I hear a lot of complaints regarding mtfwp management. I think that resident cost for permits doesn't match value provided. You may feel differently. I believe non resident cost is reflective of value for an our of state hunter to pay the privilege to come to montana to hunt. If we raised revenue the fwp could utilize increased resources to better understand deer and elk populations and provide better management. I understand that it's not that simple but it could be a start. What would you be willing to pay for your tags? I'll throw out my thoughts; elk $75, deer $50.
A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana
- Thread starter Hamm59701
- Start date
Stretcher_Jockey
Active member
Based on sentiment I’ve seen on this forum over time, you are preaching to the choir.
sethkuhl
Well-known member
Might be a tough sell. Landowners/ hunters are paying a lot more. On top of that the wasted dollars could take a sharper look. For example the " public comment" meetings where 4 fwp members show to get "input" yet dont really intake said input. Yet there is a shortage of wardens and they "cant keep up with pumping toilets" I would like to see more accountability before tag price increase on in or out of state hunters.
D4570
Well-known member
Less chiefs more workers Is always a better .
Better price too
Better price too
diamond hitch
Well-known member
More money doesn't make a shitty agency work better. Those prices would exclude natives from taking their kids hunting. Our instate wags suck and always have. I would favor doubling the out of state fees and cutting the license numbers by 1/3.
We've been through this before. If you don't like Montana - don't come. Fix Wyoming instead. Our state is a mess but out of state help isn't improving it. We have had that for some time and it shows.
Fix Colorado or some place else and stay out of our business.
We've been through this before. If you don't like Montana - don't come. Fix Wyoming instead. Our state is a mess but out of state help isn't improving it. We have had that for some time and it shows.
Fix Colorado or some place else and stay out of our business.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
If $75 prevents someone from going elk hunting they probably couldn’t afford the gas to get there.
Last edited:
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
I have been talking about raising resident prices for a while. But, one of my friend’s responses gave me something to chew on. He asked, “Why should hunters pay FWP more when they are so badly mismanaging what we have?”
Born, raised and still a Montana resident.
PablitoPescador
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
- Messages
- 125
Increased tag costs so they can continue to flush more of our money down the toilet? No thanks
I suppose we could all try to evaluate mtfwp and decide the quality of management and sources of said deficits. Capital is always a good strategy to address deficiencies. Sure, some waste will always be present but that isn't a reason to underfund an agency that is a vital part of management.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I don't necessarily disagree with resident increases, but the elk management plan is not working to provide healthy herds on public lands or access to the huge numbers of elk on private properties. FWP and current administration want to drastically reduce elk numbers in Montana. Colorado has at least a third more elk than Montana, with less habitat for elk. Why is that? I assert that Montana has the capacity to maintain increased elk numbers with the proper management.
Your thread title is misleading. Are you referring to elk general or B licenses or are you referring to special permits?
BTW, in your posts at upper right hand corner under "messages" number there is a spot to identify your location. (ie; residency)
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 861
its hard to pay more for less, increase. resident prices, sure if,,,
changes are made to maintain healthy populations of game to enjoy,,,
not double everyones wages, buy a fleet of vehicles, and study bats and foxes with renewed vigor,,,
sportsman package that was 200.00 sure,,,, just ideas,,
if were gonna continue harvesting female cervids on public land,,, no way,,,,
changes are made to maintain healthy populations of game to enjoy,,,
not double everyones wages, buy a fleet of vehicles, and study bats and foxes with renewed vigor,,,
sportsman package that was 200.00 sure,,,, just ideas,,
if were gonna continue harvesting female cervids on public land,,, no way,,,,
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 1,943
Let’s keep it simple. We keep adding variables to complicate the situation. I am a former resident that buys a “come home to hunt” every year even if I don’t hunt. The cost of resident tags is laughable compared to other states off the top of my head. I’ve been told my whole life “you get what you pay for.” Are we getting what we pay for?
Buffs35
Well-known member
Voter initiative where increases are earmarked for purchasing public access?
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would be all for a price increase in resident deer and elk tags, But I think that bumping the Base license up a bunch would be a better way to go. FWP is too dependent on deer and elk license sales.
Fishing pays for its self, and deer and elk cover there management costs and then some. Everything else is a money loser and the difference needs to be made up by the surplus provided by deer and elk license sales. Harder for FWP to make the tough decisions with deer and elk if needed when deer and elk are the cash cow.
Fishing pays for its self, and deer and elk cover there management costs and then some. Everything else is a money loser and the difference needs to be made up by the surplus provided by deer and elk license sales. Harder for FWP to make the tough decisions with deer and elk if needed when deer and elk are the cash cow.
Last edited:
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 817
Does Colorado pay ranchers for elk impacts?
Montana has a love hate relationship between property owners and sportsman.
Comments like “ranchers just need to be more tolerant “ drive a wedge in any cooperation.
It would be good if we had a consensus on what better management looked like.
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
Coming from a state that "solves" problems by taxing then throwing money at them, you might want to pump the brakes. Whether our resident cost of Fish and Game license, roads, gas tax, DMV fees, etc... this state is the king of pay more get less. I hear alot of "don't California my Texas/Montana", be mindful what you wish for. The value of the elk or deer tag is obviously more than what is reflective in price for resident but what would be the expected outcome of price increase? Is there a revenue shortfall? At least you can continue to stick it to the nonresidents.
BS. Ive heard this at so many commission meetings, and it’s just absolute BS. For one, if it’s really going to break the parents, offer a youth discount. Second, tell your kid to mow the neighbors yard or pick up dog shit for a couple of weeks. There, you paid for the “overpriced” tag that lets you hunt for God knows how many weeks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bambistew
Well-known member
From the sounds of it this year, it seems like the tags might be over priced.
This is a very salient point. Don’t put the cart before the horse.
