Montana Legislation Continues Cocaine-Fueled Trip

[NDGuy]

Montana's legislative session is laughable right now. Start up the emails and phone calls again for anyone who wants to keep DIY hunting in Montana alive. Another bill wanting to grant landowners with more than 640 acres 10 sponsor elk tags amongst other fun things. Bill below.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/lchtml/LC2343.htm

 

[bsnedeker]

Montana's legislative session is laughable right now. Start up the emails and phone calls again for anyone who wants to keep DIY hunting in Montana alive. Another bill wanting to grant landowners with more than 640 acres 10 sponsor elk tags amongst other fun things. Bill below.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/lchtml/LC2343.htm

This one I honestly think isn't too far off the mark. They are adding more NR tags that are good on private land only in units that are over objective. This isn't limiting the DIY guy at all so I like that. I also like the idea of more hunting pressure on private in those units to get the elk off the private and back onto public...this is a major problem in central montana in my opinion. Section 2 also allows for selling cow tags to NR's on private land in those same units which I also think is generally a good thing.

I think FWP should take a look at this and think about implementing something like it. I do not think this should be legislated obviously.

 

[Heath Hansen]

This one I honestly think isn't too far off the mark. They are adding more NR tags that are good on private land only in units that are over objective. This isn't limiting the DIY guy at all so I like that. I also like the idea of more hunting pressure on private in those units to get the elk off the private and back onto public...this is a major problem in central montana in my opinion. Section 2 also allows for selling cow tags to NR's on private land in those same units which I also think is generally a good thing.

I think FWP should take a look at this and think about implementing something like it. I do not think this should be legislated obviously.

This one is absolutely terrible. Do you know how many tags this would allow? There are thousands of people that own 640+ acres in MT. Ten tags apiece would pretty well destroy elk herds. It’s not going to open anymore private hunting, but it would allow outfitters to lease ranches and have guaranteed tags. This may be the worst bill to hit the docket yet...

 

[bigsky2]

Not to mention the part that would grant a hunter 5 bonus points for elk if they elected to only hunt cows for one year.

 

[NDGuy]

This one I honestly think isn't too far off the mark. They are adding more NR tags that are good on private land only in units that are over objective. This isn't limiting the DIY guy at all so I like that. I also like the idea of more hunting pressure on private in those units to get the elk off the private and back onto public...this is a major problem in central montana in my opinion. Section 2 also allows for selling cow tags to NR's on private land in those same units which I also think is generally a good thing.

They didn't get their wishes with the outfitter bill so now they want to get 10 transferable landowner tags? Landowners and outfitters get all tags for the paying clients/friends they want. Regardless of how many elk are on their land?

I guess I am not seeing any benefits for a DIY Montana hunter. More dead elk, less reason for landowners to let DIY guys on their land (even for a cow). What is happening in MT right now is not good at all.

 

[NDGuy]

This one is absolutely terrible. Do you know how many tags this would allow? There are thousands of people that own 640+ acres in MT. Ten tags apiece would pretty well destroy elk herds. It’s not going to open anymore private hunting, but it would allow outfitters to lease ranches and have guaranteed tags. This may be the worst bill to hit the docket yet...

Here was from a member on another forum.

"One area that's pretty near and dear to me has 300 either sex permits issued. At a very rough count, I have 224 landowners who own 640 acres or more, and I know I'm missing some.

2,240 either sex transferable tags in an area that currently has 300 permits issued."

 

[Heath Hansen]

Here was from a member on another forum.

"One area that's pretty near and dear to me has 300 either sex permits issued. At a very rough count, I have 224 landowners who own 640 acres or more, and I know I'm missing some.

2,240 either sex transferable tags in an area that currently has 300 permits issued."

And that’s one area...not region. One hunting district. Talk about a BS Bill.

 

[Q child]

I'm just here for the cocaine.

 

[OpenCountry]

This one I honestly think isn't too far off the mark. They are adding more NR tags that are good on private land only in units that are over objective. This isn't limiting the DIY guy at all so I like that. I also like the idea of more hunting pressure on private in those units to get the elk off the private and back onto public...this is a major problem in central montana in my opinion. Section 2 also allows for selling cow tags to NR's on private land in those same units which I also think is generally a good thing.

I think FWP should take a look at this and think about implementing something like it. I do not think this should be legislated obviously.

In addition to HB417 that removes limited quotas for the same over objective areas? They're both garbage bills that aim to destroy great elk hunting in Montana. Montana needs to fix the real issue - public/private access. The large private ranches already have the herds and limit access, but now they want general tags and handouts? No thanks

 

[TheCougar]

I swear the Montana legislature is throwing every bad idea at the wall to see what sticks. It’s a numbers game. All they have to do is pass a couple of these asinine bills to satisfy their powerful clientele. I mean really, what else could account for not just the number of the bills, but the epic level of gross stupidity and blatant favoritism of the guide industry and large landowners?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deadfall]

This one I honestly think isn't too far off the mark. They are adding more NR tags that are good on private land only in units that are over objective. This isn't limiting the DIY guy at all so I like that. I also like the idea of more hunting pressure on private in those units to get the elk off the private and back onto public...this is a major problem in central montana in my opinion. Section 2 also allows for selling cow tags to NR's on private land in those same units which I also think is generally a good thing.

I think FWP should take a look at this and think about implementing something like it. I do not think this should be legislated obviously.

HUH

 

[Deadfall]

This is so frustrating.
you know who requested this bill.....GALT. the same outfit that hazes elk off of public land with their helicopters. The same outfit whose guides harass hunters on public land. Landowners charge a trespass fee. most cases its the same as or more then a properly licensed outfitter would charge. Difference being the LICENSED outfitter has several expensive fees to pay which go to the state and back into outdoor funding. The landowner pays zero deniro to anything that benefits everyone.

Landowners consistently abuse public land and harass hunters. They think state leases mean they own the property.

Not all land owners are bad. Just like not all outfitters are bad. This bill does the exact same thing that 143 would do. Except in this one there is zero benefit to the general hunter or public/outdoorsman. It leads to privatization.

ALL landowner tags need to be done away with. Better yet add them to general draw, then turn that money around and put it toward Block Management payments. Which, I also believe is where the 300 bucks in 143 should go.

This bill is terrible. Outfitter welfare.....well this bill is landowner welfare....

 

[bsnedeker]

In addition to HB417 that removes limited quotas for the same over objective areas? They're both garbage bills that aim to destroy great elk hunting in Montana. Montana needs to fix the real issue - public/private access. The large private ranches already have the herds and limit access, but now they want general tags and handouts? No thanks

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Deadfall]

HUH

How long will it take for all landowners to start feeding elk, keeping them off public land and then when elk are over objective, go to FWP and say hey your elk are eating all my grass I need B-13 tags in my area? Not too long I promise. Landowners have already been doing this for decades.

 

[Heath Hansen]

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

If a landowner allows access to hunt during the general season and still has elk problems we need to try and accommodate them. Perhaps a damage hunt or something similar.
If they lease their land to an outfitter or dont allow hunting and then complain about the elk numbers they can deal with it. If a rancher is profiting off the wildlife and then pissing and moaning about them because they didn’t kill any during the season....they can figure it out on their own. No reason to cater to the Galts of the world.
Keep in mind our objectives are old and need to be reconsidered. When the objectives were set in eastern MT, the elk herds were just beginning.

 

[OpenCountry]

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I hunt central Montana as well and agree with you that large herds primarily hang out on private lands. I don't feel bad for those private landowners or ranchers who say the elk are causing problems. Solution = open it up to the public through a block management program. Them limiting access is causing the issue of to many elk on their land "causing problems". Landowner welfare programs aren't the answer.

 

[Deadfall]

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Heres the solution to that. Start putting more money into the block management fund. Right now the payouts are up to 15,000 $, but limited to only 65 at that price. there is a set base price for all participants. Instead of putting the $300 from 143 into the habitat montana fund (which is always bogged in bureaucracy), put it into something useful. That would add an additional 2,040,000 dollars per year to the fund. Incentivizing landowners to enroll.

Furthermore add the landowner tags to general draw. Also put that money into the BMA program.

Ever ask why elk are over objective in some areas? Ever notice those areas are typically where large tracts of private are? Have you ever watched landowners set out bail feeders and feed elk in the winter?

Elk are over objective because of people like GALT who find ways of keeping elk of public ground. They do this to have herds for their clients to hunt. Bet if they stopped hazing elk off public ground with helicopters, and enrolled in block management the numbers would get back in line.

As long as landowners have access to preference that will never happen. We have to stop incentivizing the privatization. Start incentivizing their enrollment in BMA.

Also start fining bad behavior on a much larger scale. Instead of a set dollar amount it should be a percentage of yearly income. A large chunk at that. People like GALT dont bat a eye at 10,000. What would 20 percent of yearly income do? Actually if it was up me I would make it 40 percent of annual income. Which would work for any tax bracket. I think.

Its things like this that lead to un licensed outfitters popping up and giving proper outfitters a bad name.

 

[TheCougar]

I have zero pity for landowners and overpopulation of elk on their lands. I went through this when I moved to Texas. All I heard before moving to Texas was how pigs were destroying everything. Pigs everywhere, ruining fields, crops, property, etc. Oh, the horror! Guess what I found when I moved to Texas? No one will let you hunt pigs for free. It’s a pay to play. So the landowners complain about a nuisance animal, but then refuse to allow people to help with their problem unless they are compensated. Their land, their choice. No problem with that at all. But guess what? It completely invalidates their complaints and pleas for help against the pigs. So any member of UPOM who complains against elk ruining their fences and land, and turns away hunters with tags who can reduce herd size and push elk off their land, is to me a hypocrite. I believe they want the elk on their land and they want as many tags as they can get their hands on to capitalize on the resource until it is decimated.

 

[BuzzH]

So to be clear I think legislating this stuff is bad. Fwp biologists should be making elk plans, not state legislatures. I agree with you all that this bill is horrible for that reason.

That said, we do have a problem in Montana where elk are WAY over objective in certain areas and they are causing problems. In most of these units the elk hang out primarily on private ground. You can say access is the problem if you want, but what's your solution? Not sure of any way other than forcing private land owners to open their land to the public which is obviously not going to happen.

I think something like adding landowner tags to help bring down elk numbers in units with over objective populations makes some sense a long as is being driven by fwp.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Keep in mind "over objective" is not accurate either. Objective numbers in the EMP are incredibly low...based on social tolerance of elk rather than anything to do with available habitat or carrying capacity.

As has been pointed out, landowners have a bunch of options to deal with unwanted elk on their property. No reason to give them tags to transfer to their buddies, families, or outfitter friends.

 

[Deadfall]

There are many many ranches just like GALTS.