A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana

[Hammsolo]

So to help me understand. You're saying the issue is with private landowners and the approximately $40,000,000 is not adequate to come up with a solution? Is it a private landowner problem or do you think because a resident tag is cheap, elk hunters don't care?

Care? When I was a kid in Anaconda, Montana (77 to 01) one issue I bore witness to was what I refer to as hunter desperation. The classic “if it’s brown knock it down” caused by social dynamics. The area was a scary place caused by the economic collapse due to the mine and smelter closing. I remember a friend’s Dad’s basement full of poached deer and elk being used to feed families. People were desperate for some semblance of power also. They “needed” to be able to say they got their elk or deer even if it was illegal or a fork horn. The herds paid the price.

 

[BucksnDucks]

I don’t have time right now to go through FWP‘s budget. I’m sure there are graphs you can look up that show how their yearly budget is allocated. There is also plenty of reading on elk management in Montana and the issues with the current EMP. I will try and elaborate more later,

I have no desire though to convince you that increasing the price of a tag is good. You seem to be fully focused on your bias against California and trying to apply that to a different issue.

I'm trying to look at the big picture and convey what I've seen here over the last 30 years. MT resident tags could cost a little more, no big deal. What I am attempting to understand is how that increase is going to solve a problem or even help. Double the cost of a resident elk tag and what do expect to accomplish? I posted the numbers, MT is third highest in tag revenue. Relatively speaking second behind CO because Texas is not really comparable.
I get off topic because I've seen firsthand all the taxes and fees we pay here with poor results.

 

[JLS]

What I am attempting to understand is how that increase is going to solve a problem or even help.

It seems to me you’re more intent on explaining why it’s a bad idea than understanding the bigger picture, but maybe I’m mistaken?

You reference total license and tag revenues, but don’t know how that allocation is spent? Total numbers don’t really matter, what matters is where that money is going and what it’s doing. Kind of hard for me to rail on how much they take in if I don’t know what the benefit is to the sportsman, correct?

 

[BucksnDucks]

It seems to me you’re more intent on explaining why it’s a bad idea than understanding the bigger picture, but maybe I’m mistaken?

You reference total license and tag revenues, but don’t know how that allocation is spent? Total numbers don’t really matter, what matters is where that money is going and what it’s doing. Kind of hard for me to rail on how much they take in if I don’t know what the benefit is to the sportsman, correct?

JLS it seems you are telling me what I think as opposed to what your answer is.

Total revenue does matter because the money is there and spending can change. So is allocation the problem not revenue?

To summarize my views:
Resident tags are cheap, I think everyone agrees.
There are troubles with Elk and Deer management, it seems most agree.
Revenue is the root of troubles, I disagree
Increasing cost to resident will alleviate any of the problems, I disagree.
A small tag increase may be warranted simply due to inflation/cost of living but I do not see how a doubling or even tripling of tag cost will benefit hunters or wildlife.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm trying to look at the big picture and convey what I've seen here over the last 30 years. MT resident tags could cost a little more, no big deal. What I am attempting to understand is how that increase is going to solve a problem or even help. Double the cost of a resident elk tag and what do expect to accomplish? I posted the numbers, MT is third highest in tag revenue. Relatively speaking second behind CO because Texas is not really comparable.
I get off topic because I've seen firsthand all the taxes and fees we pay here with poor results.

I have a long list of things money can be used for that would benefit the resource and hunters. How about paying grazing fees to the state to keep some state school sections from being grazed to the dirt every year. Or even better, put a pivot on a state section and plant it in alfalfa. Making public land better solves a lot of problems, but it costs money. A lot of the public land is BLM, which manages the land to provide income. We want something positive done with it, pay the $.

 

[JLS]

A small tag increase may be warranted simply due to inflation/cost of living but I do not see how a doubling or even tripling of tag cost will benefit hunters or wildlife.

Okey dokey. We’ll agree to disagree.

 

[mtmuley]

What I pay for an elk tag has no bearing on whether or not I "give a shit". mtmuley

 

[JLS]

What I pay for an elk tag has no bearing on whether or not I "give a shit". mtmuley

Great. You can rest easy then, because it wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at the “hunters” whom show up to commission meetings to bitch about no access to elk, but think $20 is too much for an elk tag that allows you to hunt for six months.

 

[BucksnDucks]

I have a long list of things money can be used for that would benefit the resource and hunters. How about paying grazing fees to the state to keep some state school sections from being grazed to the dirt every year. Or even better, put a pivot on a state section and plant it in alfalfa. Making public land better solves a lot of problems, but it costs money. A lot of the public land is BLM, which manages the land to provide income. We want something positive done with it, pay the $.

So your belief is if the state takes in more money through tag fees, above the current $40 million they will start making improvements similar to your list? My confidence in that taking place is far less than yours, but it would be nice

 

[JLS]

So your belief is if the state takes in more money through tag fees, above the current $40 million they will start making improvements similar to your list? My confidence in that taking place is far less than yours, but it would be nice

There are two types of audits done on agencies, fiscal and performance. Where is your data from a fiscal audit to show money can simply be reallocated?

 

[BucksnDucks]

Okey dokey. We’ll agree to disagree.

JLS it seems you are telling me what I think as opposed to what your answer is.

Total revenue does matter because the money is there and spending can change. So is allocation the problem not revenue?

To summarize my views:
Resident tags are cheap, I think everyone agrees.
There are troubles with Elk and Deer management, it seems most agree.
Revenue is the root of troubles, I disagree
Increasing cost to resident will alleviate any of the problems, I disagree.
A small tag increase may be warranted simply due to inflation/cost of living but I do not see how a doubling or even tripling of tag cost will benefit hunters or wildlife.

You only replied to the last line, so you obviously agree with everything else? Just messing with you.
I just have little confidence increased funds from tags would be used to a noticeable benefit. Would love to hear what would be expected.

 

[BucksnDucks]

There are two types of audits done on agencies, fiscal and performance. Where is your data from a fiscal audit to show money can simply be reallocated?

Relax. Stop asking for data and express what your opinion is. This is not QANON "do your own research"

 

[JLS]

Relax. Stop asking for data and express what your opinion is. This is not QANON "do your own research"

For starters, I’m going to assume you have little to no knowledge of the elk management plan and what it entails. Nor do I expect you to have any understanding of how elk objectives were reached based on social tolerance, nor do I expect you to understand the political dynamics that have gone into FWP failing to follow the elk management plan, which in turn caused the public to get the shaft. Also, in turn it caused public land elk to get hunted by shoulder seasons for months on end.

If you’re going to espouse views on a certain topic, I would think it would behoove you to have a better fundamental understanding of the issues at hand other than a simple broad based opinion relative to where you live. There are pages upon pages of reading for elk management in Montana.

A simple list of a few things that would have a big return for a public land hunters, but would also cost a heck of a lot of money are, and no particular order of importance:

Money spent on habitat projects on both DNR and federal lands

Access agreements with landowners to provide public access either to private land and/or landlocked sections of public land

Damage compensation for loss of grazing AUM‘s due to elk

Better GPS data in every hunting district that shows elk distribution and movements, which would allow FWP a legal basis to better follow and implement their elk management plan and remove months worth of shoulder seasons on public land.

These are just a few off the top of my head, and I’m sure there are many more. One only needs to look to the south in Wyoming and you will see a drastically different elk management paradigm than Montana’s. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, I think some hard looks need to be taken at what Wyoming is doing and how they can be implemented in Montana to achieve a different and better result other than just killing every elk that moves for nine months out of the year

 

[SAJ-99]

So your belief is if the state takes in more money through tag fees, above the current $40 million they will start making improvements similar to your list? My confidence in that taking place is far less than yours, but it would be nice

Dare to dream.
It seems you think they light the money on fire. To ease your fears, I saw 4 different deer this year that had radio collars on. So they are doing something with that money.

 

[JLS]

Fixing deer hunting thing in Montana’s easy. You just have to either

1) shorten the season

Or

2) shift the season completely into October for general hunts.

Easy cheesy. The hard part is convincing folks to give up their birthright of shooting deer clear through the end of November with center fire rifles.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Increase the cost of MT resident tags is but one piece in a puzzle to produce quality hunting opportunity on public land. Absent several other necessary changes, a cost increase could be pretty impotent, no matter how creatively or wisely MFWP invested the extra funds.

On a mostly unrelated note, a cost increase is critical to place residents in a position to have a bigger voice in decisions regarding elk and deer management. Paying 4% on the dollar to the NR for a tag lets the NR landowners, MOGA, and other allied moneyed interests continue to pull all the levers.

I see little downside to bumping elk to $75 and deer to $50. Create a reduced price option under an income threshold if you’re concerned about pricing out some residents, e.g. if you make less than $50k/yr you get your tags for $20/$15.

 

[mtmuley]

Great. You can rest easy then, because it wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at the “hunters” whom show up to commission meetings to bitch about no access to elk, but think $20 is too much for an elk tag that allows you to hunt for six months.

Great. I don't believe throwing money at landowners will open the gates. mtmuley

 

[JLS]

Great. I don't believe throwing money at landowners will open the gates. mtmuley

Great. I’m not suggesting just throw money at landowners in hopes of opening gates.

 

[mtmuley]

Great. I’m not suggesting just throw money at landowners in hopes of opening gates.

I think you mentioned funds for depradation. You think the landowners that are bitched about here on HT want that? Need that? No. They want tags. Bull tags. Other ranchers of a different sort might need the funds, but it won't improve access. mtmuley

 

[JLS]

Other ranchers of a different sort might need the funds, but it won't improve access. mtmuley

I’ve seen otherwise. YMMV.