Non resident Landowner incentive.

[Ben Lamb]

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.

In effect, this is what is happening with the 635 license pool. People use this license and then sign up for the EHA's to get the permit. That's a direct tie to access for a license/permit. The NBar is a prime example. Regardless of what you think of the Wilks, I'd I've been plenty sporty about them, they've embraced a more open approach to the EHA program because of the 635 pool.

No system is perfect and I think everyone is open to reformation, but a straight repeal tells folks who are moving in the right direction that they can #*^@#* off and die.

 

[ismith]

In effect, this is what is happening with the 635 license pool. People use this license and then sign up for the EHA's to get the permit. That's a direct tie to access for a license/permit. The NBar is a prime example. Regardless of what you think of the Wilks, I'd I've been plenty sporty about them, they've embraced a more open approach to the EHA program because of the 635 pool.

No system is perfect and I think everyone is open to reformation, but a straight repeal tells folks who are moving in the right direction that they can #*^@#* off and die.

I think if we can get access to all classes of game it is fair to offer the landowner reciprocal access to the same game. I don't believe we need to raise the yearly limit on game to benefit landowners, however. Galt doesn't allow any public access to his ranch; he can suck a big fat one.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think if we can get access to all classes of game it is fair to offer the landowner reciprocal access to the same game. I don't believe we need to raise the yearly limit on game to benefit landowners, however. Galt doesn't allow any public access to his ranch; he can suck a big fat one.

The 71 Ranch offers free shoulder season hunts and some limited free deer hunts during general. I don't know about the brother's access piece, but Wylie is opening up access at least for cows and whitetail. Last I heard they had mostly shut down the mule deer hunting entirely to try and protect the few that are left.

 

[Forkyfinder]

EHAs.

The important take away - juice worth the squeeze? Reduced funding, reduced opportunity for NR, and reduced premium bull tags - and the risk of putting easily amendable legislation into perpetual existence.

The juice is documented here. I dont think you will be calling the dentist from the juice being overly sweet

 

[ismith]

The 71 Ranch offers free shoulder season hunts and some limited free deer hunts during general. I don't know about the brothers access piece, by Wylie is opening up access at least for cows and whitetail. Last I heard they had mostly shut down the mule deer hunting entirely to try and protect the few that are left.

Seiben livestock may be bowing out of block management this year, with the lack of access to the Big Belt herd I wouldn't give them damn bit of sympathy if the elk ate all of their damn cows, gristle and bone and all.

 

[ismith]

EHAs.

The important take away - juice worth the squeeze? Reduced funding, reduced opportunity for NR, and reduced premium bull tags - and the risk of putting easily amendable legislation into perpetual existence.

The juice is documented here. I dont think you will be calling the dentist from the juice being overly sweet

If the access to game is equal to or greater than what the landowner receives I think I is a fair deal to the public.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Seiben livestock may be bowing out of block management this year, with the lack of access to the Big Belt herd I wouldn't give them damn bit of sympathy if the elk ate all of their damn cows, gristle and bone and all.

I hadn't heard that. It sucks if they do.

 

[Nameless Range]

EHAs.

The important take away - juice worth the squeeze? Reduced funding, reduced opportunity for NR, and reduced premium bull tags - and the risk of putting easily amendable legislation into perpetual existence.

The juice is documented here. I dont think you will be calling the dentist from the juice being overly sweet

The EHAs are terrible tradeoffs for the public for the most part. I know someone who participated and allowed less public hunters on because they finally got the tag they wanted. Even on the list you just provided, there’s one that’s awarded and they literally state one of those doesn’t really increase access in the unit in question.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The EHAs are terrible tradeoffs for the public for the most part. I know someone who participated and allowed less public hunters on because they finally got the tag they wanted. Even on the list you just provided, there’s one that’s awarded and they literally state it

And some over provide.

The program is still a work in progress, IMO. Overall it does produce access to elk, but a lot of the systems in place need to be continually serviced in order to work at an optimum.

HB 568, which is up on Tuesday the 25th, is a solid effort to look at access programs as well as licensing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The EHAs are terrible tradeoffs for the public for the most part. I know someone who participated and allowed less public hunters on because they finally got the tag they wanted. Even on the list you just provided, there’s one that’s awarded and they literally state on of those doesn’t really increase access in the unit in question.

Helena sure can mix a shitty juiced based drink and get away with selling a lot of them. Many will drink it and call it kool aid.

This is what we all traded for.

 

[ismith]

The EHAs are terrible tradeoffs for the public for the most part. I know someone who participated and allowed less public hunters on because they finally got the tag they wanted. Even on the list you just provided, there’s one that’s awarded and they literally state one of those doesn’t really increase access in the unit in question.

When the average man (or woman) can't afford to hunt elk I will become an anti-hunter.

 

[ismith]

Helena sure can mix a shitty juiced based drink and get away with selling a lot of them. Many will drink it and call it kool aid.

This is what we all traded for.

We all know the legislature sucks, quit insulting shitty possibly juice-based drink mixes that may or may not cause ass cancer.

 

[Forkyfinder]

In effect, this is what is happening with the 635 license pool. People use this license and then sign up for the EHA's to get the permit. That's a direct tie to access for a license/permit. The NBar is a prime example. Regardless of what you think of the Wilks, I'd I've been plenty sporty about them, they've embraced a more open approach to the EHA program because of the 635 pool.

No system is perfect and I think everyone is open to reformation, but a straight repeal tells folks who are moving in the right direction that they can #*^@#* off and die.

Na ben. A straight repeal allows for a renegotion. Where we dont trade oranges for piss someone calls juice.

Plenty of ways to documentably force a positive for the resource than hoping one works.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

This is a great point. A juice and squeeze one. Lots of dollars fo conservation from one tag? Or a premium several year application elk tag, for some pleb to maybe shoot a cow.

 

[Nameless Range]

And some over provide.

The program is still a work in progress, IMO. Overall it does produce access to elk, but a lot of the systems in place need to be continually serviced in order to work at an optimum.

HB 568, which is up on Tuesday the 25th, is a solid effort to look at access programs as well as licensing.

The poor trade offs aside, and the fact that properties that don’t even qualify for LO preference have been granted these, or properties that already receive block management monies and the public already has access to are being awarded, my chief problem is that over time they will just reduce the pool of LE permits available to the general draw. “10% over a district’s quota” is a smoke and mirrors thing. Elk don’t grow on trees, and bulls killed in a previous year will not live to be counted or hunted the following year, which of course will affect available permit numbers in subsequent years.

I just think on net, if one were negotiating on behalf of the public, there’s better expenditures of our resources (including elk). It could be improved for sure.

 

[ismith]

The poor trade offs aside, and the fact that properties that don’t even qualify for LO preference have been granted these, or properties that already receive block management monies and the public already has access to are being awarded, my chief problem is that over time they will just reduce the pool of LE permits available to the general draw. “10% over a district’s quota” is a smoke and mirrors thing. Elk don’t grow on trees, and bulls killed in a previous year will not live to be counted or hunted the following year, which of course will affect available permit numbers in subsequent years.

I just think on net, if one were negotiating on behalf of the public, there’s better expenditures of our resources (including elk). It could be improved for sure.

The public shouldn't have to pay for any agricultural tax breaks or programs if the landowner doesn't allow a reasonable amount of access for hunting.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Na ben. A straight repeal allows for a renegotion. Where we dont trade oranges for piss someone calls juice.

Plenty of ways to documentably force a positive for the resource than hoping one works.

This is the sentiment that has helped lead to the loss of almost 2 million acres of block management since the early 2000's.

Forcing the access hasn't worked. I-161 showed us that.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is the sentiment that has helped lead to the loss of almost 2 million acres of block management since the early 2000's.

Forcing the access hasn't worked. I-161 showed us that.

How about the simple modification of growing the unit numbers more than the tag is taking? That would be a trade.

There are solutions and ideas thay dont involve hunters getting a raw deal. And they should speak out accordingly.

Seperate than all of that - whats the outfitting market done? What has been the price movement of recreational ranches? How much bigger is the allure for LE units? And the oft repeated line in helena is "something monetary" is required for landowners to want more of them. The wildlife are worth exponentially more - and at bargaining tables in backrooms in helena are treated as a cost with no benefit.

 

[Carnage2011]

How about the simple modification of growing the unit numbers more than the tag is taking? That would be a trade.

There are solutions and ideas thay dont involve hunters getting a raw deal. And they should speak out accordingly.

Seperate than all of that - whats the outfitting market done? What has been the price movement of recreational ranches? How much bigger is the allure for LE units? And the oft repeated line in helena is "something monetary" is required for landowners to want more of them. The wildlife are worth exponentially more - and at bargaining tables in backrooms in helena are treated as a cost with no benefit.

What do you mean by that first sentence? That’s not rhetorical…I’m not sure what you are asking for.

 

[Forkyfinder]

What do you mean by that first sentence? That’s not rhetorical…I’m not sure what you are asking for.

For each LO that gets a tag, +x to the objective number for the unit for that tag. That would validate a higher level of tolerance to them.