Landowner hunting tags poised to become permanent
'The program is finally at a point where most people are willing to live with it,' said Brian Wolfer, deputy wildlife division administrator of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Originally introduced on a temporary basis in the early 1980s, the program allows landowners to obtain hunting tags for their own property despite potential limits on deer, elk and antelope harvests.
The intent is to recognize and encourage the role that private property plays in providing forage and habitat for these big game species, which often consume crops or cause other damage.
'Private lands provide critical habitat that allows wildlife to thrive alongside human development,' said Kyle Smith, director of government relations for nonprofit The Nature Conservancy.
Extensions of the landowner preference program have repeatedly included sunset dates that facilitate lawmaker reviews of the regulations, with the law now set to expire in January 2026.
However, the ODFW is joined by several agriculture, forestry, hunting and conservation groups in asking lawmakers to renew the program without a sunset date, allowing it to operate in perpetuity.
Supporters of Senate Bill 812 say the landowner preference program has been tweaked enough that it's no longer necessary for lawmakers to regularly reexamine the statute.
'I think we've got it figured out now,' said David Wiley, a lead volunteer and representative of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation nonprofit. 'It just doesn't make sense to have a mature program reviewed every few years.'
The bill has unanimously passed the Senate and is now being considered by the House Agriculture Committee, which held a recent hearing on the proposal.
Proponents of making the landowner preference program permanent point out that it hasn't been subject to any substantive revisions since 2013, when hunting tags were limited for mule deer if that species falls below management objectives.
'We've seen over a decade of stability with no followup changes needed,' said Mike Eliason, lobbyist for the Oregon Forest Industries Council.
Landowners can obtain between two and 14 hunting tags per year under the program, depending on the size of their property, some of which they can transfer to others.
For example, landowners can transfer half their hunting tags for antlered deer and elk to non-family members, but cannot transfer tags for pronghorn antelope to non-family members.
The potential for such transfers to generate revenues has come under fire from the Human Voters Oregon nonprofit, which claims such activities run counter to the 'North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.'
A key principle of that model is that 'wildlife is a public resource' regardless of where it is and that hunting access is provided equitably 'without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership,' according to Humane Voters Oregon.
The organization argues the landowner preference program violates these principles by prioritizing landowners and allowing them to profit from hunting tags, raising concerns about 'privatization of the state's wildlife.'
'We do not know the extent to which a market exists for Oregon's landowner preference tags or for access to use those tags. In any case, it seems simple enough to make clear in the statute that access to landowner preference tags and the land to use them cannot be sold by landowners receiving the tags,' said Brian Posewitz, the group's director, in submitted testimony.
The current version of SB 812 doesn't contain such provisions and no amendments to that effect have been proposed to the legislation.
Some landowners do charge hunters for providing access to their land in conjunction with transferring tags, which is considered an effective way of compensating for the damage that big game species can inflict on crops and property, said Wolfer of ODFW.
Though the agency doesn't have exact information about the practice, up to 45% of hunting tags for deer and elk obtained under the program are transferred to non-family members, he said.
'We do hear from landowners that they see that as one of the benefits of providing wildlife on their property,' Wolfer said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Yahoo
Two fire bills signed by Governor, two others see vetoes
Fire crews work on the Horse Gulch fire near Helena on July 15, 2024 (Photo courtesy of Northern Rockies Incident Command). Gov. Greg Gianforte made decisions on four firefighting laws this week, signing two bills and vetoing two others. The two bills Gianforte signed — House Bills 84 and 421 — dealt with wildland firefighting. The two he vetoed, House Bill 511 and House Bill 547, would have added $5 million in funding for local fire departments and another seeking to change a law preventing coordinated fire response in consolidated governments. HB 84, called the Prescribed Fire Manager Certification and Liability Act, creates a certification program and outlines who is liable if a prescribed fire gets out of control. In 2022, a prescribed fire in New Mexico did, becoming the state's largest in history. The program will including training for fire managers and that their certification standards must match other states and organizations. A certified prescribed fire manager will only be able to be held liable for a wildfire getting out of control if, their actions 'constituted negligence or a higher degree of fault.' Fire scientists and proponents of HB 84 — brought by Rep. Steve Gist, R-Cascade — have pointed to prescribed fires as an important forestry management tool. 'I know it seems counterintuitive to fight fire with more fire, but the science is clear,' said Mike Schaedel, representing The Nature Conservancy and member of the state's prescribed fire council. 'It's the best tool we have. We know what wildfires can do without prescribed fire. They damage our forests and all those values we hold dear. This bill protects our forests. It enables private landowners to manage their lands in a safe and effective way that keeps people working in the woods.' Land management practices in the United States have led to some forests being overgrown and at risk for more intense wildfires, said proponents of the bill. 'To address the current forest health and wildland fire crisis, we need to get on this,' Gist said during a Senate hearing on his bill. 'We need to do prescribed fire. We need to do fuel mitigation followed up with prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is one tool of doing fuels reduction. It's essential.' HB 421, also sponsored by Gist, increased fire protection fees for land classified as forest from $50 to $58.70 for each landowner in a wildland fire protection district. For landowners with more than 20 acres of land, there's an additional fee per acre which increased from $0.30 to $0.49. The two vetoed bills were brought by Anaconda Democrat Rep. Scott DeMarois, who is a career firefighter. HB 511 would have taken $5 million from the general fund and directed it to a special revenue account for dispersion to local governments via grants. The money would have gone to training facilities. 'Training with the right equipment gives us critical knowledge of fire behavior and response techniques, along with that 3 a.m. muscle memory that saves lives,' DeMarois said in a press release. 'With this veto, Governor Gianforte has shown us that he doesn't really stand with first responders, and doesn't really care about protecting firefighters or the communities that we put their lives on the line to defend.' Gianforte's veto letter pointed to the state needing a balanced budget and said instead of grants, should look at creating a low-interest loan program. 'The budget and other bills with hefty price tags that the Legislature passed, however, are not fiscally responsible,' the veto letter reads. 'Therefore, I will keenly review the budget and spending bills the Legislature passed, making some difficult decisions to protect taxpayers and their hard-earned resources.' The Butte-Silver Bow Fire Department also saw a setback in the form of a veto on HB 547. Due to a decision made in the 1970s to create a consolidated city-county government — only used by Butte and Anaconda — the Butte-Silver Bow Fire Department hasn't been able to coordinate as well with its outlying volunteer fire departments. The bill would have struck a clause and replaced it with language that said, 'The fire department of the municipality must have a director of fire service or a fire chief, who shall manage and control the department in the manner prescribed by the ordinances of the municipality.' Proponents said that would fix the problem. Butte-Silver Bow officials and firefighters lined up in support of the bill. 'We have great volunteers that work in Butte-Silver Bow, and this is not to take anything away from them,' J.P. Gallagher, Butte-Silver Bow chief executive said during a Senate hearing on the bill. 'The director of Fire Services works directly for me and within the powers that are directed to the director of fire services, he has the ability to coordinate those services, but the unintended consequences of 1979 kind of stripped him of that ability to coordinate services.' Members of rural fire associations across the state spoke against the bill during House and Senate hearings. Opponents included Jerry Brothers, who is the vice president of both the Montana State Volunteer Fire Association and of the National Volunteer Firefighters Association. 'We did not have a voice in the system at all,' Brothers said during the bill's Senate hearing. DeMarois said during his Senate testimony the change would only impact the state's two consolidated city-county governments, but Gianforte, a Republican, disagreed in his veto letter. 'House Bill 547 raises more questions than it answers, and it introduces instability into the operations of rural fire districts, the backbone of Montana's emergency network,' the veto letter reads. 'Ultimately, House Bill 547 erodes the reliability and strength of rural fire protection throughout our state, while appearing to provide a one-sided resolution to a dispute within one consolidated government.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Yahoo
Clean energy benefits Indiana's economy, communities and nature
Clean, renewable energy or electricity production tax credits and incentives, financial concept : Green energy symbols atop coin stack e.g solar panel, wind turbine, fuel cell battery and the word TAX The benefits of federal clean energy tax credits are clear. Adding diverse energy resources to Indiana's grid increases reliability, decreases consumer costs, creates jobs, and has the potential to foster massive economic growth — to the tune of $565.7 million annually. That is why, in 2022, the federal government created this set of tax credits to incentivize the development of clean energy infrastructure and technologies. In the first two years, $9 billion has been invested in projects across Indiana. An added $20 billion in outstanding investment for projects has been announced but not implemented. Through these tax credits, Indiana has expanded the sector and fostered economic growth to the benefit of all Hoosiers, and there should be more to come. A new study commissioned by The Nature Conservancy shows that between now and 2032, these credits will annually generate $300.8 million through household income, $59.3 million in local, state, and federal tax revenue, and support 6,300 jobs. Further, these benefits are not isolated to only one industry but span construction, manufacturing, professional services, and the supply chain. Despite the incredible results and the promise for future growth, these tax credits are at risk of being eliminated. The current budget talks make tax credits an easy target for federal cuts looking to reduce the debt fast. In response, 21 Republican members of the House of Representatives signed a letter showing their support for these credits. But this may not be enough to save them from being cut. That is why we urge the entire Indiana Congressional delegation to use their influence while serving on key committees to protect this potential growth engine for our state. We can keep Indiana competitive in the national market and support local businesses. However, we must take full advantage of all the available tools, including clean energy tax credits. As the new administration works to encourage industries to return to the U.S., it is imperative to keep Indiana a desirable environment to retain and attract strong economic potential. Indiana, with its clear advantage due to a diverse energy portfolio—both in infrastructure and land—is set to benefit. Hoosier businesses make decisions based on economic potential. The clean energy tax credits offer a proven way to foster economic growth, bolster manufacturing, lower energy costs, and attract more companies to Indiana—all while diversifying energy sources and promoting clean energy. More clean energy also means cleaner air and water—outcomes that improve Hoosier's quality of life, the local environment, and people's health. Our elected officials should work to foster economic growth, provide jobs, and lower energy costs, that's arguably why the people chose them to stand for Hoosiers in Washington. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Yahoo
Landowner hunting tags poised to become permanent
SALEM — More than four decades since it was started, a program that prioritizes Oregon landowners for hunting tags is poised to become permanent law this year. 'The program is finally at a point where most people are willing to live with it,' said Brian Wolfer, deputy wildlife division administrator of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Originally introduced on a temporary basis in the early 1980s, the program allows landowners to obtain hunting tags for their own property despite potential limits on deer, elk and antelope harvests. The intent is to recognize and encourage the role that private property plays in providing forage and habitat for these big game species, which often consume crops or cause other damage. 'Private lands provide critical habitat that allows wildlife to thrive alongside human development,' said Kyle Smith, director of government relations for nonprofit The Nature Conservancy. Extensions of the landowner preference program have repeatedly included sunset dates that facilitate lawmaker reviews of the regulations, with the law now set to expire in January 2026. However, the ODFW is joined by several agriculture, forestry, hunting and conservation groups in asking lawmakers to renew the program without a sunset date, allowing it to operate in perpetuity. Supporters of Senate Bill 812 say the landowner preference program has been tweaked enough that it's no longer necessary for lawmakers to regularly reexamine the statute. 'I think we've got it figured out now,' said David Wiley, a lead volunteer and representative of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation nonprofit. 'It just doesn't make sense to have a mature program reviewed every few years.' The bill has unanimously passed the Senate and is now being considered by the House Agriculture Committee, which held a recent hearing on the proposal. Proponents of making the landowner preference program permanent point out that it hasn't been subject to any substantive revisions since 2013, when hunting tags were limited for mule deer if that species falls below management objectives. 'We've seen over a decade of stability with no followup changes needed,' said Mike Eliason, lobbyist for the Oregon Forest Industries Council. Landowners can obtain between two and 14 hunting tags per year under the program, depending on the size of their property, some of which they can transfer to others. For example, landowners can transfer half their hunting tags for antlered deer and elk to non-family members, but cannot transfer tags for pronghorn antelope to non-family members. The potential for such transfers to generate revenues has come under fire from the Human Voters Oregon nonprofit, which claims such activities run counter to the 'North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.' A key principle of that model is that 'wildlife is a public resource' regardless of where it is and that hunting access is provided equitably 'without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership,' according to Humane Voters Oregon. The organization argues the landowner preference program violates these principles by prioritizing landowners and allowing them to profit from hunting tags, raising concerns about 'privatization of the state's wildlife.' 'We do not know the extent to which a market exists for Oregon's landowner preference tags or for access to use those tags. In any case, it seems simple enough to make clear in the statute that access to landowner preference tags and the land to use them cannot be sold by landowners receiving the tags,' said Brian Posewitz, the group's director, in submitted testimony. The current version of SB 812 doesn't contain such provisions and no amendments to that effect have been proposed to the legislation. Some landowners do charge hunters for providing access to their land in conjunction with transferring tags, which is considered an effective way of compensating for the damage that big game species can inflict on crops and property, said Wolfer of ODFW. Though the agency doesn't have exact information about the practice, up to 45% of hunting tags for deer and elk obtained under the program are transferred to non-family members, he said. 'We do hear from landowners that they see that as one of the benefits of providing wildlife on their property,' Wolfer said.
