A bill to set aside 2550 tags for wealthy nonresident landowners is being proposed in Montana

[KurtR]

I would imagine someone looking to take advantage as a NEW NONRESIDENT landowner that would be quite an investment for a yearly tag

Looking at recent land prices 3.1 million or so would get you 2500 acres .

 

[MT257]

Really? I found one article, which states 66,000 NR LICENSES issued. This does not equal 66,000 NR HUNTERS, as I'm sure plenty have multiple licenses like Elk+Deer, Deer+Deer B. Would be good to know the number of unique hunters.

Closet I could find for ya. There is also a bill in the works that req fwy to publish this info if I understand it correctly.

Sportsmen worry nonresident hunting license sales misrepresented

In 2021, the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks sold more than 66,600 nonresident deer and elk licenses.

billingsgazette.com

 

[TheTone]

I can try and shed some light on that. I’m on the Policy and Leadership Councils for the Citizens Elk Management Coalition that wrote the bill. 2500 came from the idea of having large enough parcels that are likely still being used as a working landscape and potentially being one more reason for a landowner to NOT subdivide their ranch into smaller parcels.

We were also very aware of the fact that we’ve seen landowners purchase places in Montana that are exactly 640 acres to get into the LO preference system MT has had since for Permits since 1973. By keeping it at 2500 acres we felt we skirt that. I’m not so sure that 2500 might be too high but I definitely think anything less than 1,000 is too low.

The bill’s not perfect by any means but combined with our other efforts, we’ve made some real progress and I think this bill will help.

It’s also worth noting that as a result of our efforts, the Coalition has gotten a commitment from PERC to no longer pursue transferrable tags in Montana for the foreseeable future.

is that commitment some sort of contract or just a “yeah we won’t go for transfers”. Is the “foreseeable future” an actual number?

 

[Schaaf]

is that commitment some sort of contract or just a “yeah we won’t go for transfers”. Is the “foreseeable future” an actual number?

An understanding built on the trust that has been established over the last two years. This is the first legislative session in two decades that didn’t have a single transferrable elk tag bill introduced.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

I can try and shed some light on that. I’m on the Policy and Leadership Councils for the Citizens Elk Management Coalition that wrote the bill. 2500 came from the idea of having large enough parcels that are likely still being used as a working landscape and potentially being one more reason for a landowner to NOT subdivide their ranch into smaller parcels.

We were also very aware of the fact that we’ve seen landowners purchase places in Montana that are exactly 640 acres to get into the LO preference system MT has had since for Permits since 1973. By keeping it at 2500 acres we felt we skirt that. I’m not so sure that 2500 might be too high but I definitely think anything less than 1,000 is too low.

The bill’s not perfect by any means but combined with our other efforts, we’ve made some real progress and I think this bill will help.

It’s also worth noting that as a result of our efforts, the Coalition has gotten a commitment from PERC to no longer pursue transferrable tags in Montana for the foreseeable future.

I’ll just say this, the slippery slope is real.

I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do, but this is like giving gun control advocates “just universal background checks” or “just a 5 day waiting period.”

It’s never enough in the long run. Appeasement is just an appetizer for the greedy.

I’d at the very least, mandatory block management participation for part of the season written into the bill. MT hunters, nonresident and resident alike need a bigger win for what they are giving up with this bill in its current form.

 

[svivian]

OP is worried about a tag or two for non residents with 2500 or more acres…. Meanwhile in his home state

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

OP is worried about a tag or two for non residents with 2500 or more acres…. Meanwhile in his home state

View attachment 530449

As a resident landowner in my own state, I disagree with that law. As a result our DOW is underfunded and largely ineffective of what it could be. I still buy a hunting license every year despite usually not hunting outside of my own property.

I don’t own the game on my property, and the measly ~$20 for a resident deer tag is nothing. Property taxes don’t go toward wildlife either. The nonresident fees are some of the cheapest in the country. It’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway because everything, nonresident and resident is OTC. Access is a huge issue because of the lack of public land.

Just because my state is ****** with regard to hunting, tag allocation and funding doesn’t mean I want other states that do it better to ruin theirs in the same fashion.

I’ve never bitched about our nonresidents, because I know without them our state funding would be ******.

 

[S.Clancy]

@Schaaf I for one appreciate the work you all did between the legislative session 2021 and today. Building those relationships and working together, each making concessions, is how we move forward. A lot of people live in fairy-tale land where we should get everything we want and not settle for less....not realistic.

 

[bsnedeker]

How about federal land expectations

I've got GREAT news for you: You can come out an enjoy your federal lands whenever you want my man!!!!

You just can't kill animals with antlers while you are there unless we say you can.

Hope that clears up your confusion!

 

[dieselchessy]

The bill says the landowners can hunt lands they lease for certain reasons, not just lands they own.

I’m curious what the results of the study of how many non-resident land owners own 2500+ acre qualifying properties were.
Sounds like 2500 and 15% may just be arbitrary numbers. Maybe used because they sound reasonable.

 

[goathunter]

No Problem. I've had these discussions with some of my best friends that share many of the same concerns echoed here and like I said, the bill isn't perfect and it will require people to hold their ground into the future but we've been building good bridges. At it's core, this bill is designed to be an improvement on the Landowner Preference program that Montana has had since 1973 by requiring the tags be private only, a minor access component, and out of the already set quota rather than in addition like we've seen with the Come Home to Hunt and MT Native licenses that have blown the lid off the 17k cap.

What actually prompted drafting this bill? It seems like a solution waiting for a problem. If the purpose is to counter other proposals like transfer tags that's great, but nothing to that effect is in writing so does it accomplish that?

Also per the downfalls block management - it's not perfect but seems like one of the only "access" bartering tools we have. I jumped at that idea because they would actual give something back for the preference rather than just getting the preference for free.

 

[Gutshot007]

What actually prompted drafting this bill? It seems like a solution waiting for a problem. If the purpose is to counter other proposals like transfer tags that's great, but nothing to that effect is in writing so does it accomplish that?

Also per the downfalls block management - it's not perfect but seems like one of the only "access" bartering tools we have. I jumped at that idea because they would actual give something back for the preference rather than just getting the preference for free.

Had similar questions (selling and transfering of tags) . There usually is a "problem" to prompt a bill

 

[cuerro viejo]

this thread is discriminatory against poor Landowners that want to do their part of pushing elk back on to public land that the residents pushed to private…

 

[cuerro viejo]

In addition at least . Personally have mixed emotions about the number of acres . Maybe others will chime in

its kind of funny really. Penalizing NR for buying land and keeping it hunt-able instead of developing it in subdivision or Ranchettes.

lets ignore fact we are talking millions of investment dollars for an elk ranch only tag…

You could go hunt the San Carlos for 400” bulls every year for next forty years vs “an” elk in Montana every year.


I curious what happens to LLC’s and Corp’s….. If your land is in an LLC or Corp based in Montana how do you decide residency.

 

[goathunter]

its kind of funny really. Penalizing NR for buying land and keeping it hunt-able instead of developing it in subdivision or Ranchettes.

lets ignore fact we are talking millions of investment dollars for an elk ranch only tag…

You could go hunt the San Carlos for 400” bulls every year for next forty years vs “an” elk in Montana every year.

You think a landowner preference point is going to be the sole reason they choose not to subdivide 2500 acres?

I curious what happens to LLC’s and Corp’s….. If your land is in an LLC or Corp based in Montana how do you decide residency.

Hmm, why do you ask, "texans42"?

 

[cuerro viejo]

You think a landowner preference point is going to be the sole reason they choose not to subdivide 2500 acres?



Hmm, why do you ask, "texans42"?

I dont know apparently this legislation is because NR’s are spending millions buying land for a few LO tags. Only make sense that now they cant hunt so they sub divide…..

I thought about being a future LO, but they have a state income tax, so maybe after I retire.

Im up here currently on vacation and do love Montana. Good people in rural small towns.

 

[Gutshot007]

Above Schaaf said they didnt believe someone would purchase 2500 acres for one yearly elk tag when they would more than likely draw every other year or 3rd year for a general tag anyway .

 

[Schaaf]

What actually prompted drafting this bill? It seems like a solution waiting for a problem. If the purpose is to counter other proposals like transfer tags that's great, but nothing to that effect is in writing so does it accomplish that?

Also per the downfalls block management - it's not perfect but seems like one of the only "access" bartering tools we have. I jumped at that idea because they would actual give something back for the preference rather than just getting the preference for free.

The never ending push for Transferrable Landowner Tags. With a Republican supermajority in this state, it was a matter of when, not if.

The goal is for this bill to be the dam to stop that.

 

[Gutshot007]

The never ending push for Transferrable Landowner Tags. With a Republican supermajority in this state, it was a matter of when, not if.

The goal is for this bill to be the dam to stop that.

Schaaf, i have no idea what goes on behind the scenes , but it seems like non-resident landowner tags would soon lead to Transferrable land owner tags down the road .The old get an inch take a mile program . Unless it was a negotiated compromise . I think alot of folks believe this is where things are heading eventually .

 

[Schaaf]

Schaaf, i have no idea what goes on behind the scenes , but it seems like non-resident landowner tags would soon lead to Transferrable land owner tags down the road .The old get an inch take a mile program . Unless it was a negotiated compromise . I think alot of folks believe this is where things are heading eventually .

Agreed, I don't think those fights go away but like I mentioned earlier. We've gotten a commitment from the most powerful lobby in PERC, to no longer pursue Transferrable LO tags in Montana.