point the next step of pass or fail is determined by the committee.

 

[Gerald Martin]

“Wait,what? The $1200 paid by NRs for the elk/deer combo is discretionary? “


I’m not tracking????

 

[Elky Welky]

@Elky Welky, I’m in full agreement with your last paragraph.

Respectfully though, no one has ever clearly explained the difference between resident landowner preference and NR landowner preference.

Am I wrong to conclude that there is no difference when it comes to being in harmony with or in violation of the NAMWM? The only difference is in people’s opinion of whether NR preference is a line too far. To be clear, I respect everyone’s right to have their opinions about how far is too far. In a democratic society when it comes to best policy and best practices a majority of opinion determines how a principle is applied.

As noted above, at this point the next step of pass or fail is determined by the committee.

That conversation can be found on page 8, multiple people weighed in on the differences between those two. It happened late Thursday and into Friday morning.

And thanks @gerald. I really do appreciate your willingness to keep the conversation positive and moving forward as well, and your respect for the values of everyone here. At this point I think we all know where the lines have been drawn.