Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Forkyfinder]

If the 15% pool isn't subscribed too, then those licenses go into the general draw.

The 17k are fully subscribed.

Ah so, if your points get entered in 2 draws (one really good, one really bad)? When everyone could just enter in the same draw at higher odds, you are arguing theres no difference in sales/incentive to buy points?

If 15% of the group doesnt have to accumulate as many points, i dont see how this isnt a funding loss to the long term sale of points. Preference points are obvious.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ah so, if your points get entered in 2 draws (one really good, one really bad)? When everyone could just enter in the same draw at higher odds, you are arguing theres no difference in sales/incentive to buy points?

If 15% of the group doesnt have to accumulate as many points, i dont see how this isnt a funding loss to the long term sale of points.

Are we seriously at the point of debating the merits of a bill based on the funding effect it could potentially have on how many people return tags or apply for permits? My head hurts. I don’t even know how to process that.

 

[Carnage2011]

Ah so, if your points get entered in 2 draws (one really good, one really bad)? When everyone could just enter in the same draw at higher odds, you are arguing theres no difference in sales/incentive to buy points?

If 15% of the group doesnt have to accumulate as many points, i dont see how this isnt a funding loss to the long term sale of points. Preference points are obvious.

You’re looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. NR’s are capped for LE permits. No matter who draws their points are being used and therefore someone else is accruing another point. Those 130 people are having a very minimal impact on the draw odds for NR’s wanting a LE permit.

If HB635 gets overturned or amended, great. Every decision has some sort of financial impact, this one is minimal.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Are we seriously at the point of debating the merits of a bill based on the funding effect it could potentially have on how many people return tags or apply for permits? My head hurts. I don’t even know how to process that.

Preference points and bonus points are sold for money. Tags that arent gauranteed, have a chance of getting returned. I suppose im sorry tax season is around the corner if its hard to see why some of the revenue is gone.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You’re looking for a problem that doesn’t exist. NR’s are capped for LE permits. No matter who draws their points are being used and therefore someone else is accruing another point. Those 130 people are having a very minimal impact on the draw odds for NR’s wanting a LE permit.

If HB635 gets overturned or amended, great. Every decision has some sort of financial impact, this one is minimal.

Minimal for now and not really calculable. Sounds like the beat of the drums that keeps the freebies for college kids, young kids, and people born here.

But okay.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Preference points and bonus points are sold for money. Tags that arent gauranteed, have a chance of getting returned. I suppose im sorry tax season is around the corner if its hard to see why some of the revenue is gone.

I’m not being sarcastic or facetious and I understand your point. I just don’t know how anyone could measure what impact 635 has on the budget with any certainty? Full price general tags don’t guarantee a permit and will still be returned at some rate when landowners don’t draw a permit. So the only effect would be on the bonus/preference side.

I think the effect is negligible but how would anyone show what is reality, pro or con? IMO, effects are all speculative on that point.

Some of them the other points you raise in opposition are much more compelling to me.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Minimal for now and not really calculable. Sounds like the beat of the drums that keeps the freebies for college kids, young kids, and people born here.

But okay.

Funding effects of the reduced price licenses are
tracked and easily calculated. Cost to other hunters in terms of competition aren’t as easily calculated but are certainly not negligible when we’re talking about 3200 or more additional licenses.

Especially since all those licenses are effectively OTC licenses and not capped. We can expect to see the number of those licenses continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m not being sarcastic or facetious and I understand your point. I just don’t know how anyone could measure what impact 635 has on the budget with any certainty? Full price general tags don’t guarantee a permit and will still be returned at some rate when landowners don’t draw a permit. So the only effect would be on the bonus/preference side.

I think the effect is negligible but how would anyone show what is reality, pro or con? IMO, effects are all speculative on that point.

Some of them the other points you raise in opposition are much more compelling to me.

Well if its not something you can really prove its sort of a counter factual, right? I cant say it'll go down x y or z. But i feel like its very valid. Funding is always a golden cow, seemingly until we cant figure out how much the cow weighs.

I hate to be rough on it - but the conversation i had partially changed my trajectory of being involved. I wish you had been there to be a fly on the wall.

I should add - if these forced objective numbers up (say at least +1 per NR LO tag, to break even), id feel ever so slightly better. If it was +5 or +10 id like it a lot more.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Funding effects of the reduced price licenses are
tracked and easily calculated. Cost to other hunters in terms of competition aren’t as easily calculated but are certainly not negligible when we’re talking about 3200 or more additional licenses.

Especially since all those licenses are effectively OTC licenses and not capped. We can expect to see the number of those licenses continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

Ah yes, and we should all be trying to kill that monster before it grows.

It either falls into two categories
1. Too small to care
2. Big enough to affect funding

1 is easier to deal with than 2, and it moves closer to 2 every year.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Also - curious - what is the fine for a NR taking game not on their land against the intent off it? Poaching? Or? Not really, cause thats not entirely against the law right? Seems like itd be EXTREMELY hard to enforce. How many NRs have ever been asked if they were on one of these gift tags?

Thats a huge enforcement challenge not bothering anyone else apparently.

 

[Elky Welky]

Perhaps some folks should revisit the NAM, which is why most Montana-based conservation orgs objected to 635 in the first place, and didn't sell out their integrity in exchange for some mythical "good will" from wealthy nonresidents:

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
Eh, we can hold some in trust for wealthy citizens that own land elsewhere, that's just fine. No big deal, just the first tenet of the NAM. If the effect is minimal, we are fine giving up on our principles. We get nothing in return, other than the false notion that if you give rich people a bone, they will throw you crumbs.

2.Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.

3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
Of course, the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. Pay the right people, shake the right tree, and good ideas get killed and bad ones advance.

4. Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.

5. Wildlife is an international resource.

6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
*Correction" All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. If you own land, you are more entitled to opportunity under the law than anyone else.

7. Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Elky Welky ,

Serious question. MT gives landowner preference to resident landowners. Is that a violation of NAM? If so where are the bills to remove that?

 

[Elky Welky]

@Elky Welky ,

Serious question. MT gives landowner preference to resident landowners. Is that a violation of NAM? If so where are the bills to remove that?

Serious answer. Yes, and good question. To elaborate on the yes, just see my response to you earlier in this thread about how I don't find much merit in arguments that we owe landowners anything because they own land. But under the plain language of the NAM, landowner preference is problematic and very much so violates the NAM.

I can really only speculate an answer to the second question, but resident landowner preference has been a thing in MT since before I started getting active in wildlife politics, so I don't know the legislative history. I would be not surprised if at the time it was introduced, people fought against it under the NAM. I predict that the arguments in favor of resident landowner preference followed the same reasoning: like a NR landowner, they own habitat. But unlike a NR, they live here year round, pay different taxes, suffer our winters and droughts, are in our community, suffer the "Montana Tax" of being paid less than most anyone in any other state, etc. As I've pointed out, I personally don't find R or NR landowner preference all that compelling or different regardless, but I would think those were the arguments in favor.

I would then predict the second factor is inertia. Once a bill becomes law it becomes far more difficult to overturn, and could take literally over a hundred years to change: (https://www.ktvq.com/news/montana-politics/montana-bill-aims-to-kill-1895-law-on-fatal-duels): particularly as you have more and more resident landowners that have taken advantage of that program; some even serving in our legislature. I'm sure there was very little appetite from the powers that be to give up something they gave themselves and their constituents. Maybe for a few sessions efforts to overturn it were introduced, I simply don't know. I'd also predict there aren't any legislators that feel they could get elected if they did bring a bill like that now. If they did, I'm sure advocates who believe in the NAM would support it.

Of course the difference here is that 635 is still fresh and very relevant to the current moment, and has the potential to be repealed because there is, in fact, a bill in front of us. @Forky Finder shared that article about land investors buying property under 635, which was one of the exact fears raised when folks stood up against it. And people still remember how it got shoved through over significant objection, and many of the people involved are still around who could make a difference to repeal it.

It should be no surprise to anyone when MT-BHA shows up in support of repealing 635; we fought hard against it when it was introduced under the principle of the NAM and sadly it became law anyways. But @Ben Lamb isn't entirely wrong either; if you are only worried about the fiscal/hunter day/pressure effects of 635, repealing it could be premature; there are too many unknowns. But our support of repeal is based on the very principal it violates, and every day that passes while it is still law is a day we lose the ability to repeal it because of the inertia I talked about above. Eventually, the monied interests that want it in statute will enjoy it too much, and at that point it will be too late. No legislator will bring a bill to repeal it.

And just a side note: this argument that it isn't that important and therefore wasn't worth anyone's time is a knife that cuts both ways. If it violates the NAM, but "isn't that big of a deal," then why was it so important to get it passed last session? If it really wasn't a big deal to its proponents, but it was a big deal to advocates of the NAM, then the people who cared more should have won the day, and 635 shouldn't be the law now. But they didn't. Food for thought.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Fair enough. At least there’s consistency in the opposition. I can respect that argument from the perspective of democratic allocation of licenses.

Something of a tangent from the discussion about how we allocate tags, but definitely relevant to the overall issues surrounding wildlife management and the costs of wildlife on private property and benefits to the public that private habitat contributes to wildlife, what if any consideration, appreciation, etc. is reasonable to provide landowners whose property provides habitat?


My old neighbor used to have a sign on his boat that said “Thanks doesn’t fill my gas tank.” It seems a bit relevant to the conflict surrounding wildlife management/ private property/public resources in MT.

 

[Elky Welky]

Something of a tangent from the discussion about how we allocate tags, but definitely relevant to the overall issues surrounding wildlife management and the costs of wildlife on private property and benefits to the public that private habitat contributes to wildlife, what if any consideration, appreciation, etc. is reasonable to provide landowners whose property provides habitat?

That is the question Gerald, you hit it on the head. And one that is always up for debate, and you are going to get wildly different answers from the Stockgrowers, MOGA, PERC, MWF etc. No disagreement that it is a conversation worth having and continuing to have; and has been had a number of times on this platform and elsewhere. You know where I stand.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My old neighbor used to have a sign on his boat that said “Thanks doesn’t fill my gas tank.” It seems a bit relevant to the conflict surrounding wildlife management/ private property/public resources in MT.

Thanks not filling the gas tank...? Are you talking about CRP subsidies? Grazing subsidies? Property tax subsidies? Crop insurance? Profiting off public resources (wildife?) Water subsidies? What tank of gas are you referring to?

Do none of these things count? Thats clearly the narrative in helena and the average guy paying those subsidies and taxes has no voice or lobbyist to represent that reality. It really comes down to concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Of course - i blame no one that takes advantage as whats available to them - and in business of any kind not doing such while your competition does will close your doors quick.

I like your analogy of boat gas, as its a good relationship/expectation analogy in the first place. Lets build on that - a better comparision is me towing your neighbors boat with my pickup, to your cabin, and us collecticely having trouble deciding who should be paying how much for gas and what we owe you for staying at your cabin. Its as complicated or as simple as you want to make it. . .But there's at least more than one tank of gas we are all talking about filling ... there are 3 parties in reality - hunters, game, and landowners. There is no one in that triune relationship thats not both a shareholder and a beneficiary of the other two.

Other interesting thought - if ranch land in Montana IS worth significantly more (it is one of the first things marketed on those wesbsites) with good/healthy populations - where was the lack of market incentive again? Whens the last time you wildlife has been thanked for contributing to the other gas tank? I can only imagine how much less a lot of places in Central montana would be worth if elk polulations werent revitalized there.

Like alluded to earlier - everyone, especially in Helena, is really quick to present an argument as if wildlife are only a cost in the equation and never ever a benefit. I suppose thats what strikes me about the plethora of comments here, in support of this poor policy. Why wasnt it supposed to put any gas in the tank of wildlife? We traded for hope, not for access, not for habitat or additional game on the mountain just the "hope" that a bunch of folks worth 10 figures or more will do the "right" thing. Seems like we try that in DC a lot, id argue it doesnt work.

"Whadja do with the damn gas you were supposed to put in ?" As we sit in middle of the lake empty

 

[Schaaf]

Serious answer. Yes, and good question. To elaborate on the yes, just see my response to you earlier in this thread about how I don't find much merit in arguments that we owe landowners anything because they own land. But under the plain language of the NAM, landowner preference is problematic and very much so violates the NAM.

I can really only speculate an answer to the second question, but resident landowner preference has been a thing in MT since before I started getting active in wildlife politics, so I don't know the legislative history. I would be not surprised if at the time it was introduced, people fought against it under the NAM. I predict that the arguments in favor of resident landowner preference followed the same reasoning: like a NR landowner, they own habitat. But unlike a NR, they live here year round, pay different taxes, suffer our winters and droughts, are in our community, suffer the "Montana Tax" of being paid less than most anyone in any other state, etc. As I've pointed out, I personally don't find R or NR landowner preference all that compelling or different regardless, but I would think those were the arguments in favor.

I would then predict the second factor is inertia. Once a bill becomes law it becomes far more difficult to overturn, and could take literally over a hundred years to change: (https://www.ktvq.com/news/montana-politics/montana-bill-aims-to-kill-1895-law-on-fatal-duels): particularly as you have more and more resident landowners that have taken advantage of that program; some even serving in our legislature. I'm sure there was very little appetite from the powers that be to give up something they gave themselves and their constituents. Maybe for a few sessions efforts to overturn it were introduced, I simply don't know. I'd also predict there aren't any legislators that feel they could get elected if they did bring a bill like that now. If they did, I'm sure advocates who believe in the NAM would support it.

Of course the difference here is that 635 is still fresh and very relevant to the current moment, and has the potential to be repealed because there is, in fact, a bill in front of us. @Forky Finder shared that article about land investors buying property under 635, which was one of the exact fears raised when folks stood up against it. And people still remember how it got shoved through over significant objection, and many of the people involved are still around who could make a difference to repeal it.

It should be no surprise to anyone when MT-BHA shows up in support of repealing 635; we fought hard against it when it was introduced under the principle of the NAM and sadly it became law anyways. But @Ben Lamb isn't entirely wrong either; if you are only worried about the fiscal/hunter day/pressure effects of 635, repealing it could be premature; there are too many unknowns. But our support of repeal is based on the very principal it violates, and every day that passes while it is still law is a day we lose the ability to repeal it because of the inertia I talked about above. Eventually, the monied interests that want it in statute will enjoy it too much, and at that point it will be too late. No legislator will bring a bill to repeal it.

And just a side note: this argument that it isn't that important and therefore wasn't worth anyone's time is a knife that cuts both ways. If it violates the NAM, but "isn't that big of a deal," then why was it so important to get it passed last session? If it really wasn't a big deal to its proponents, but it was a big deal to advocates of the NAM, then the people who cared more should have won the day, and 635 shouldn't be the law now. But they didn't. Food for thought.

I certainly don't present this as an argument, just as an observation. I think you could swap "governor's tag program" for every time landowner preference is mentioned in your post and I think it would carry the same theme and fall under the same line of decades of inertia.

I respect anyone that is NAM absolutist but in the modern conservation world that seems to be next to impossible. I think any rational person would agree that auction tags violate the NAM, and while a raffle is an improvement, a raffle with no limits on chance purchases would still violate Item 3. There are currently two bills before the legislature regarding Montana's Governor Tags,

• HB 283: which allows for the governor tag to be auctioned or raffled- A net good idea that somewhat helps reign in a violation of the NAM and one I support.
• HB 330: Expands the governor's tag program to include Antelope and Swan while allowing the tag to be either raffled or auctioned but makes no determination on which way the tags would go. A bill I personally do not support considering it is essentially an expansion of the program itself. The bill does contain broad support likely because of the inertia of the program itself which began with the first auctioned license in 1986.

I guess I am only bringing this up to show that it is increasingly difficult to engage in modern wildlife politics while following the North American Model literally without eventually finding that you've been backed into a corner.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is the question Gerald, you hit it on the head. And one that is always up for debate, and you are going to get wildly different answers from the Stockgrowers, MOGA, PERC, MWF etc. No disagreement that it is a conversation worth having and continuing to have; and has been had a number of times on this platform and elsewhere. You know where I stand.

Meanwhile, the world goes on and tangible answers to these questions have been and continue to be implemented. I appreciate the debates over principles and interpretation of what complies with or violates said principles as much as anyone but in a democratic society the will of the people is the ultimate demonstration of the “correct” interpretation of the principles of the NAM.

In MT we’re not operating in the vacuum of abstract. We’re operating in the context of what has been shown to be the “correct” interpretation and application by legislative process of previous sessions. Those processes were accompanied by vigorous debate and significant rancor that at times are colloquially described as “The Elk Wars”.

Going back to square one and redefining and re debating “correct” interpretation and application of the junction of the NAM and wildlife management in Montana is most likely to trigger “Elk Wars 2.0” in my opinion.

If anyone is going to go to war it’s best to determine if you have the means to emerge victorious from the conflict and if the issues that would provoke the conflict warrant the potential cost of losing the war.

I am of the opinion that the benefits of 635 still outweigh the costs. I respect those who disagree with my opinion and have a different opinion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Serious answer. Yes, and good question. To elaborate on the yes, just see my response to you earlier in this thread about how I don't find much merit in arguments that we owe landowners anything because they own land. But under the plain language of the NAM, landowner preference is problematic and very much so violates the NAM.

I can really only speculate an answer to the second question, but resident landowner preference has been a thing in MT since before I started getting active in wildlife politics, so I don't know the legislative history. I would be not surprised if at the time it was introduced, people fought against it under the NAM. I predict that the arguments in favor of resident landowner preference followed the same reasoning: like a NR landowner, they own habitat. But unlike a NR, they live here year round, pay different taxes, suffer our winters and droughts, are in our community, suffer the "Montana Tax" of being paid less than most anyone in any other state, etc. As I've pointed out, I personally don't find R or NR landowner preference all that compelling or different regardless, but I would think those were the arguments in favor.

I would then predict the second factor is inertia. Once a bill becomes law it becomes far more difficult to overturn, and could take literally over a hundred years to change: (https://www.ktvq.com/news/montana-politics/montana-bill-aims-to-kill-1895-law-on-fatal-duels): particularly as you have more and more resident landowners that have taken advantage of that program; some even serving in our legislature. I'm sure there was very little appetite from the powers that be to give up something they gave themselves and their constituents. Maybe for a few sessions efforts to overturn it were introduced, I simply don't know. I'd also predict there aren't any legislators that feel they could get elected if they did bring a bill like that now. If they did, I'm sure advocates who believe in the NAM would support it.

Of course the difference here is that 635 is still fresh and very relevant to the current moment, and has the potential to be repealed because there is, in fact, a bill in front of us. @Forky Finder shared that article about land investors buying property under 635, which was one of the exact fears raised when folks stood up against it. And people still remember how it got shoved through over significant objection, and many of the people involved are still around who could make a difference to repeal it.

It should be no surprise to anyone when MT-BHA shows up in support of repealing 635; we fought hard against it when it was introduced under the principle of the NAM and sadly it became law anyways. But @Ben Lamb isn't entirely wrong either; if you are only worried about the fiscal/hunter day/pressure effects of 635, repealing it could be premature; there are too many unknowns. But our support of repeal is based on the very principal it violates, and every day that passes while it is still law is a day we lose the ability to repeal it because of the inertia I talked about above. Eventually, the monied interests that want it in statute will enjoy it too much, and at that point it will be too late. No legislator will bring a bill to repeal it.

And just a side note: this argument that it isn't that important and therefore wasn't worth anyone's time is a knife that cuts both ways. If it violates the NAM, but "isn't that big of a deal," then why was it so important to get it passed last session? If it really wasn't a big deal to its proponents, but it was a big deal to advocates of the NAM, then the people who cared more should have won the day, and 635 shouldn't be the law now. But they didn't. Food for thought.

Landowner Preference has been in existence since the early 1970's.

Eliminating the 635 pool won't eliminate the ability of NR landowners to get Landowner Preference. They will still use the 640 permit/license pool which would further encourage the use of splitting acreage into 640's in order to get the LOP permit like some hunt clubs and landowners are doing now. Repealing the program certainly has the potential to shut down the access created by their existence. In their short life span of 1 year, they have helped increase the number of people on the public side who are allowed access to some of the EHA properties who are using these licenses as well as the properties that are in general areas that are using these licenses for family members.

635 isn't about the money. It's about trying a new approach for landowners who don't have those traditional issues relative to wanting increased funding for access. It's about trying to treat newcomers as neighbors, rather than take a class-warfare approach. It is working in the essence that access to those properties is rising along with community sentiment to some of those landowners. No program is perfect, but the 635 pool is in it's infancy, and as an infant - it's producing some pretty good results.

I appreciate the position that folks take against that program, but I think it's short-sighted and when you overlay the dogmatic approach to the NAM that some folks have, you end up over-shooting the model's reality of being a history lesson and guide for restoration, not a religion to be strictly adhered too.

Texans will tell you their model follows the NAM. So will Coloradans, New Mexicans, Wyomingites, etc. Tribal Governments will say similarly, even though they have much different ways to fund wildlife management including transferable licenses. Canada yet further has different funding options and management styles, yet they believe they adhere to the NAM. John Organ & Shane Mahoney's article in the NAM Decadal Review is worth reading for a bit more broad context: https://www.fishwildlife.org/applic...orth_American_Model_Decadal_Review_6.2024.pdf

Personally, it's pretty disingenuous to ascribe motivation to people who worked on 635 and call them tools of big money or only doing it for a paycheck or being in the pocket of the wealthy. Those kind of elitist mentalities are thrown around quite a bit as some kind of put down to the professionals who dedicate their lives to standing up for wildlife. As I've said, I make about $60-65,000 a year doing this work. I'm not getting rich. People who make their living in conservation work long hours in difficult situations doing the work that boards ask them to do, and the prevailing thought in my almost 20 years of working on Montana has always been that "you don't do this for the money." To someone looking to buy a house or purchase a newer car, I hope you can see how insulting that is, especially if you have decades of experience or a higher level degree.

The people who funded the Elk Coalition were also large funders of BHA. That money all came from the same wealthy people who created a foundation and spent tens of millions of dollars on conservation. Other foundations that funded your parent organization were the same - started by billionaires and wealthy folks who were looking to give back. This is the crux of the green decoy campaign, Jake - question the funding source rather than the work done. You seem to be willing to engage similarly, which is disappointing. So the answer to where MCS gets its funding is the same as it was when I was working for other organizations that were getting unfairly smeared: The group is funded by grants and individual donations. We do not cater our work to the funder, but rather the funder gives to us based on the policy we advocate for. Our board is all volunteer, and they have each put in significant resources to stand up a small nonprofit with 3 part time employees and me, the only fulltime staffer. Our 990 will be available soon.

I can say this, I made far more money working as a contractor for previous groups such as the foundations that funded BHA, et al. I took a pay cut to try something new that has the potential for policy advancements that would bring landowners, hunters and outfitters together. I understand your frustration about feeling the need to defend yourself time and time again. I have to do the same thing from folks who want to try and assassinate my character everywhere from facebook to the floor of the House of Representatives. It gets tiring and demoralizing.

 

[ismith]

At some point, if you're going to give landowners the ability to sell elk and deer that happen to be on their land, you may as well get used to the European style of game ownership. Personally, I'd rather base the amount of landowner access to licenses on the game owner access to the said landowner's property.