A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana

[elkduds]

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?”

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.

Yes, CO pays bunches of game damage claims.

 

[geewhiz]

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?

We're getting far more than we pay for.

 

[BucksnDucks]

We're getting far more than we pay for.

I think one way to look at it is to think about who "owns" the wildlife of the state you live in. I believe in Montana it is the people of Montana, not the state government which is the manager of the resource. What you pay for is not the actual animal by purchasing a tag and license it is the management and regulation of the resources. Similar to the public land many of us hunt on, the wildlife is also a public resource to be utilized as well as cared for.
A few hundred dollar increase in fees may hit individuals much harder than any benefit through revenue increase to an agency. For those that hunt or fish as a lifestyle the money may not seem like much, but there are many casual hunters/anglers out there that can be priced out when tags and license inflate like everything else.

 

[geewhiz]

I think one way to look at it is to think about who "owns" the wildlife of the state you live in. I believe in Montana it is the people of Montana, not the state government which is the manager of the resource. What you pay for is not the actual animal by purchasing a tag and license it is the management and regulation of the resources. Similar to the public land many of us hunt on, the wildlife is also a public resource to be utilized as well as cared for.
A few hundred dollar increase in fees may hit individuals much harder than any benefit through revenue increase to an agency. For those that hunt or fish as a lifestyle the money may not seem like much, but there are many casual hunters/anglers out there that can be priced out when tags and license inflate like everything else.

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense when you think of it that way. I have previously thought of it as how much you pay for the opportunity you get. Montana is the land of opportunity. I forget exactly what I paid when I applied this spring, but I believe less than $200, and I carried 7 big game tags in my pocket this year. That's a lot of opportunity.

Maybe I'm not up on management and what exactly that means as much as many folks on here, but I honestly don't see much to complain about as far as populations and numbers go. Except wolves, I'll complain about wolves any chance I get.

 

[brockel]

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?

This is not directed at you at all so don’t take it that way but all these “come home to hunt” and “non resident native” licenses need to go away and those people need to apply with all the other people that do not pay taxes in Montana.

 

[mtmuley]

This is not directed at you at all so don’t take it that way but all these “come home to hunt” and “non resident native” licenses need to go away and those people need to apply with all the other people that do not pay taxes in Montana.

Flame me. Early youth hunts need to go too. mtmuley

 

[geewhiz]

Flame me. Early youth hunts need to go too. mtmuley

As well as the new ML season.

 

[brockel]

Flame me. Early youth hunts need to go too. mtmuley

You won’t see any flames from me. All that’s turned into is a dad bragging contest

 

[BucksnDucks]

If $75 prevents someone from going elk hunting they probably couldn’t afford the gas to get there.

True. Or it could be that friend, uncle or grandpa that just wants to be a part of the hunting party. Ride in the backseat. Chip in for gas and take his old 30-06 out for a walk in the mountains. I think the statement applies to most of the guys here, but there are tons of casual hunters buying tags every year with very low success rates. Inflation is hurting a lot of people these days and hunting can be very expensive before tags are even purchased. I would hate to see any of your resident hunters or angler drop out due to cost. I've seen it first hand here when the opportunity and quality of hunting/fishing continued down as price of participation kept going up.

 

[Hammsolo]

This is not directed at you at all so don’t take it that way but all these “come home to hunt” and “non resident native” licenses need to go away and those people need to apply with all the other people that do not pay taxes in Montana.

I appreciate that, but I fit the bill. I am willing to pay more and do whatever it takes to conserve Montana’s lands and game. I appreciate the spirit of the program, get families together. My brother and I meet up to hunt each year.

It’s not like they’re cheap. Applicants have to go for combo tags they may not need. It is still a large investment, and I apply for special permits also. Each year I usually only have time for one species in MT. The real priority is hunting with my Bro. This year we hunted on federal lands that we both pay taxes for.

I would be willing and can afford to pay the full amount, about 1k for a combo.

I do feel an increase in state tag costs is wise for effective game management; it’s $85 with bear now. Imagine what could happen if that cost was simply 10% of what an out of state hunter pays?

 

[Hammsolo]

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,,,,

Who wins in a pissing contest? A group needs to zip up because it’s hard to push for change with your pants down. I think it should be us. We need to be more active at the state and federal level. Simply taking our ball and going home extends the problem.

 

[Pagosa]

Six archery season and five week rifle seasons need to go away also. Need to be season choice, not allowing guys 87 days to fill a sheep/goat/moose tags, no offense intended to those that have that option.

 

[Hunting Wife]

For those that hunt or fish as a lifestyle the money may not seem like much, but there are many casual hunters/anglers out there that can be priced out when tags and license inflate like everything else.

I understand the conundrum and I’m not disagreeing that pricing people out is not great. But unfortunately, when one user group is being asked to foot the bill for management of a resource held in trust for ALL citizens of the state, that’s one of the outcomes. Keeping tags artificially cheap while inflation and just the cost of doing the work keeps going up is not going to result in a good outcome for the resource either.

The vast majority of residents could absorb an increase without throwing their entire household budget out the window. And if they are just casual users who aren’t really interested in hunting or fishing enough to make that a priority, at some point that’s their personal choice.

 

[Nameless Range]

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?”

On one hand I see this perspective, on another I think of the adage “Ya get what ya pay for”.

 

[Treeshark]

Not to advocate for the exclusion of anyone… but wouldn’t less people buying/tags, whether due to cost or whatever other reason, be a positive thing for the resource at this point?

 

[Schaaf]

*insert man pissing into the wind.gif*

 

[BRI]

Best case scenario would be for 1/3 of the people buying licenses realizes how bad public land hunting has gotten in Montana and not buy licenses. Perhaps create a funding shortage that the agency relies on. Hell I’m pretty close to that point. I know it’ll never happen and I’ve said many times, we hunters are the constant in the equation. No matter how bad it gets we’ll line up to buy their crappy product.

 

[JLS]

Inflation is hurting a lot of people these days and hunting can be very expensive before tags are even purchased.

Inflation also affects the agencies, both in terms of employee wages and also cost of doing business.

 

[Nameless Range]

Best case scenario would be for 1/3 of the people buying licenses realizes how bad public land hunting has gotten in Montana and not buy licenses. Perhaps create a funding shortage that the agency relies on. Hell I’m pretty close to that point. I know it’ll never happen and I’ve said many times, we hunters are the constant in the equation. No matter how bad it gets we’ll line up to buy their crappy product.

Substandard or even poor hunting will always be better than no hunting at all. Tough to have any leverage.

 

[BRI]

Yea I know. I want the other 1/3 to not buy tags. Maybe then my hunting will be better because I'm selfish like that...