SB 525–Montana Hunters First
- Thread starter Jock Conyngham
- Start date
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
This bill (SB 525) has its first hearing tomorrow. Here is any easy tool to contact the Sen Fish & Game Committee: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action_reduce_hunter_crowding#/343/
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
Does anyone know yet if this affects unlimited sheep?
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
it will not effect resident licenses/opportunities.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
I understand that, does anyone know the repercussions of this Bill on NR “unlimited” sheep? It seems to be conveniently not mentioned.
I’m fine with it if there are limits, it would just be nice to know.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The 10yr license spreadsheet that was mentioned previously had a detailed breakdown of Non-res numbers. I think @brockel just showed the detailed Resident breakdown and NR total. Any way the detailed NR pieces could be shown and rerun ex post, as if the bill were in place?
If all that is happening is preventing a NR from buying a B tag, then I'm not sure the real impact on hunter days.
Contact the Fish and Game Committee via the link John provided or otherwise and ask them to hash it out in the hearing tomorrow.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Sheep are a "game animal" per the statute, so that hunt would also be something this bill would require FWP and the commission to place a cap on. Hypothetically, they could decide to offer 1 million tags for that hunt, which would keep it unlimited.
@SAJ-99 There is no way to do what you are asking, because the bill does not prescribe what the NR caps should be. It requires FWP to cap currently unlimited NR tags, but it leaves it to the discretion of the department to determine what caps make sense. The idea being that for each species/tag the department would bring all stakeholders to the table to make that determination, including biologists, landowners, sportsmen, the public, and any other concerned parties. That's why the law has an effective date of March 1, 2024, so they can have those meetings with public engagement.
This bill is not a magic bullet that will suddenly solve the problems we have with crowding. No single bill will, because it is a multi-faceted issue that requires looking at it from multiple perspectives and attacking it on all sides. But the intent and design of this specific bill is to require the department to rein it in, take a hard look at the numbers, and get the ball rolling.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sooo…hopes and dreams? I don’t understand why numbers can’t be more definitive on this stuff. I like the bill if it actually makes progress on fixing what is broken. Part of the problem MT has is that even numbers and percentages written in statute eventually don’t mean anything when issuing the permits. A tags ARE already capped. How did that turn out in terms of stability in numbers issued? B tags are considered a “tool in the toolbox”. FWP issues different amounts every year and I think people would like to see hard caps at 90/10, but eventually someone is going to create some BS excuse as to why the numbers didn’t come out that way. And Montana hunters will go back to complaining. But the title Montana Hunters First, pure genius. For a multifaceted problem that needs to be attacked on all sides, this seems pretty targeted. That’s not bad (said as one of the targeted) but I think the lack of hard numbers is going to be a problem.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
That's exactly what this bill addresses. Even though A tags (deer and elk combination licenses) are capped at 17,000, in the 47 years since the legislature capped them, many unlimited carveouts were created that ultimately led there to be over 59,000 NR deer and elk hunters in Montana in 2022.
So it's not quite just hopes and dreams; this bill does do something. The bill eliminates nonresident unlimited tags by requiring the department to set caps (and clarifies the language that makes transferable tags illegal; this second part has largely been left out of this discussion). Legislatively mandating the exact numbers for FWP to cap all tags at a certain level for each tag and class type would hamstring their ability to use the best available science and public input, and also likely kill the bill based on the fiscal note alone. The bill would be dead on arrival. There's no denying that FWP financially relies heavily on NR license sales and this bill makes sure FWP can adjust without taking a huge financial hit.
I want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying here and please correct me if I've misunderstood you. Is it your contention that the legislature, through this bill, should set each number in stone? If so, I lean towards the notion that the department and commission are better equipped to set those numbers over the next year than the legislature in the next month.
Again, if I'm misreading you, please let me know.
You have my attention. How so?
The way I read section 5 makes it seem like it may actually be opening the door to transferable tags.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I support the legislation, just don’t think it will be effective. It sounds like a “ this time we are serious” bill. Set a cap AND stick to it. Didn’t happen last time with the previous cap. Why? Carveouts. Are those going to stop? Seriously, from MT legislators? Sounds like you are trying to get them to just cut a fixed-sized pie. That will only work for so long before they take from one group to give to another.
Even BHA’s statement it confusing.
The bill doesn’t seek to drastically cut non-resident hunters, or to harm Montana's guides and outfitters, or to bankrupt FWP, but rather attempts to stop the problem from getting worse.
So they are trying to stop the growth in NR tags? Great! I’m all for it. But it doesn’t solve the problem MT hunters complain about. You have to cut tags to do that, and that affects FWP budget.
If FWP sets a cap anywhere near where the tag and license numbers are today nothing gets solved. I do commend MT hunter groups for coming together to actually recommend legislation, rather than playing defense all the time. That is a step in the right direction.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I found the license doc I had from last year (2021) with the NR section. It shows what everyone already knows. The problem isn't upland bird, or waterfowl (debatable), or even antelope. The problem is Deer and Elk. My point is freezing tags where they are now is a step in the right direction, but a very very small step. NR B tags could go to zero and it might make a dent, but again, those are the FWP's management tool.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
That is interesting. A small step in the right direction isn't enough, but I would be happy to see anything "in the right direction". Been a long time since I felt we were headed that way in almost all arenas of the management of our wildlife.
My naive hope is we just gotta break the seal. Narratives do change and it has actually been fascinating to see.
-5 years ago there were "too many elk in Montana". Because of discussions around distribution as well as hunter experience, that isn't really a serious position anymore.
-5 years ago the idea of curtailing our massacre of Montana's mule deer was a fringe position. I was at the Elk Camp at the legislature earlier this year where an outfitter said "Outiftters are with you with mule deer, we have to do something", and the crowd of predominantly somewhat anti-outfitters cheered.
It would be fair to say it remains to be seen whether these changes in narrative will result in changes in policy, but I am hopeful (new EMP in the works, Mule deer are next, establishment of local working groups, etc).These aren't just positions popular on Hunt Talk. They're discussions happening everywhere I go, from the bar to the dump, that seem to be growing in power. I hope in 5 years, the discussion around NR hunters, as well as R take, is more mainstream.
I'm well aware this is just one fish to fry in a full stringer with no more room.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Doesn't appear the non resident native and come home to hunt tags make much of a difference either.
There's over 17K combined NR elk b and deer b though...cut those to 10% and you would lose 15K NR hunters. Those 2 tags are the biggest outliers that could be cut.
Capping bear tags would be a good idea as well.
There's over 17K combined NR elk b and deer b though...cut those to 10% and you would lose 15K NR hunters. Those 2 tags are the biggest outliers that could be cut.
Capping bear tags would be a good idea as well.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,676
Capping bear tags is going to be very necessary in the future.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I admit I'm cynical, but try ti be optimistic. I joke that I hear Montana's T-Rex Management Plan is almost done...just dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
Don
I hope you didn’t drop your Thank-You note in the mail.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!
BuzzH
Well-known member
The cheap MT NR tags I purchased this afternoon softened the blow.
Labman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2015
- Messages
- 489
Don’t carve out the whole season just yet to chase that raghorn. Although I’m sure the “I was conceived in MT” type licenses will be exempt.
