HB145 - Increase NR license fees

[Nameless Range]

I am an advocate for stopping the growth of NR pressure in Montana, and even reducing it. I'm not convinced the financial solutions are insurmountable on paper, but public will (for things such as increasing Resident license costs) makes them an uphill climb.

Not really a position on this bill, but what Montanans reading this have NR friends who come out and hunt? A childhood buddy and his dad came out this year from the midwest and hunted with me, and it was awesome. Between their combo and other tags they spent as much in one year as I will in 5 or 6 years of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Numerous times I have voiced concern over NR pressure and still have it and think it isn't taken as seriously as it should be, but I do have a concern that we will simply price out the "average" guy who happens to be a NR. Maybe we already have. There's a more detached part of me that doesn't care what the market does to non-beneficiaries of this State's wildlife, but there's certainly another part of me that'd like to hunt with my buddy again, who is of average means, even if it is only every however many years and with increases in costs at what point could he no longer? Not sure this bill would do that, and it's not clear that govt cares about the demographics of NR hunters, but I do think a lot of resident hunters who have friends/family who are NRs that might. Probably not a critical mass.

Complicated issue with unclear thresholds.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Complicated issue with unclear thresholds.

Precicely. That's why pushing a bunch of bills without significant vetting during a 90 day session is less desirable than taking a little bit of time to get it right.

The HB 140 effort from 10 years ago paved the way on creating longer financial solvency for the agency (10 years instead of 4). I would much rather we spend the interim working with all stakeholders to find that kind of path forward, personally.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Until the funding model of MT FWP changes from hunting license funded to a tax based system that requires all MT wildlife resource shareholders to ante up to fund the conservation and management of the state’s wildlife we’re going to see these kind of attempts to put the financial burden on NR’s and no appetite from FWP to keep NR numbers to the statutory cap.

This funding model is unsustainable.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Until the funding model of MT FWP changes from hunting license funded to a tax based system that requires all MT wildlife resource shareholders to ante up to fund the conservation and management of the state’s wildlife we’re going to see these kind of attempts to put the financial burden on NR’s and no appetite from FWP to keep NR numbers to the statutory cap.

This funding model is unsustainable.

The statutory cap isn't being ignored. Those caps are in place, and they were not meant to encompass all NR hunters entering the state, just limit the number of people with antlered tags for deer and elk. Antelope, moose, sheep, goat is all on permit, so statutorily it is kept to the 90/10 rule.

Other species aren't limited to statutory caps except for NR upland, which has never exceeded the cap.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As Nameless Range pointed out, these kinds of “screw the NR” increases price out the kind of NR who come to MT to hunt DIY with friends and family.

My brother and some friends went from trying to make a trip every two or three years to not hunting MT at all because of the costs of licenses and the lack of quality hunting on public.

They’re gone, but there’s no lack of more well heeled customers to take their place.

When the cost of access to public wildlife exceeds the ability of all but the most wealthy, how does the NAWM tenet of “democratic access to wildlife” exist?

 

[Gerald Martin]

The statutory cap isn't being ignored. Those caps are in place, and they were not meant to encompass all NR hunters entering the state, just limit the number of people with antlered tags for deer and elk. Antelope, moose, sheep, goat is all on permit, so statutorily it is kept to the 90/10 rule.

Other species aren't limited to statutory caps except for NR upland, which has never exceeded the cap.

I would argue that the free/discounted NR deer and elk tags sold in excess of the caps are an “ignoring” of the caps. Crazy how those pet licenses are so dear to the same legislators who complain about too many NR.

 

[TheJason]

When the cost of access to public wildlife exceeds the ability of all but the most wealthy, how does the NAWM tenet of “democratic access to wildlife” exist?

Been preaching this for years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would argue that the free/discounted NR deer and elk tags sold in excess of the caps are an “ignoring” of the caps. Crazy how those pet licenses are so dear to the same legislators who complain about too many NR.

That is a function of the legislature not the agency.

 

[Nameless Range]

When the cost of access to public wildlife exceeds the ability of all but the most wealthy, how does the NAWM tenet of “democratic access to wildlife” exist?

As long as it is accessible to the beneficiaries of that wildlife (residents), then I don't think the NAM is really being forsaken. The day Montanans can no longer afford to hunt Montana's wildlife, I would be concerned, but I don't think that currently is an issue.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a desired model for NR hunting insofar as the "type" of NR hunting we want to continue to be available. We should have input and influence on how we want the wildlife we share with NRs to be available to them. And I don't think it should be controversial that that sharing involve more than just economics and leveraging as much as we can out of their bank accounts.

 

[Gerald Martin]

As long as it is accessible to the beneficiaries of that wildlife (residents), then I don't think the NAM is really being forsaken. The day Montanans can no longer afford to hunt Montana's wildlife, I would be concerned, but I don't think that currently is an issue.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a desired model for NR hunting insofar as the "type" of NR hunting we want to continue to be available. We should have input and influence on how we want the wildlife we share with NRs to be available to them. And I don't think it should be controversial that that sharing involve more than just economics and leveraging as much as we can out of their bank accounts.

I agree. As a Montanan, it matters to me who is able to access our wildlife. I don’t have family members who can take advantage of the discounted licenses but I do have NR friends and sharing a hunt with them greatly enriches my life. Why should I as a resident have to share resources or compete with a NR family member of another resident who is hunting on a half-priced license? It doesn’t benefit me in the least. Why do certain “connected” NR’s get discounts and other “regular” NR’s get gouged to the point that they can’t afford to come? The former example competes with me as a resident. The latter example diminishes my enjoyment of hunting because it means my NR friends can’t afford to come and hunt with me.

Having some sort of system that allows for NR hunters to be viewed as valuable more than just what we can extract from them financially seems to be better than getting the most money we can so that residents can have cheap licenses.

It seems penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That is a function of the legislature not the agency.

Understood. I don’t think the Legislature makes the logical connection that their legislation directly impacts their constituents in a negative manner, even while they’re complaining about too many NR’s and passing bills to price NR’s out of the market as if that will limit the number of NR’s.

I’m sure individual legislators have a good understanding of this, but taken as a whole, there seems to be a disconnect. Shocking isn’t it?

 

[Jock Conyngham]

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.

Gee, Ben, having only testified in Helena and DC dozens of times I sure needed that school lesson in protocol and decorum. Thank you.

Your verbiage, however, like your statements at the hearing, tell us nothing about your fundamental rationale. Two sessions ago Mark Taylor and MOGA were willing to accept a doubling the NR points application fee to $100 (for two points), but that came with outfitter preference. Now the increase would only benefit Block Management, and you’re arguing for a $35 increase instead of the proposed $85 increase—a significant drop. I’m asking why, and your explanation doesn’t address my question at all.

So I’ll ask: who is paying your time and expenses on this? Would that explain your rationale?

Sure hope that doesn’t violate protocol. As a resident hunter who has to live with the effects of your lobbying, I feel it’s a fair question.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This funding model is unsustainable.

Is there a state that has had a collapse of NR interest?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Gee, Ben, having only testified in Helena and DC dozens of times I sure needed that school lesson in protocol and decorum. Thank you.

Your verbiage, however, like your statements at the hearing, tell us nothing about your fundamental rationale. Two sessions ago Mark Taylor and MOGA were willing to accept a doubling the NR points application fee to $100 (for two points), but that came with outfitter preference. Now the increase would only benefit Block Management, and you’re arguing for a $35 increase instead of the proposed $85 increase—a significant drop. I’m asking why, and your explanation doesn’t address my question at all.

So I’ll ask: who is paying your time and expenses on this? Would that explain your rationale?

Sure hope that doesn’t violate protocol. As a resident hunter who has to live with the effects of your lobbying, I feel it’s a fair question.

Hi Jock,

Perhaps read the rest of the thread before attacking my character, yet again.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Hi Jock,

Perhaps read the rest of the thread before attacking my character, yet again.

It’s a simple question, Ben, that doesn’t involve your character.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It’s a simple question, Ben, that doesn’t involve your character.

Respectfully, when you make policy about personality, you make it personal. That comes a cross as yet another attack from you on my character.

 

[Alpine01]

As Nameless Range pointed out, these kinds of “screw the NR” increases price out the kind of NR who come to MT to hunt DIY with friends and family.

My brother and friends went from trying to make a trip every two or three years to not hunting MT at all because of the costs of licenses and the lack of quality hunting on public.

They’re gone, but there’s no lack of more well heeled customers to take their place.

When the cost of access to public wildlife exceeds the ability of all but the most wealthy, how does the NAWM tenet of “democratic access to wildlife” exist?

I think this is a very valid question. The nature of my job before retirement was to also look at the potential corner cases/worse-case scenarios to see how brittle an "architecture" was. In this case, I would hypothesize the following:

NR fees continue to rise to the point that only NR hunters with wealth can afford to have access to a public resource outside of the state residents. As it applies to federal lands, that leaves a large population of average NRs paying for management of a public resource (via federal taxes) to which they have effectively no access to use. It becomes very easy then for that segment to demand that wildlife resources on Federal lands are subject to Federal hunting management and hunting permits/licenses become a nationalized affair vs a state affair. They can then argue that Federal tags are equal cost whether resident or NR to fairly share the management cost burden. Given the far larger population of those states east of the Mississippi, and the associated political representation that goes with it, western states may find themselves subject to a "democratic" decision they really don't want. There is a parallel discussion around landowners monetizing a public resource via landowner preference programs, hunting access programs tied to set-aside tags, etc. But in effect, States are doing the same thing relative to NR hunters with a resource that should be available to all of the public.

Is this scenario at the extreme? For now, yes (possibly). But for how long? When a public resource is only really accessible by the very wealthy, it is far easier to argue that if only the rich can do it, it's time to take that away from everyone.

Honest debate and criticisms always welcome.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I'd gladly pay an extra $100+ for my elk and deer tags if it meant a decrease in non-resident hunters!

How generous. LMFAO

I pay that much for a small game license in a couple states just to get a preference point.

 

[Forkyfinder]

How generous. LMFAO

I pay that much for a small game license in a couple states just to get a preference point.

 

[mukbowhunt]

Nonresident hunters are not the reason for “crowding” in MT. Would it be less crowded if they were removed? Sure but your crowding probably is from the resident increase. I would argue that the average DIY nonresident hunter might hunt a bit harder than resident hunters (based on personal observations the past 7 years) but that could be a biased view. I am sure there are plenty of residents who hunt hard but there sure seem to be a lot on the fringe of the core. The 80/20 principle probably applies.