SB 525–Montana Hunters First

[brockel]

Looks like there was a Conservation/Fishing option until 2017, that’s when the Conservation numbers took the huge jump.

That’s probably the difference in it

 

[Treeshark]

Trying to say this in the least incendiary way possible, but it is disheartening to see things like this as a nonresident.

 

[SAJ-99]

Trying to say this in the least incendiary way possible, but it is disheartening to see things like this as a nonresident.

I get that. But I would like them to stick to the allocated NR numbers rather than continue to give special handouts to students, birth-right NRs, landowner NRs, NRs that claim to have seen Bigfoot and all the other special groups that got that NR total so high to begin with. Then Rs will learn that it is their own dumping mule deer does by the truckload.

 

[Treeshark]

Agree with all of the special carveouts, that would annoy the s$&@ out of me if I was a Montana resident also.

 

[SAJ-99]

Agree with all of the special carveouts, that would annoy the s$&@ out of me if I was a Montana resident also.

It annoys me as a NR because there isn’t a carveout for me.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Trying to say this in the least incendiary way possible, but it is disheartening to see things like this as a nonresident.

Admitting we have a problem is the first step to overcoming our “opportunity” addiction. Hopefully, those NR’s who are able to get a license will be better able to experience the quality of hunt that NR license fees should justify.

$1269 for a 10% opportunity to kill a raghorn bull elk…. The overall value provided for the cost of a NR license is borderline fraudulent in my opinion.

Resident licenses need to be limited in proportion to the amount of wildlife that can be sustainably harvested as well.

 

[Treeshark]

I see. So sticking it to DIY nonresidents is actually for their own good, and the residents of Montana will be sure to focus on resident issues someday (but not until the nonresident issues are all sorted out, of course).

I know HT turns into a bit of an echo chamber when it comes to discussing Montana issues, but cmon man….

 

[Elky Welky]

I just finished reading through it again.

One question I have is how will the number of upland and waterfowl licenses be set for NR’s since resident licenses for upland and waterfowl are unlimited? Isn’t it going to be necessary to set a limit of resident licenses as well in order to establish a 90/10 split?

Maybe I missed how that’s going to work?

@Gerald Martin The bill doesn't require a 90/10 split for everything, just permitted opportunities (which is already the law, the bill just makes that more clear). Basically, it is closing the loophole that has allowed unlimited NR tags for things like doe tags and Elk B tags, by requiring NR limits across the board.

With regards to upland and waterfowl: the bill requires the department set the cap, but it doesn't tell them how. That's intentional, because it will bring all stakeholders to the table to decide what those caps should be. The hope is that it brings biologists, landowners, sportsmen, etc. together to make those decisions after the law is established. And if the department/commission really wants to keep the numbers of NR upland and waterfowl hunters the same as they've been or with room to grow, they could just increase the cap to higher than the current number of sales they've been seeing.

The bill won't fix the crowding problems, but it will get the ball rolling.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Thank you for flagging this bill @jock.

The 90/10% language for limited drawings is already the law - this bill makes it more clear. It's not applied to general licenses and tags for nonresidents. We also don't expect any fiscal impact, because it allows the department to set the caps after all stakeholders meet and discuss, and they could set those caps higher than the current amount of nonresident hunters for things like upland and waterfowl.

The next section is the real meat and potatoes of the bill. It requires the department to place a limit on currently unlimited licenses and tags. Our reasoning for this bill is pretty clear, it addresses crowding in the most equitable way we can think of.

According to Montana FWP, resident hunters have dropped 7% in the last decade, while non-resident hunters have jumped 80% in that same time. And it’s not just antlered-deer and elk hunters from out of state. The rise in pressure is from a steady climb in antlerless deer and elk hunters, plus increases in just about every other NR license category.
⁣
In just the last five years, NR waterfowl hunters is up 29%, upland bird hunters up 34%, elk B hunters up 23%, and deer B hunters up 20%. NR turkey and bear hunters have climbed 58% and 47% respectively.⁣
⁣
Today, 29% of the total hunters in Montana don’t even live here. That’s almost one in three.⁣
⁣
Hunter crowding on Montana's publicly accessible lands is not just a social concern, but it's impacting our state's ability to manage wildlife as well. Unfettered pressure on public lands is pushing wildlife to inaccessible private lands, creating not just management concerns but headaches for our neighbors in the ranching and farming communities too. In many areas, harvest rates and the actual number of harvests are declining; more and more hunters and more and more licenses being offered is not the answer.⁣
⁣
Plus, we’re losing access (partly because of poor hunter behavior, herd shooting, leaving gates open, driving on wet roads, littering). We’ve lost access to roughly 1.5 million acres of Block Management since 2010. "No Trespassing" signs are everywhere while more and more private lands are leased up for exclusive use.⁣
⁣
While Montana BHA continues to focus on the access, quality habitat and hunter behavior side of the equation, we’re also supporting an improvement on the license side. Montana's wildlife are a finite resource which cannot withstand infinite pressure.

We're proud of the work we've done with this bill and I want to thank Sen. Flowers for his leadership and support getting the bill introduced and Rep. Cohenour, Rep. Running Wolf, Rep. Marler, Rep. France, Rep. Loge, Rep. Fitzgerald, Sen. Molnar, Sen. Pope, Sen. Ellis, Sen. Lynch, Sen. McClafferty, Sen. Nolan, Rep. Green, Sen. Emrich and Sen. Vermeir for their support on the bill.

Please reach out and ask any questions you have.

*edit: numbers in bold have been edited to be correct and I've added a thank you to the bill sponsors.

Giving percentage increases can be misleading. 58% increase in NR turkey hunters would still probably be negligible if only a couple dozen out of staters hunted turkeys ten years ago.
Edit: I see Brockle posted the numbers. Thanks.

 

[Southern Elk]

I see. So sticking it to DIY nonresidents is actually for their own good, and the residents of Montana will be sure to focus on resident issues someday (but not until the nonresident issues are all sorted out, of course).

I know HT turns into a bit of an echo chamber when it comes to discussing Montana issues, but cmon man….

You could move here and deal with 9 months of winter if you would like a better opportunity. Each state gets to control their wildlife. As residents we live, work, pay taxes, and most importantly vote here. I wouldn’t tell you how Wisconsin should be managing their wildlife.

 

[Gerald Martin]

@Gerald Martin The bill doesn't require a 90/10 split for everything, just permitted opportunities (which is already the law, the bill just makes that more clear). Basically, it is closing the loophole that has allowed unlimited NR tags for things like doe tags and Elk B tags, by requiring NR limits across the board.

With regards to upland and waterfowl: the bill requires the department set the cap, but it doesn't tell them how. That's intentional, because it will bring all stakeholders to the table to decide what those caps should be. The hope is that it brings biologists, landowners, sportsmen, etc. together to make those decisions after the law is established. And if the department/commission really wants to keep the numbers of NR upland and waterfowl hunters the same as they've been or with room to grow, they could just increase the cap to higher than the current number of sales they've been seeing.

The bill won't fix the crowding problems, but it will get the ball rolling.

Copy that. I assumed the cap was going to be at the 90/10 ratio.

So, hypothetically speaking if the number were set at 45,000 NR upland and waterfowl hunters then those unsuccessful in the 2024 draw would be able to have preference in the 2025 draw if they had purchased a preference point?

 

[SAJ-99]

I see. So sticking it to DIY nonresidents is actually for their own good,

No. It’s for the good of the resource. There is a checklist to develop a narrative in Montana.
1. The kids
2. Veterans
3. The disabled
4. Tradition
5. The resource
You have to hit at least one to get anything done.

You could move here and deal with 9 months of winter if you would like a better opportunity.

Or buy 2500 acres.

 

[Nameless Range]

I see. So sticking it to DIY nonresidents is actually for their own good, and the residents of Montana will be sure to focus on resident issues someday (but not until the nonresident issues are all sorted out, of course).

I know HT turns into a bit of an echo chamber when it comes to discussing Montana issues, but cmon man….

I have friends who do not live in MT but hunt here, and they pay a hell of a lot to do so. I hunt with them, and it's too bad that the DIY guy/gal who doesn't live here, is gonna increasingly get the short end of the stick, and I feel for them.

But as was stated above, right now, nearly 1 in 3 hunters on the landscape don't even live here. As resident - a beneficiary of the trust - that's outrageous and unacceptable. Nonresidents have enjoyed a disproportionate amount of access to our wildlife - and I am aware they have paid dearly for it. There's a lot of issues in Montana, but it's damned obvious to those of us who spend time hunting here, that nonresidents - people entitled to none of our wildlife at all - are a large part of it.

It really does suck for people who come here to hunt. But I think one of the only ways forward that will be amenable to those with the cold and dry skin of residency in this game is to manage Montana's wildlife for Montanans.

 

[rogerthat]

@Gerald Martin The bill doesn't require a 90/10 split for everything, just permitted opportunities (which is already the law, the bill just makes that more clear). Basically, it is closing the loophole that has allowed unlimited NR tags for things like doe tags and Elk B tags, by requiring NR limits across the board.

With regards to upland and waterfowl: the bill requires the department set the cap, but it doesn't tell them how. That's intentional, because it will bring all stakeholders to the table to decide what those caps should be. The hope is that it brings biologists, landowners, sportsmen, etc. together to make those decisions after the law is established. And if the department/commission really wants to keep the numbers of NR upland and waterfowl hunters the same as they've been or with room to grow, they could just increase the cap to higher than the current number of sales they've been seeing.

The bill won't fix the crowding problems, but it will get the ball rolling.

So I’m confused. How does this bill really do anything? Don’t we already have a 10% cap on nr’s for permits? Does it actually address the carveouts?

 

[Labman]

I see waterfowl and upland game mentioned but nothing about unlimited sheep permits. Would this potentially cap those? Sorry for the rudimentary question, I don’t have an attorney on staff to translate some of these bills into how regular folks communicate.

 

[BuzzH]

Copy that. I assumed the cap was going to be at the 90/10 ratio.

So, hypothetically speaking if the number were set at 45,000 NR upland and waterfowl hunters then those unsuccessful in the 2024 draw would be able to have preference in the 2025 draw if they had purchased a preference point?

Anyone know how it will impact nr unlimited sheep hunters?

 

[BuzzH]

I have friends who do not live in MT but hunt here, and they pay a hell of a lot to do so. I hunt with them, and it's too bad that the DIY guy/gal who doesn't live here, is gonna increasingly get the short end of the stick, and I feel for them.

But as was stated above, right now, nearly 1 in 3 hunters on the landscape don't even live here. As resident - a beneficiary of the trust - that's outrageous and unacceptable. Nonresidents have enjoyed a disproportionate amount of access to our wildlife - and I am aware they have paid dearly for it. There's a lot of issues in Montana, but it's damned obvious to those of us who spend time hunting here, that nonresidents - people entitled to none of our wildlife at all - are a large part of it.

It really does suck for people who come here to hunt. But I think one of the only ways forward that will be amenable to those with the cold and dry skin of residency in this game is to manage Montana's wildlife for Montanans.

Absolutely.

A big step would be capping otc b-tags for both nr elk and deer. A 10% hard cap, even on leftover tags.

 

[Labman]

Anyone know how it will impact nr unlimited sheep hunters?

Almost hard to believe but there is a Bill that would give NR’s with a R relative preference to limited sheep permits. SB520.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0520.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

Almost hard to believe but there is a Bill that would give NR’s with a R relative preference to limited sheep permits. SB520.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0520.pdf

Unreal...if it passes though, I know a guy that would benefit from it...

Some dude from Wyoming with max sheep points, a bunch of moose points too in Montana at that...and all kinds of family still living there to boot.

Who do I need to send that thank you note to?

Between the OTC nr general elk and deer, preference over other less fortunate NRs for sheep and moose, it's almost like I have dual residency. Sweet!

 

[MTGomer]

Hopefully whatever they do, they do without any preference point silliness.