UPOM bill requiring crop damage payments in districts with limited permits

[Gevock]

Here's the latest bill that claims to tie limited bull and buck permits with over objective ungulate populations. This would be devastating to the FWP budget.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/LC1761.pdf

 

[SAJ-99]

Here's the latest bill that claims to tie limited bull and buck permits with over objective ungulate populations. This would be devastating to the FWP budget.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/LC1761.pdf

Need help here on FWP budget. It looks like 87-1-242 would generate a lot of revenue. Here is 242

(2) Twenty percent of any increase in the fee for the Class B-7 license or any license or permit listed in subsection (1) must be allocated for use as provided in subsection (1).

(3) Eighty percent of the money allocated by this section, [together with money from marijuana taxes deposited under 16-12-111 and] together with the interest and income from the money, must be used to secure wildlife habitat pursuant to 87-1-209.

(4) Twenty percent of the money allocated by this section must be used as follows:

(a) up to 50% a year may be used for development and maintenance of real property used for wildlife habitat; and

(b) the remainder and any money not allocated for development and maintenance under subsection (4)(a) by the end of each odd-numbered fiscal year must be credited to the account created by 87-1-601(5) for use in the manner prescribed for the development and maintenance of real property used for wildlife habitat.

In LC1761, now (4) (b) has added to the end after habitat
...and to pay landowner reimbursements granted pursuant to [section 1];

Seems like the intent is to kill the acquisition of wildlife habitat, not the FWP budget.

As I read it, with questionable understanding, I am not against the concept. I would rather it be funded more directly. I would also like to know what kind of amounts we are talking about.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't think it's a UPOM bill. Not nearly extreme enough.

It is a bad bill, that deserves to be laid to rest on the boneyard of other bad bills.

It would take 50% of the 20% allocated for Operations & Maintenance of FWP owned lands, and make it available for landowners who suffer crop damage in districts that are 200% over objective or more.

No public access requirement, no other sideboards. It's likely a diversion of license dollars and could cause a loss of PR dollars by not going towards habitat improvement or acquisition. It would also crater funding for noxious weed removal, fence rollup, habitat improvement projects etc on WMA's. The O&M section of Habitat Montana needs to be increased, but this bill simply cuts it in half, for a fund that will get depleted quickly.

It also does nothing to encourage landowners to work peer to peer on solving these issues. This isn't a hunter problem, but we're being asked to pay for guys like the Wilk's Brother's inability to work with others on elk.

 

[sacountry]

Lots of questions and some are probably totally off the wall because I'm not a farmer/rancher.

1) Where does the Montana Dept of Agriculture fit into this? Do they have some budget for crop damage such that a partnership with FWP makes sense?

2) Is crop insurance less expensive than the actual damage? I ask this for two reasons. One, maybe there could be a less expensive approach to fund crop insurance with FWP money if the landowner is enrolled in the Block Management Program. Two, any kind of crop claim should include some sort of oversight. Crop insurance would put the insurance company in that oversight role vs say FWP or other entity. Big assumption being that crop insurance does or can cover wild game damage. I have no idea if it does.

 

[Ben Lamb]

1.) No. Montana currently does not have a crop damage payment system in any agency.

2.) No idea. License dollars are not the proper place to fund this anyway. Since it's not hunters causing the overpopulation, it shouldn't be hunters who fund the payment to landowners who do not work with the agency to remediate impacts. In the recently passed recreational Marijuana intiative, there would have been roughly $10 million for Habitat Montana per biennium. Unfortunately, that money has been taken away by Governor Gianforte to pay for other programs and his taxcut for the wealthy. Rec. Weed cash would have been a good filler for game damage. This bill is simply an effort to undermine Habitat Montana in favor of poorly developed legislative programs that aren't ready for prime time.

 

[sacountry]

Greg's playbook "How to alienate your voter base in less than 100 days"

 

[SAJ-99]

@Ben Lamb, I largely agree with your take on the bill. But we need to come up with solutions.

Here are two points from the Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations presented Jan 2021.

High Level Needs Identified by Landowner Panel

• FWP should look beyond the access question when assisting landowners with wildlife problems or challenges.
• Increased funding is needed to help private landowners with public wildlife issues. This is ongoing and increasing, but there is no statewide venue/mechanism to work to- ward conservation finance solutions.

That said, I am willing to be flexible. The situation is complex. I don't think the Wilkes will be asking for compensation. It's their neighbors. That neighbor may or may not have allowed hunting, but they may not have held elk during the hunting season. My point is, the problems might occur outside of the hunting season, so allowing hunting isn't always the answer with elk.

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb, I largely agree with your take on the bill. But we need to come up with solutions.

Here are two points from the Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations presented Jan 2021.

High Level Needs Identified by Landowner Panel

• FWP should look beyond the access question when assisting landowners with wildlife problems or challenges.
• Increased funding is needed to help private landowners with public wildlife issues. This is ongoing and increasing, but there is no statewide venue/mechanism to work to- ward conservation finance solutions.

That said, I am willing to be flexible. The situation is complex. I don't think the Wilkes will be asking for compensation. It's their neighbors. That neighbor may or may not have allowed hunting, but they may not have held elk during the hunting season. My point is, the problems might occur outside of the hunting season, so allowing hunting isn't always the answer with elk.

I'm not opposed to game damage, what I am opposed to is stealing 50% of the O&M budget for WMA's to pay for something that isn't a habitat issue and the bill isn't even well done in terms of finding a policy that would work, it's just an attempt to throw money at something without understanding the issue.

The Wilks won't ask for the handout (they may, who knows), but those people affected by the wilks' actions will be. That's the point. Why should sportsmen & women pay for a problem that other people create? If Landowners won't work with their neighbors to deal with these issues, then it's not a failure of the agency or hunters, it's a failure of landowners.

While there are many landowners who do try to find solutions, there are just as many that aren't looking for them, just trying to get more money. I legitimately feel for landowners sufferings from damage, and there are existing programs to deal with that, but it requires access.

Which is something that hunters shouldn't bargain away, especially when we are discussing the use of wildlife dollars. If this came from the general fund, then it's an entirely different ball game.

 

[SAJ-99]

If Landowners won't work with their neighbors to deal with these issues, then it's not a failure of the agency or hunters, it's a failure of landowners.

I agree, the funding needs to come from somewhere else. But we all know a lot of ranchers hate their neighbors. The Wilks aren't exactly going to be invited to the neighborhood BBQ. I would guess that most game damage occurs in the spring or late summer. Allowing public hunters access isn't a solution in April. Allowing them access in October might not match when they have the problem. I don't have a great solution. But if we want more elk on the landscape and don't want people like the Wilks to build higher fences, then we might need to pay for the damage. FWP needs to have some recourse against landowners like the Wilks. Instead we get bills introduced that give them more tags.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I'm not opposed to game damage, what I am opposed to is stealing 50% of the O&M budget for WMA's to pay for something that isn't a habitat issue and the bill isn't even well done in terms of finding a policy that would work, it's just an attempt to throw money at something without understanding the issue.

I’m opposed to them robbing the WMA budget just to turn around and claim FWP can’t acquire any property because they don’t take care of what they do have. Might be a secondary goal of this bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m opposed to them robbing the WMA budget just to turn around and claim FWP can’t acquire any property because they don’t take care of what they do have. Might be a secondary goal of this bill.

There were a few bill drafts that would have ended the ability of FWP to purchase any land under Habitat Montana, there is the theft of the weed money that the voters said they wanted to go to habitat acquisition, republican resistance to Habitat Montana receiving any funding under SB 143 has emerged, 5 wildlife division positions are going to be cut out of the budget, wild bison will no longer exist in Montana, Grizzly bear delisting for the NCDE is now farther away because of them, and we've got the speaker of the House running a bill to privatize elk management.

The only thing that the GOP has done for sportsmen this session is to pass the Bullock budget for Habitat Montana.

I don't think cratering Habitat Montana is a secondary goal. It's a primary one.

edit: Forgot to add SB 115, which puts the landboard back in charge of access easements, making it less likely that landowners will engage in the Habitat MT program.

 

[4ohSick]

Bill taps Montana habitat, access dollars to pay for wildlife crop damage

Claims would be paid from the Habitat Montana account.

helenair.com

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else, but it sounds like this was passed out of committee on party lines.

 

[MThuntr]

HB697 was tabled

 

[Ben Lamb]

HB697 was tabled

Since we are quick to harangue on FWP for doing things we don't like, we should also recognize when they do something very, very good. The Diversion of PR funds killed this bill, along with just being poorly defined policy.

The Sporting Coalition as well did great work killing this dumb idea.