Draft Elk Management Plan is out

[Deleted member 48080]

I would start by spitting the elk and deer into two tags and making them pay $16 for each.

For residents or non-residents?

 

[SAJ-99]

For residents or non-residents?

Both.

 

[Ben Lamb]

When an increase is suggested, people will use "But there is a budget surplus" and "They're not using the money they have"...and they are not wrong. They are just a bit naive in thinking it is their money that created the surplus.

No disagreement there, especially when FWP's ending fund balance is so robust. To a certain extent, FWP got hammered on by appropriators for not spending funds on certain projects that they said they would - which leads to an even more scary outcome - the Legislature raiding FWP funding for other things (which is a diversion issue and protects us from that) but it also tells appropriators that FWP doesn't need the programs - not the revenue - that the funding is going too.

measure twice, cut once.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Both.

Elk and deer tags are already separate tags. Are you talking about the NR Big Game combo?

 

[SAJ-99]

Both.

Not the cost of course.

 

[SAJ-99]

Elk and deer tags are already separate tags. Are you talking about the NR Big Game combo?

Yes. It is just a way to increase the cost of a R tag. Doesn’t change much other than that. I mean it is hard to argue that it is so difficult to live in MT and the prices and wages create such a financial burden when there is a huge budget surplus from people buying weed. You could also spilt the tag into an A (buck) and B (doe) and charge $5 for the B tag for the Rs that are so broke they need to fill the freezer. #montanavalues.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Yes. It is just a way to increase the cost of a R tag. Doesn’t change much other than that. I mean it is hard to argue that it is so difficult to live in MT and the prices and wages create such a financial burden when there is a huge budget surplus from people buying weed. You could also spilt the tag into an A (buck) and B (doe) and charge $5 for the B tag for the Rs that are so broke they need to fill the freezer. #montanavalues.

These tags are all separate already for residents?

Do you ever consider taking 5 minutes and thinking about whether or not your posts are coherent? Do you have a post/day quota you need to hit?

 

[SAJ-99]

These tags are all separate already for residents?

Do you ever consider taking 5 minutes and thinking about whether or not your posts are coherent? Do you have a post/day quota you need to hit?

You are correct. my mistake. It is only for NR. But you know it is always referred to as a combo tag even by R, even if they get mailed separately. I agree, it isn’t a change to anything other than cost and semantics. And No, there should be no NR combo tag.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

You are correct. my mistake. It is only for NR. But you know it is always referred to as a combo tag even by R, even if they get mailed separately. I agree, it isn’t a change to anything other than cost and semantics. And No, there should be no NR combo tag.

I have an honestly never in my life heard a resident refer to their tags as a combo. I'm sure I'm out of the loop though.

So what resident cost change are you proposing?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I have an honestly never in my life heard a resident refer to their tags as a combo. I'm sure I'm out of the loop though.

So what resident cost change are you proposing?

Sportsman's license has a deer/elk combo.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

Sportsman's license has a deer/elk combo.

So SAJ is proposing getting rid of the Sportsman's license, got it. Makes sense now.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So SAJ is proposing getting rid of the Sportsman's license, got it. Makes sense now.

Just so we're all operating on some basic numbers, here's the 10 year spreadsheet from 2011 - 2021 on license sales.

 

[SAJ-99]

I have an honestly never in my life heard a resident refer to their tags as a combo. I'm sure I'm out of the loop though.

So what resident cost change are you proposing?

My naming be be wrong. As Ben points out, it is called a Sportsman. Maybe it will be called something different in the name of "simplicity" next year.

Given your focus on accuracy I had to go look up the cost (I think I originally said $16 in my haste, but the is the current deer cost). At the very least, charge $20 each for the deer and the elk. I think $25 or $30 would be reasonable given the amount of discretionary funds used on weed, but whatever. It should be sold as "the increase will allow us to cut X# of NR tags". The core of the discussion is that the argument the R cost shouldn't go up is ridiculous, just like the argument that the number of NR tags issued is reasonable is ridiculous. You just have to fix them without destroying the budget.

Hopefully you are satisfied with this. And yes, I like to have a minimum number of posts and reactions each day to increase my ratio. Posting wrong stuff seems to be the way to do it. Thanks for helping.

 

[Elky Welky]

Respectfully, I don't think it makes the point you or Nick think it does. It's essentially playing into the hands of Rosendale (PR/DJ funding elimination) and Lee (LWCF opposition) as those individuals continu to make the case that all conservation spending should be allocated on a yearly basis and not contain clauses that allow for statutory appropriations. Stable, reliable funding sources do more to enact long-term conservation plans that the herky-jerky back and forth of the biennial season setting process. by eliminating the funding sources for conservation, you simply give the legislature far more authority over wildlife management than if you left the funding mechanisms alone and focused on other issues within the same sphere.

When the B10 & B11 were brought into existence in the 80's or 90's, the compromise that conservationists were able to establish is that the NR licenses that get sold the most should fund programs that benefit resident hunters, landowners and wildlife. Because Montana's wildlife funding has to go through a budgeting process, unlike Wyoming, the ability of legislators to mess with FWP funding has been severely limited in terms of raising funding to pay for other things. It's also helped create a much stronger advocacy for conservation funding because there's a stable, secure source of money to help ensure we have more WMA's, Conservation Easements & almost 7 million acres of public access to private land through Block Management.

There are ways to cut NR licenses that don't get into the mix of conservation and access funding. 525 was not one of those ways. That bill would have eliminated the funding for the migratory bird conservation fund (wetlands restoration that helps wildlife, including native fisheries and species in need of conservation like sage grouse) and it would have cut the Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Fund to almost nil as well. That helps ensure that we have grouse and private lands access. That's why the 13 national groups lobbied against 525 and the Molnar bills which would have totally eliminated Habitat MT funding out of the license dollars (while Molnar was trying to kill 442, which if he was successful, would have totally gutted Habitat MT and gutted funding for the access enhancement account (Block Mgt)

The reason sportsmen dollars are the primary driver of FWP budgeting is precisely the reason why we've had to defend the recreational mj tax funding going to Habitat MT, non-game, trails and parks. It has come under attack both sessions, and we're going to see more attacks on this funding in the next session, and probably for a few after that.
Like it or not - the budget is what drives 99% of all policy decisions. For wildlife, if we start cutting willy-nilly, we end up shortchanging not only the general license account, but the actual conservation of all wildlife. As I mentioned to several folks who were working on 525, crunch the numbers and know what you're cutting and who's ox is going to get gored.

Meanwhile, FWP funding is pretty stable and if you look at the budget picture encased in the pdf I linked too earlier, there are going to be years where the Ending Fund Balance is out of alignment with the cost/revenue estimates. There are ways to cut licenses without impacting the bottom line outside of the GLA hit, which can be made up through targeted license increases.

if the desire of the legislature and the people is to bust up the B10's & B11's, then we need to understand the total impact of those decisions before sending a bill to the Governor's desk. If we're going to try and cut NR waterfowl hunters or upland hunters, then there should be a replacement funding source identified before hand - unfortunately, the USFWS has indicated that any more grandfathering of dedicated funding sources using license dollars is likely a loss of control issue for PR/DJ and as such the agency isn't willing toi lose the PR/DJ funding to try and alter those programs too far outside of the boundaries that the Service laid out.

Conservation shouldn't suffer because of an attempt to course correct on resident versus non-resident, I don't think that's really a radical position.

Ben, (also respectfully, I hope you always know), you never called me to talk 525, and continue to get some of it very, very far off. I wish you had. It was far more simple and elegant, and did not take funding away from anything. I discussed that with Mr. Temple prior to the hearing and the department came to understand this fact too. The fiscal note was flat wrong and based upon a false premise, and the amendment did not change the language whatsoever, but simply spread it across the page; which made what it already said far more clear. Neither here nor there, since it was killed anyways, but I need to set the record straight on that. Using words like "cut" and "limit" misunderstand what it did. I know you don't agree, but you need to step back and look at what it actually said, instead of lumping it in with the other bills those national groups lobbied against in that 11th hour letter. "Setting a limit" and "capping" were far more accurate, and the bill gave the department the discretion to set all of those limits, which, in the example of waterfowl, they could simply have set the limit to something impossible to ever reach, and no funding would have been lost whatsoever.

Sadly, the numbers don't lie. I'm not super interested in pitting resident v. nonresident, but the pressure is not coming from residents. If we want to reduce pressure, we have to reduce it where it is coming from, and there is longstanding precedent with regards to limiting nonresidents.

And when we get so caught up on access, then we forget that we have significant amounts of public land that would be great habitat if there was less pressure herding animals off of it. Distribution has to be part of the equation. And we've led the horse to water pretty much every way we can--within the NA model, and even starting to step outside of it--with regards to trying to push animals off of private, between B tags, damage hunts, roster hunts, etc. (getting that horse to drink is a different issue entirely). But the distribution issue needs to be addressed from both angles: more hunting pressure on private, less hunting pressure on public.

I really don't think that's a radical position

 

[DFS]

Just so we're all operating on some basic numbers, here's the 10 year spreadsheet from 2011 - 2021 on license sales.

You are burning the wildlife in this state right to the ground trying to keep your funding. We can’t continue to issue all these tags, the resource can’t handle it.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

My naming be be wrong. As Ben points out, it is called a Sportsman. Maybe it will be called something different in the name of "simplicity" next year.

Given your focus on accuracy I had to go look up the cost (I think I originally said $16 in my haste, but the is the current deer cost). At the very least, charge $20 each for the deer and the elk. I think $25 or $30 would be reasonable given the amount of discretionary funds used on weed, but whatever. It should be sold as "the increase will allow us to cut X# of NR tags". The core of the discussion is that the argument the R cost shouldn't go up is ridiculous, just like the argument that the number of NR tags issued is reasonable is ridiculous. You just have to fix them without destroying the budget.

Hopefully you are satisfied with this. And yes, I like to have a minimum number of posts and reactions each day to increase my ratio. Posting wrong stuff seems to be the way to do it. Thanks for helping.

I apologize for being such a prick. It just gets very confusing in a thread like this trying to figure out who is saying what. Lots of short posts make that even more confusing.

For whatever it's worth, the Sportsman's licenses has never been anywhere near as popular as residents buying their tags individually, although by Ben's spreadsheet they are becoming more popular. I stopped paying attention to whether kr not I was buying them when they stopped giving you a sticker with them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, (also respectfully, I hope you always know), you never called me to talk 525, and continue to get some of it very, very far off. I wish you had. It was far more simple and elegant, and did not take funding away from anything. I discussed that with Mr. Temple prior to the hearing and the department came to understand this fact too. The fiscal note was flat wrong and based upon a false premise, and the amendment did not change the language whatsoever, but simply spread it across the page; which made what it already said far more clear. Neither here nor there, since it was killed anyways, but I need to set the record straight on that. Using words like "cut" and "limit" misunderstand what it did. I know you don't agree, but you need to step back and look at what it actually said, instead of lumping it in with the other bills those national groups lobbied against in that 11th hour letter. "Setting a limit" and "capping" were far more accurate, and the bill gave the department the discretion to set all of those limits, which, in the example of waterfowl, they could simply have set the limit to something impossible to ever reach, and no funding would have been lost whatsoever.

Sadly, the numbers don't lie. I'm not super interested in pitting resident v. nonresident, but the pressure is not coming from residents. If we want to reduce pressure, we have to reduce it where it is coming from, and there is longstanding precedent with regards to limiting nonresidents.

And when we get so caught up on access, then we forget that we have significant amounts of public land that would be great habitat if there was less pressure herding animals off of it. Distribution has to be part of the equation. And we've led the horse to water pretty much every way we can--within the NA model, and even starting to step outside of it--with regards to trying to push animals off of private, between B tags, damage hunts, roster hunts, etc. (getting that horse to drink is a different issue entirely). But the distribution issue needs to be addressed from both angles: more hunting pressure on private, less hunting pressure on public.

I really don't think that's a radical position

Jake,

The amendment that you guys came up with made the bill something everyone should support, and I hope you bring that back in 25.

Regardless, if everyone but you saw the same thing - including the legal staff of those national groups, and it's just one person saying it's everyone else who is wrong, then I think we're going to not agree on the outcome of the original version of the bill.

We are in 100% agreement on what the problem is, we're just cussin' & discussin' the best way to solve the problem. Cheers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You are burning the wildlife in this state right to the ground trying to keep your funding. We can’t continue to issue all these tags, the resource can’t handle it.

Hyperbole not withstanding, without the habitat funding, we'd not have new wma's like Big Snowies or the hundre of thousands of acres of conservation easements that protect critical winter range.

We'd have a lot fewer ducks, grouse, etc as well.

You don't have to sacrifice the funding to achieve the desired result, but if your only solution is a hammer, everything looks like nails.

 

[Elky Welky]

Jake,

The amendment that you guys came up with made the bill something everyone should support, and I hope you bring that back in 25.

Regardless, if everyone but you saw the same thing - including the legal staff of those national groups, and it's just one person saying it's everyone else who is wrong, then I think we're going to not agree on the outcome of the original version of the bill.

We are in 100% agreement on what the problem is, we're just cussin' & discussin' the best way to solve the problem. Cheers.

We both know things move fast in the legislature, and I don't doubt the legal staff of those groups trusted the lobbyist who wrote it and summarized it for them and didn't give it a second glance. I'm not just one person saying you are wrong, there's a whole lot of others who took the time to understand it too. Again, if you compare the original with the amended version of the bill, they were exactly the same. It quite literally just spread the language out so people reading the bill would slow down and understand it.

But I think we've beat that horse to death (again, just had to make sure).

Always happy to cuss and discuss with you, Ben, and I'm glad we now have an EMP to start trying to untangle this mess.

 

[SAJ-99]

I apologize for being such a prick. It just gets very confusing in a thread like this trying to figure out who is saying what. Lots of short posts make that even more confusing.

For whatever it's worth, the Sportsman's licenses has never been anywhere near as popular as residents buying their tags individually, although by Ben's spreadsheet they are becoming more popular. I stopped paying attention to whether kr not I was buying them when they stopped giving you a sticker with them.

No worries. It was mostly tongue-in-cheek so I didn’t really pay attention to any details. I should have went with my original thought that the price should increase to $80 and come with a free bag of CBD gummies.