A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana

[Sytes]

I believe raising fees is not focused on the hunter's give a chit meter - moreso for enhanced funding towards better (than current) biologist / warden abilities.
The PR was a sly MT use adverse to LE time in field for LE needs. We need all the time possible for LE as well as biologists with proper pay, equipment, etc.

At our current charge (for R's), we could easily bump it 20% and it would be a Sportsmans -$30 roughly.

If it's a low income issue, set it for anything below avg household income, stays same price... keep the complaints low(er) for the issue.

Again, not for the hunter's direct benefit though indirectly, imo a big win.
$ = get what you pay for.

 

[300stw]

I’ve seen otherwise. YMMV.

i imagine any landowner that has depredation due to too many cervids, has numerous people waving money, more then f&g , would pay, to harvest the animals,,,

 

[JLS]

i imagine any landowner that has depredation due to too many cervids, has numerous people waving money, more then f&g , would pay, to harvest the animals,,,

Sure they do. However, top dollar does not always wn out. I have seen it before where people took less money for a public hunting program, even though they could’ve made more for a private lease.

 

[Nameless Range]

I have seen it before where people took less money for a public hunting program, even though they could’ve made more for a private lease.

This happens in a very big way just outside my back door

 

[dirtclod Az.]

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.

Welcome to Montana, Now go home!

 

[Hunting Wife]

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.

Please tell us then, what is the root of our troubles? We are curious.

More and better enforcement would improve some things…costs money.

Better access could resolve some things….costs money.

Better habitat management would help immensely…costs lots of money.

Actual science-based adaptive management in the form of better harvest data, updated plans, reevaluation of season structures would be fantastic…but would also cost money.

Managing disease would be a game changer for some species…costs lots of money.

Working with landowners to improve relationships and cultivate more tolerance for wildlife would be big for Montana…and is going to cost money.

Depredation occurs year round, and some folks allow ample public opportunity during the season, but that has little to no effect when they have 200 elk camped in their crop or hay field all June. If we want more landowner tolerance for more elk on the landscape, it’s got to make dollars and cents for them in some way, shape or form. Removing the “elk are eating me out of house and home” excuse would be a start. And we have got to stop lumping all landowners in one big bad boogeyman group.

The vast majority of folks hunting Montana are residents. The increased pressure being exerted by hunters is mostly due to the dramatic increase in residents. Sprawl and habitat loss is due to residents. The most griping about management comes from residents. The group not pulling their weight with regards to funding the agency to address all those problems? Residents.

 

[BucksnDucks]

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

Yes, JLS you're the expert and I do not pretend to have some in depth knowledge of elk management. Know why? That's not the topic. I am however very familiar with the workings of state game agencies. The topic is increasing fees for tags. If you believe the relatively small amount of money, in the big picture is going to do wonders for management, let's begin the conversation there. Tell me how. That's it. How much of an increase is needed and what do you expect the beneficial outcome to be?
No personal attacks necessary. You don't know a thing about me but assume away. If my lack of confidence in state agencies spending wisely offends you, so be it. I hear mostly complaints about elk and deer management in MT, if I'm wrong then tell me it's great. If not decide if it's decisions or money.

 

[BucksnDucks]

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.

Is this a serious comment? Seems pretty cost effective

 

[Hem]

Time for a sales tax IMO.

 

[timmy]

Is this a serious comment? Seems pretty cost effective

Is this a serious reply? That’s all it would take.

 

[MTLabrador]

If Montana quit allowing mule deer doe hunting on public land and had an October 1-20 rifle season we would see a huge improvement, even if all current general districts stayed that way.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Please tell us then, what is the root of our troubles? We are curious.

More and better enforcement would improve some things…costs money.

Better access could resolve some things….costs money.

Better habitat management would help immensely…costs lots of money.

Actual science-based adaptive management in the form of better harvest data, updated plans, reevaluation of season structures would be fantastic…but would also cost money.

Managing disease would be a game changer for some species…costs lots of money.

Working with landowners to improve relationships and cultivate more tolerance for wildlife would be big for Montana…and is going to cost money.

Depredation occurs year round, and some folks allow ample public opportunity during the season, but that has little to no effect when they have 200 elk camped in their crop or hay field all June. If we want more landowner tolerance for more elk on the landscape, it’s got to make dollars and cents for them in some way, shape or form. Removing the “elk are eating me out of house and home” excuse would be a start. And we have got to stop lumping all landowners in one big bad boogeyman group.

The vast majority of folks hunting Montana are residents. The increased pressure being exerted by hunters is mostly due to the dramatic increase in residents. Sprawl and habitat loss is due to residents. The most griping about management comes from residents. The group not pulling their weight with regards to funding the agency to address all those problems? Residents.

Howdy Hunting Wife. Great to hear from you again. I will attempt to answer in order.

The troubles I hear are mostly from family in MT and what I hear on HT. They have little to nothing to do with the revenue generated by license sales. Long seasons, rut hunts, doe hunts, shoulder seasons, enforcement, disease, depredation/private land issues. But that's not really the point, I am not pointing out problems. I am asking what the increased cost will do for the hunters or wildlife.

Enforcement is critical, I agree. So if that is the problem say it, and earmark the tag increase for 10, 25, 50 or however many new Wardens it buys.

Same thing earmark funds for access, habitat, disease, etc. tell the people who are paying more what to expect. Is none of this being done with the current $40 million? These are fine examples and I don't disagree. My premise is simple. A 100% or whatever increase in tags will likely have an extremely small, if any return in benefit.

I'm not sure how to address your last two paragraphs. Elk cause trouble with land owners and resident hunter numbers are increasing and they are not paying their fair share?
Okay. So this is all remedied by increase cost to resident? What is the goal, increased revenue or decrease resident hunters?

What should a tag cost and where does the money go? Most likely the dollars go to the general fund and it's business as usual.
For those who want to pay more I suggest RMEF or similar organization working for the elk. I would guess you could also donate directly through conservation stamp purchases are checks directly to the state.

 

[BucksnDucks]

More and better enforcement would improve some things…costs money.

Better access could resolve some things….costs money.

Better habitat management would help immensely…costs lots of money.

Actual science-based adaptive management in the form of better harvest data, updated plans, reevaluation of season structures would be fantastic…but would also cost money.

Managing disease would be a game changer for some species…costs lots of money.

Working with landowners to improve relationships and cultivate more tolerance for wildlife would be big for Montana…and is going to cost money.

I'm trying to see where we disagree or how I can articulate my statements for better understanding. All of the above is important, yes agree.
Maybe the more pertinent question is why isn't this already being done? License and tags revenue second highest in western states, third overall.
If it can't be accomplished at this level, how much do you need to raise resident tags to make a difference? A doubling or more of tags may be a big difference to an individual and a rounding error in Helena.
If this topic is just, wow tags are super cheap we should pay more like everyone else, fine. What I don't buy is the pie in the sky, pay more and get more from agencies with shaky track records.
Public land hunting should not have cost as a limiting factor. I think the negative factors of a sizeable increase to individuals outweighs any benefit that would be generated by the increased revenue.

 

[PaulRevere]

 

[BucksnDucks]

Is this a serious reply? That’s all it would take.

Exactly. In the context of the thread about raising cost etc. it seems odd that the suggestion cost so little.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Howdy Hunting Wife. Great to hear from you again. I will attempt to answer in order.

The troubles I hear are mostly from family in MT and what I hear on HT. They have little to nothing to do with the revenue generated by license sales. Long seasons, rut hunts, doe hunts, shoulder seasons, enforcement, disease, depredation/private land issues. But that's not really the point, I am not pointing out problems. I am asking what the increased cost will do for the hunters or wildlife.

Enforcement is critical, I agree. So if that is the problem say it, and earmark the tag increase for 10, 25, 50 or however many new Wardens it buys.

Same thing earmark funds for access, habitat, disease, etc. tell the people who are paying more what to expect. Is none of this being done with the current $40 million? These are fine examples and I don't disagree. My premise is simple. A 100% or whatever increase in tags will likely have an extremely small, if any return in benefit.

I'm not sure how to address your last two paragraphs. Elk cause trouble with land owners and resident hunter numbers are increasing and they are not paying their fair share?
Okay. So this is all remedied by increase cost to resident? What is the goal, increased revenue or decrease resident hunters?

What should a tag cost and where does the money go? Most likely the dollars go to the general fund and it's business as usual.
For those who want to pay more I suggest RMEF or similar organization working for the elk. I would guess you could also donate directly through conservation stamp purchases are checks directly to the state.

Yes, these all have line items in the budget, and virtually everything is earmarked, which I suppose you know since you are familiar with state agency budgets. Enforcement is funded 93% by license sales. So is fisheries. So is game damage. Habitat, access and wildlife programs get funds via federal grants…which require up to a 3:1 match from license revenue. It’s not some big smoke and mirrors conspiracy…there are reports on this stuff annually. I don’t think residents should be let off the hook on these, particularly since they reap additional benefits from these investments that non-residents don’t.

I don’t agree with tag welfare for outfitters in this state, and I kinda don’t agree with tag welfare for resident hunters either. Having a resource to enjoy costs money. Put a mechanism in place for cases of true financial hardship. But being a citizen and enjoying the benefits of such does not come without some responsibilities.

 

[JLS]

Most likely the dollars go to the general fund and it's business as usual.

Actually they dont

 

[BucksnDucks]

please expand. I'm starting to enjoy being the lone dorky kid at lunch. My questions have been simple, yet unanswered. Personal attacks have been slight, yet expected to increase. With all that I'm still surprised at the vigorous defense of government agencies spending and decision making with equal condemnation at other opportune times. If you all expect a different outcome from the same people in government by giving them just a little more money, best of luck. As stated before there are so many other ways you can enjoy this fantastic system. May I again suggest a 8% sales tax. or $600 vehicle registration.
Raise the tag price because it's really cheap, but don't bring the basket of wishful BS with it.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Yes, these all have line items in the budget, and virtually everything is earmarked, which I suppose you know since you are familiar with state agency budgets. Enforcement is funded 93% by license sales. So is fisheries. So is game damage. Habitat, access and wildlife programs get funds via federal grants…which require up to a 3:1 match from license revenue. It’s not some big smoke and mirrors conspiracy…there are reports on this stuff annually. I don’t think residents should be let off the hook on these, particularly since they reap additional benefits from these investments that non-residents don’t.

I don’t agree with tag welfare for outfitters in this state, and I kinda don’t agree with tag welfare for resident hunters either. Having a resource to enjoy costs money. Put a mechanism in place for cases of true financial hardship. But being a citizen and enjoying the benefits of such does not come without some responsibilities.

Thanks for kind reply. I don't think we disagree on much other than my confidence the money from resident tag increase will make a difference. My experience from CA is increased cost with diminishing opportunity and success in general. When the fish and game agencies rely heavily on tag sales it makes it extremely difficult to cut tags if the herd needs it.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Actually they dont

Not general fund or not business as usual. I'm guessing earmarked but business as usual