SB 525–Montana Hunters First

[Jock Conyngham]

Take a look. The meat of it is in Section 3:
“For
4 game animals, migratory game birds, and upland game birds as defined in 87-6-101(12), (17), and (34), the
5 number of licenses, tags, or permits issued to nonresidents through special drawings in an administrative
6 region, hunting district, or other designated area may not exceed 10% of the total issued from an initial special
7 drawing………..
The department shall place a limit on the number of licenses, tags, or permits issued to
10 nonresidents in any administrative region, hunting district, or other designated hunting area for game animals,
11 migratory game birds, and upland game birds as defined in 87-6-101(12), (17), and (34).”

The latter clause mandates that the agency stands by the 17K cap, in my understanding. @Elky Welky can give a more accurate assessment of the bill than I.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0525.pdf

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

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.

 

[Treeshark]

What does Section 1 mean? Preference points coming for upland and waterfowl I assume?

 

[Elky Welky]

⁣

What does Section 1 mean? Preference points coming for upland and waterfowl I assume?

Yes sir, in situations where licenses and tags were previously unlimited (such as upland and waterfowl), the department will have to establish a preference point system. Note, however, that the bill gives the department the discretion to set the limits, so if the department keeps the status quo with upland and waterfowl, the likelihood of not drawing or ever needing to apply for preference points is very low. I'd anticipate the preference point program to mostly apply to previously unlimited mule deer doe tags and other big game licenses.

 

[Treeshark]

Makes sense, thanks Elk.

 

[bigsky2]

I like the 10% cap but hate the preference points. What was the reasoning for going with preference points rather than making it random or using bonus points?

 

[Elky Welky]

I like the 10% cap but hate the preference points. What was the reasoning for going with preference points rather than making it random or using bonus points?

Great questions: the bill uses preference points for previously unlimited licenses, permits, and tags because it matches the other, currently capped, programs. As is currently the law, the 10% cap only applies in situations where tags are limited to a drawing for residents, and these will still have their bonus point structures in place. In other situations (like the currently capped 17,000 nonresident big game combo licenses), the state uses preference points.

 

[Gerald Martin]

At first glance I like it a lot. I want to read it through again when I have more time.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

At first glance I like it a lot. I want to read it through again when I have more time.

Gerald - I appreciate that you'll give it a detailed look. By all means, post questions/concerns here but also feel free to call me.

 

[GigiBobert]

Any talk of limiting nonresident fishing licenses? I see a much bigger issue there, as far as crowding, than nonresident upland game hunting. I'm surprised residents aren't more concerned by that.

 

[DFS]

According to Montana FWP, resident hunters have dropped 8% in the last decade, while non-resident hunters have jumped 44% in that same time.

I doubt we know the true numbers.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

I doubt we know the true numbers.

FWP provided us with the total resident and nonresident hunter numbers from 2012 to 2022. That is how we arrived at those percentages. In fact, I made a mistake in my post above which I will correct here (below). The percent change over time is greater than I originally posted.

Correction: According to Montana FWP, resident hunters have dropped 7% in the last decade, while non-resident hunters have jumped 80% in that same time.

 

[brockel]

FWP provided us with the total resident and nonresident hunter numbers from 2012 to 2022. That is how we arrived at those percentages. In fact, I made a mistake in my post above which I will correct here (below). The percent change over time is greater than I originally posted.

Correction: According to Montana FWP, resident hunters have dropped 7% in the last decade, while non-resident hunters have jumped 80% in that same time.

View attachment 269790

Shocks me that we’ve dropped resident hunter numbers with the massive resident population growth. Must be a lot of new residents taking up fishing since Montana has sold 196,000+ more resident conservation licenses in 2021 than in 2011

 

[Treeshark]

Must be a lot of new residents taking up fishing since Montana has sold 196,000+ more resident conservation licenses in 2021 than in 2011

Wow, is that true? That is a crazy jump.

 

[DFS]

Shocks me that we’ve dropped resident hunter numbers with the massive resident population growth. Must be a lot of new residents taking up fishing since Montana has sold 196,000+ more resident conservation licenses in 2021 than in 2011

I would bet a lot of money they haven’t. I think if fwp is challenged on their data the flaws will show up. The numbers aren’t adding up to me.

 

[Nameless Range]

Shocks me that we’ve dropped resident hunter numbers with the massive resident population growth. Must be a lot of new residents taking up fishing since Montana has sold 196,000+ more resident conservation licenses in 2021 than in 2011

So far I like what I see in this bill. I’ll think about it for a while.

One thing though, even though resident hunting licenses have dropped a little, resident Hunter days on the landscape have not. At least with the HD‘s I’m familiar with, hunters nowadays are spending way more time in the field than they did historically - both NR and R alike.

I look forward to a deeper dive and discussion.

 

[Watts307]

FWP provided us with the total resident and nonresident hunter numbers from 2012 to 2022. That is how we arrived at those percentages. In fact, I made a mistake in my post above which I will correct here (below). The percent change over time is greater than I originally posted.

Correction: According to Montana FWP, resident hunters have dropped 7% in the last decade, while non-resident hunters have jumped 80% in that same time.

View attachment 269790

Ban all hunting social media influencers

 

[brockel]

Wow, is that true? That is a crazy jump.

First line

 

[Treeshark]

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

 

[Gerald Martin]

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?