Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Schaaf]

Current senate bill 235, 2025 session, helps reduce the gaming of the system and states that the land owner actually has to own the land (not just under contract).

Passed second reading in the senate yesterday 49-0.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Passed second reading in the senate yesterday 49-0.

Senator Bogner deserves a lot praise for carrying this.

SB235 also provides a definition of employee that makes it year round, full time & gives the agency more discretion in awarding LOP. There's a lot more that needs to be done relative to LOP, and there may still be bills in it but I think those bills may end up in a similar spot as an LC we tried last session - meeting a lot of opposition from resident landowners - unless the landowner groups are part of the discussion.

EHA's aren't perfect, but the controversy around them is dying down and we see groups that are formerly antagonistic (and rightly so in the past) becoming more accepting of the program as those deficiencies are addressed.

HB519 is premature. We've seen some properties open access in limited ways due to the program. One of the biggest rules in government relations is to start where your opponent is, not where you are. Treating these folks like neighbors rather than enemies seems to be creating better relationships and is increasing community participation from some landowners while providing a friendly path towards gaining access to properties that are mostly off limits. Nobody is likely to give your ideas credence when you savage them, or spend your time talking shit. The 635 program is an attempt to flip the paradigm and try a carrot - a full price B10 license in a separate pool that's available for people w/over 2500 acre and limited to their own land - to reward conservation uplift and help show that neighborliness.

131 licenses were sold through this pool. The average requirement limits participation. The increase in access, better relationships & improved path to greater access opportunities is worth it in my opinion.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Senator Bogner deserves a lot praise for carrying this.

SB235 also provides a definition of employee that makes it year round, full time & gives the agency more discretion in awarding LOP. There's a lot more that needs to be done relative to LOP, and there may still be bills in it but I think those bills may end up in a similar spot as an LC we tried last session - meeting a lot of opposition from resident landowners - unless the landowner groups are part of the discussion.

EHA's aren't perfect, but the controversy around them is dying down and we see groups that are formerly antagonistic (and rightly so in the past) becoming more accepting of the program as those deficiencies are addressed.

HB519 is premature. We've seen some properties open access in limited ways due to the program. One of the biggest rules in government relations is to start where your opponent is, not where you are. Treating these folks like neighbors rather than enemies seems to be creating better relationships and is increasing community participation from some landowners while providing a friendly path towards gaining access to properties that are mostly off limits. Nobody is likely to give your ideas credence when you savage them, or spend your time talking shit. The 635 program is an attempt to flip the paradigm and try a carrot - a full price B10 license in a separate pool that's available for people w/over 2500 acre and limited to their own land - to reward conservation uplift and help show that neighborliness.

131 licenses were sold through this pool. The average requirement limits participation. The increase in access, better relationships & improved path to greater access opportunities is worth it in my opinion.

Have we seen improvement in habitat? How about access?

Whenever, we, as public hunters look at selling parts of the NAM is the juice worth the squeeze? Theres a wide range of payout that might be worth it - documentable habitat improvement. Or allowing several general public cow and/or bull hunters. Perhaps increased tolerance, and growth in objective numbers. In the research ive done, im not seeing it. EHAs seem to have been not a great deal.

Worse - folks are literally marketing working ranches as ways to get tags in high value areas.

Montana's New Game-Changer: House Bill 635

House Bill 635 Empowers Non-Resident Landowners to hunt Elk on their own land, Plus Four other proven strategies for non-resident landowners to maximize their hunting odds.

landinvestorguide.com

 

[NDGuy]

Passed second reading in the senate yesterday 49-0.

Nice! I am surprised that much support.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Have we seen improvement in habitat? How about access?

Whenever, we, as public hunters need to look at selling parts of the NAM are worth the squeeze. Theres a wide range of payout that might be worth it - documentable habitat improvement. Or allowing several general public cow and/or bull hunters. Perhaps increased tolerance, and therfore growth in objective numbers. In the research ive done, im not seeing it. EHAs seem to have been not a great deal.

Worse - folks are literally marketing working ranches as ways to get tags in high value areas.

Montana's New Game-Changer: House Bill 635

House Bill 635 Empowers Non-Resident Landowners to hunt Elk on their own land, Plus Four other proven strategies for non-resident landowners to maximize their hunting odds.

landinvestorguide.com

I toured a ranch this last year that's pouring over $5 million in to streamside restoration and over $1 million a year in noxious weed management. They purchased the property in 2022 or 23, iirc.

They've used the 635 program for their family, and they've started an access program that mirrors the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Associations Next Level Hunter Ed program on the MPG Ranch. That first year program brought people in to hunt elk in the general season & shoulder season. Their access program is starting small (5-10 people a year) so they can gain some comfort in how public access will work on a property that has been off limits to the public for over 40 years. They have recommitted to 2025, and will bring back those people from last year as well as another 5-10 this year.

Some EHA's are starting to see loosened access restrictions as landowners start to see more value in terms of elk distribution & changing public perception. I've heard of one that has allowed over 100 hunters on for antlerless as well as the obligated 3, for example. The agency is continually looking at ways to improve that program. Abuse still exists in the program, but I think there is a shared desire to root it out and make it work as best as it can.

The real estate market for LOP is absolutely targeting the 640 permit pool. There's no shortage of people - resident and nonresident- who buy 640's as cheap as they can and secure LOP permits even though they don't have elk on them. The department has the authority to place more conditions on those to root out people who are intentionally gaming the system. If we want to change how the 640 stacking is being abused, I'm 100% on board with that. There may be a bill this session to address that. Not sure though as we're in the final crush before transmittal.

To qualify for the 635 program, you have to own 2500 acres of contiguous land for 1 B10 combination license. Those who qualify can only hunt their own deeded land or private land that is leased for agricultural purposes. They do not get a permit, but may purchase an extra bonus point if they enroll in an FWP access program.

IMO, 635 follows the North American Model. It doesn't transfer ownership of wildlife out of the public trust, it democratically allocates a license and it still relies on biology to set seasons, permits, etc.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I toured a ranch this last year that's pouring over $5 million in to streamside restoration and over $1 million a year in noxious weed management. They purchased the property in 2022 or 23, iirc.

They've used the 635 program for their family, and they've started an access program that mirrors the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Associations Next Level Hunter Ed program on the MPG Ranch. That first year program brought people in to hunt elk in the general season & shoulder season. Their access program is starting small (5-10 people a year) so they can gain some comfort in how public access will work on a property that has been off limits to the public for over 40 years. They have recommitted to 2025, and will bring back those people from last year as well as another 5-10 this year.

Some EHA's are starting to see loosened access restrictions as landowners start to see more value in terms of elk distribution & changing public perception. I've heard of one that has allowed over 100 hunters on for antlerless as well as the obligated 3, for example. The agency is continually looking at ways to improve that program. Abuse still exists in the program, but I think there is a shared desire to root it out and make it work as best as it can.

The real estate market for LOP is absolutely targeting the 640 permit pool. There's no shortage of people - resident and nonresident- who buy 640's as cheap as they can and secure LOP permits even though they don't have elk on them. The department has the authority to place more conditions on those to root out people who are intentionally gaming the system. If we want to change how the 640 stacking is being abused, I'm 100% on board with that. There may be a bill this session to address that. Not sure though as we're in the final crush before transmittal.

To qualify for the 635 program, you have to own 2500 acres of contiguous land for 1 B10 combination license. Those who qualify can only hunt their own deeded land or private land that is leased for agricultural purposes. They do not get a permit, but may purchase an extra bonus point if they enroll in an FWP access program.

IMO, 635 follows the North American Model. It doesn't transfer ownership of wildlife out of the public trust, it democratically allocates a license and it still relies on biology to set seasons, permits, etc.

I suppose ill just have to place myself in the selfish group and say its not enough. I wish R landowners, long time ones especially, got more perks and incentives - and i will side eye anything that drives up the value of that land solely for recreational value. Because it is to their extreme detriment - jmho.

Good to hear about that conservation. What i really want is more cooperation and bridge building. Forgive the political reference, it just cant be a bridge to no where.

I'll look into more of the EHAs. Maybe im being narrow.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I suppose ill just have to place myself in the selfish group and say its not enough. I wish R landowners, long time ones especially, got more perks and incentives - and i will side eye anything that drives up the value of that land solely for recreational value. Because it is to their extreme detriment - jmho.

Good to hear about that conservation. What i really want is more cooperation and bridge building. Forgive the political reference, it just cant be a bridge to no where.

I'll look into more of the EHAs. Maybe im being narrow.

I hear you on wanting more, but the other side of that equation (landowners) are asking for patience. For the last 20 years, the recurring refrain from the public hunting side has come across as demanding access rather than asking what would work for the landowner to increase their participation. We see that in testimony on bills where advocates say that we shouldn't have landowner preference (LOP) at all, or that landowners should only hunt t heir own property, or that any license should be based on the access allowed. For 50 years, landowner preference has been an expression of gratitude of the citizens of Montana to those who host wildlife year round. I think that's a great way to show that appreciation without allowing people to monetize the licenses or use it as a tool to demand more.

I'm all for giving resident landowners better incentives as well. It's not just monetary incentives either. It's more tools to provide access that works for an operation, as well as better enforcement of existing laws, BMA rules etc. SB 83 is an attempt to do the latter. There are two LC's being drafted now that will enhance both enforcement tools and access tools that seem to be pretty exciting, depending on how they are drafted.

As far as the real estate market is concerned, Wildlife has been a driving motivator for a lot of years. But I think the top end of sales may be dropping based on some market indicators.

Those who have the funds to invest in real estate will continue to do so, as they always have. How we treat them when they arrive is likely a deciding factor for those folks on allowing access. Hands out in a handshake, or fists out wanting to fight makes a big difference in those discussions, in my experience. That said, there have to be some pretty strong sideboards that will need to be adhered too relative to how that access is achieved, such as no transferable licenses and making sure those eligible for some licenses are not expanded beyond family and full time employees of the ag operation.

Getting to better LOP permitting through the agency relative to the 640 permit pool is the best way to provide better reform of Landowner Preference than 519. The pricing of a 640 of hard pan land without an elk within miles makes LOP more attractive for those who want to get into the LOP game. If you can afford a 2500 acre wildlife rich ranch, you can afford a tag in CO, NM, NV, etc. Keeping the land in larger blocks of acres also means better wildlife habitat as it's not lost through fragmentation or subdivision. Those ranches still provide significant conservation uplift.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I forgot to add/ask - in particular those who defended and advocated for this - how do you feel about the return on what you gave up?

It’s a fair question. I didn’t like the work around that certain celebrity hunters and others used to game the system. The unanimous passage of SB-235 yesterday ending that makes me feel a lot better.

I think overall, I am still of the same opinion I was when I started and still in support of it. To me, it has always been about recognizing the value of private land providing habitat for public wildlife regardless of the residency of the owner. I see no difference between acknowledging that a resident landowner provides habitat and a NR landowner provides habitat and incentivizing them to continue to provide habitat and tolerance for public wildlife by providing preference.

So long as the preference provided to NR landowners continues to come out of the 17,600 capped licenses and only gives them preference over other NR’s and they pay full price for their license as well as hunting their own property I don’t think I gave up anything.

The fact that only 131 licenses were sold
to landowners who used their preference to get a license shows me it really isn’t a problem and I think it’s still a net positive for MT residents.

I have never looked to 635 to increase any additional public access on those properties. My perspective is that whatever access those NR landowners provide is going to be there or not be there regardless of whether 635 is in place.

One area of NR preference that I do feel is detrimental to MT resident hunters is all of the reduced price licenses we provide to NR hunters that are sold in excess of the 17,600 cap. Those include all the come home to hunt, NR youth, and MT native licenses. Those tags comprised an additional 3,252 licenses sold in 2023 at half price or less of full price NR licenses. Those are far more of a “giving up” at the expense of MT residents than the tags sold under 635. If folks are upset about preferential treatment of certain NR’s over other NR’s that harm residents, those are the tags that should be targeted first.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The answer is dealing with season structures...not playing tag distribution games.

Speaking of ants...this tag incentive program is worrying about the ants while the elephants stomp you into taco filling.

I do, however, agree with you if this is the place it starts, I'm hopeful something more impactful will be next.

Revisiting Buzz’s post from two years ago. You called it then. Concrete steps are currently underway to address this and who the proponents and opponents of those efforts are is rather uncanny. Two years later, the rifts among relationships within the conservation community are far more momentous than 635 warranted and have led to some positions being taken and bills being supported that I never would have thought then.

 

[Elky Welky]

To me, it has always been about recognizing the value of private land providing habitat for public wildlife regardless of the residency of the owner. I see no difference between acknowledging that a resident landowner provides habitat and a NR landowner provides habitat and incentivizing them to continue to provide habitat and tolerance for public wildlife by providing preference.

This is a valid argument to a point, but doesn't go deep enough. A resident landowner provides habitat not for much more than it is an ancillary benefit to their business. Should someone who walks to work as an oil driller, because it is close, and them walking therefore benefits the environment: should they get a free tag? Heck no. A rancher is in the business of raising cattle for market, the fact that wildlife benefits is secondary. Being a good steward to the land is for the benefit of their cattle, first and foremost. (yes, there are many landowners that care about the wildlife and work for them too, even some that prioritize it, but we have stop thinking the exceptions don't prove the rule).

Which then makes a NR Landowner even more problematic: the only reason for someone to own that much land in MT and not live here is wealth, plain and simple. Habitat is always secondary, and this belief that we should reward people who own land is a logical fallacy. An effective one, for sure. And deeply rooted. I don't expect to change your beliefs on that, but it is certainly worth noting.

The fact that only 131 licenses were sold
to landowners who used their preference to get a license shows me it really isn’t a problem and I think it’s still a net positive for MT residents.

That's 131 less DIY NR hunters who lost out simply because they don't own land. Saying simply "screw 'em" that's not that much" is particularly insidious. People lose their rights by death by a thousand cuts, not all at once.

One area of NR preference that I do feel is detrimental to MT resident hunters is all of the reduced price licenses we provide to NR hunters that are sold in excess of the 17,600 cap. Those include all the come home to hunt, NR youth, and MT native licenses. Those tags comprised an additional 3,252 licenses sold in 2023 at half price or less of full price NR licenses. Those are far more of a “giving up” at the expense of MT residents than the tags sold under 635. If folks are upset about preferential treatment of certain NR’s over other NR’s that harm residents, those are the tags that should be targeted first.

*Sigh.* Would've been nice if someone would have introduced a bill last session to work on that problem, if only all the bs over 635 hadn't killed it.

Concrete steps are currently underway to address this and who the proponents and opponents of those efforts are is rather uncanny.

There is also such thing as neutral, Gerald. It is premature to assume that all the lines have been drawn when you guys are so early in the process here, on one singular issue.

Two years later, the rifts among relationships within the conservation community are far more momentous than 635 warranted and have led to some positions being taken and bills being supported that I never would have thought then.

Again, neutral isn't support. And you have to stop using "conservation community" when you are really just talking about you and a few others on this website. There's a bigger community out there.