HB145 - Increase NR license fees

[Ben Lamb]

I am another one for raising resident tags. Double the cost of a resident tag.

Non-resident I don't see making a difference with anything whether they raise it or not. What they need to do is limit the NUMBER of non-resident tags better. Stop making special programs for every god damn person that has ever set foot in Montana. If you don't live here, then you have to pay and get a non-resident tag that should be limited in number and actually stick to that limit.

The NR deer, big game & elk combos are limited to 23600.

The free & reduced licenses aren't. It has been extremely difficult to have the conversation with legislators to cap or reduce those.

Doe tags were cut significantly by legislation in '23. 24 license data posted earlier shows that decline.

Representative Parry's bill would add significant new funding for Block Management. 90% of the funding would go towards the hunter access account. It would help replace declining Pittman Robertson dollars. With 1 million acres lost in the last decade under Block Management you are seeing more hunters crowded into less available land.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

The NR deer, big game & elk combos are limited to 23600.

The free & reduced licenses aren't. It has been extremely difficult to have the conversation with legislators to cap or reduce those.

Doe tags were cut significantly by legislation in '23. 24 license data posted earlier shows that decline.

Representative Parry's bill would add significant new funding for Block Management. 90% of the funding would go towards the hunter access account. It would help replace declining Pittman Robertson dollars. With 1 million acres lost in the last decade under Block Management you are seeing more hunters crowded into less available land.

Yes, I'm aware of the licenses count. I think the free and reduced ones should be included in the limit and not free and reduced. Keep it simple, must live here to be a resident. That is my issue.

Good to hear on the Block Management bill, was not aware of that one.

 

[TheJason]

90% of the funding would go towards the hunter access account.

I’ll happily pay $85 for access. I donate close to that much to Wyomings access yes program with every application.

If a R doesn’t want to pay nor contribute, so be it. One day you’ll reap what you sow.

 

[Elktrack]

I am another one for raising resident tags. Double the cost of a resident tag.

Non-resident I don't see making a difference with anything whether they raise it or not. What they need to do is limit the NUMBER of non-resident tags better. Stop making special programs for every god damn person that has ever set foot in Montana. If you don't live here, then you have to pay and get a non-resident tag that should be limited in number and actually stick to that limit.

^
This guy gets it!!

 

[mukbowhunt]

I’ll happily pay $85 for access. I donate close to that much to Wyomings access yes program with every application.

If a R doesn’t want to pay nor contribute, so be it. One day you’ll reap
what you sow.

Same. I would like to see 100% go to pay for hunter access but I will take 90%. I think residents would want to contribute too!

 

[TheJason]

@Muleyassassin406 you have anything productive to add?

 

[Muleyassassin406]

@Muleyassassin406 you have anything productive to add?

What’s there to add it’s pretty well covered you non residents bitch even though you will never be able to change what any state does! Good thing it’s America and you have your free speech on this forum where you guys can all whine together regardless any of you stop coming someone else will fill your spot…

 

[Elky Welky]

Disappointed the bill referenced earlier didnt work out.

Don't be. Moving NRs to guided, private land only just incentivizes the purchase of private land and exploitation of public resources. Leasing and subdivision would go up even more than it has in the aftermath of Yellowstone and Covid. We'd lose even more block mgmt. It was a bad bill, and Montanans fought hard to kill it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Don't be. Moving NRs to guided, private land only just incentivizes the purchase of private land and exploitation of public resources. Leasing and subdivision would go up even more than it has in the aftermath of Yellowstone and Covid. We'd lose even more block mgmt. It was a bad bill, and Montanans fought hard to kill it.

There you BHA people go again. Sticking up for NR DIY.

I think some form of solutions exist similar to this bill to address NR pressure, selfish as a R i guess. That certainly goes against a lot of values BHA, HT, and orgs that support NR.

 

[BrentD]

Montana legislators propose raising nonresident hunting base fee by more than 500%

Three Montana legislators have drafted a bill that would raise nonresident base hunting fees by more than 500%.

www.montanaoutdoor.com

Tag on another $85 to an already very high price to hunt deer or elk in MT is kind of inconsequential in the big scheme of things. It's that MT residents pay $20 for an elk tag and $16 for a deer tag compared to NR being in for near $1300 for a general elk tag with pref points in comparison that makes this a bit ridiculous. If hunting is so important to so many MT residents maybe they should value it at more than meal at chipotle. I tend to take the side of resident preference on a lot of issues NRs complain about but shit like this gets my hackles up for some reason. I agree that MT residents should fight to get it back to limiting NR tags to whats in the statute without all the cutouts. Stuff like this is kind of pathetic though.

CO resident elk tag: $66
NM resident elk tag: $60
Wy resident elk tag: $57
ID: $36.75
AZ: $148
NV: $120
MT: Chipotle Burrito with guac, side of chips, large coke.

I think we should start charging residents access/trespass fees on our national, public property. STEEP fees.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Ben, Mark Taylor and your Montana Conservation Society testified today against 145, which of course would have increased funding for Block Management. The only other opponent today was MOGA. What’s your rationale?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, Mark Taylor and your Montana Conservation Society testified against 145, which of course would have supported Block Management. The only other opponent today was MOGA. What’s your rationale?

Hi Jock,

Happy to explain legislative hearing protocols & decorum.

If you support a bill and then ask for amendments, the chair will often times rule you out of order and put you down as an opponent. This approach tends to undermine your credibility with the committee. Following protocol may seem silly to those unfamiliar with the process, but that protocol exists for good reasons and it helps keep the bill hearing on track while working to build trust with the members. We have been working with the sponsor on our concerns leading up to the hearing and he was fine with us following those time-tested protocols and we look forward to continuing to work with him to get a good bill out of committee.

We had soft opposition to amount of the price increase, not the desire to increase the base license or the concept or where the funding goes. In fact, we only support the funding going to Block Management within the current framework of the statute. Given the hunter day price increase, and the new top end cap on block mgt payments of $50k we were able to passed last session, the need for increased funding is very real.

Hope that helps clear up legislative protocol and our position.

 

[TheJason]

What’s there to add it’s pretty well covered you non residents bitch even though you will never be able to change what any state does! Good thing it’s America and you have your free speech on this forum where you guys can all whine together regardless any of you stop coming someone else will fill your spot…

That’s about what I expected.

 

[TheJason]

So which one of you Montanans is going to step up and ask your legislator to introduce a bill to add a $10 increase to your base license? Just think how far that money would go to expanding block management.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So which one of you Montanans is going to step up and ask your legislator to introduce a bill to add a $10 increase to your base license? Just think how far that money would go to expanding block management.

The Legislature will need to look at broad license increases in 2027 due to the agency's budget outlook, revenue projections, etc.

That effort becomes much more difficult when there are a suite of one-off license increase bills. A disorganized and siloed approach this session means getting meaningful license increases next session becomes far more difficult as legislators generally dislike raising resident licenses.

So while the base license bill has strong support, we run the risk of having 3-4-5 bills to screw NR's undermining the more strategic effort.

FWP did a license trends report yesterday in House Fish. Right now Nonresidents are paying 76% of all license revenue 80% of deer & elk revenue are paid by NR's.

At some point you burn the golden goose and end up with tag soup.

 

[antlerradar]

FWP did a license trends report yesterday in House Fish. Right now Nonresidents are paying 76% of all license revenue 80% of deer & elk revenue are paid by NR's.

At some point you burn the golden goose and end up with tag soup.

I thought 66% was an ugly number back when I was on the licensing and funding CAC. If FWP convenes another CAC to deal with funding for 27 that 76% and 80% are going to be hard to over look.

 

[TheJason]

I thought 66% was an ugly number back when I was on the licensing and funding CAC. If FWP convenes another CAC to deal with funding for 27 that 76% and 80% are going to be hard to over look.

The good news is, there should be a lot of folks on here who can put their money where their mouth is. Literally. A resident license fee increase is going to be a heavy lift, but from the widespread support here, it should be easy.

 

[rogerthat]

The good news is, there should be a lot of folks on here who can put their money where their mouth is. Literally. A resident license fee increase is going to be a heavy lift, but from the widespread support here, it should be easy.

Unfortunately, which I know you know, if this were the case, getting good changes for our mule deer would also be easy. Unfortunately the views of the residents here are definitely the minority view. I would happily pony up the cash

 

[Forkyfinder]

So while the base license bill has strong support, we run the risk of having 3-4-5 bills to screw NR's undermining the more strategic effort.

At some point you burn the golden goose and end up with tag soup.

WY has shown there arent much for limits with what a NR will pay. Plus - its politically popular to the uninformed or minor engaged.

I dont disagree that it isnt good management and R should pay more - but i dont think increasing the prices stops any sales for the time being.

 

[Ben Lamb]

WY has shown there arent much for limits with what a NR will pay. Plus - its politically popular to the uninformed or minor engaged.

I dont disagree that it isnt good management and R should pay more - but i dont think increasing the prices stops any sales for the time being.

When the great recession hit in the late aughts/2012-ish we saw a downturn in NR participation. There are some early indicators that inflation could to have a similar effect on NR license sales. Additive to that is declining PR revenue which makes up a significant portion of the overall budget. The key is projecting the tipping point and not creating a situation that puts us at the edge before meaningful changes can be made. The economic climate of the US is in flux, with the potential of another round of tariffs and increased taxes, etc. that could influence the purchasing decisions of NR's. You have to take that into account as well as the current economic climate that means people of moderate means are spending more on eggs & utilities and less on luxury items.

The issue is more complicated than just supply & demand, unfortunately.