HB145 - Increase NR license fees

[samuel_284Win]

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.

As a Montana resident, I think we pay too little for a general elk and deer tag given just the value of being able to put 150-200 lb of meat in your freezer with one elk. I say move it to $60 for elk. It would be about equal to CO, NM, WY on average.

 

[samuel_284Win]

In addition, I understand that each state's responsibility is to its own residents (as @Big Fin has pointed out on multiple occasions). However, when my annual elk and deer tag is the cheapest thing I need to go hunting it kinda seems wrong...? When was the last time resident elk/deer tag prices were increased in MT?

 

[Pierre]

Hi Jock,

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

Beware of lobbyists claiming to be resident sportsmen and wildlife friendly. Many are untrustworthy! Check out the article in Mont Current!

 

[Ought Six]

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.

Yeah not worried about this thanks though

 

[BrentD]

Yeah not worried about this thanks though

You really should be.