HB145 - Increase NR license fees

[406elkaholic]

I pay $754 to hunt deer there...I don't know what you're bitching about.

So you should be able to come to montana and hunt deer for what? 200$ is what you're thinking? I'm not arguing that 750 is steep but residents are only paying 16$ right now and if you don't think 100$ is enough then gtfo

 

[Mallardsx2]

Is that a choice? Nobody is forcing you to hunt here buddy. But don't tell a resident that he isn't being generous enough offering to pay 100$ for a deer when we currently pay like 10$ . It's a privilege that you get to hunt in montana not a right..

So you should be able to come to montana and hunt deer for what? 200$ is what you're thinking? I'm not arguing that 750 is steep but residents are only paying 16$ right now and if you don't think 100$ is enough then gtfo

I still don't understand what you're bitching about. I truly don't.

I never said that anyone wasn't being generous enough. I actually said the opposite. I simply stated that you were being generous and that I pay that much for a small game license in a couple states.

Read below and then leave me alone and go get your dirt-cheap tag and keep wondering why you don't have more of a seat at the table even though you're a resident.

Mallardsx2 said:
How generous. LMFAO

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

 

[Forkyfinder]

I still don't understand what you're bitching about. I truly don't.

I never said that anyone wasn't being generous enough. I actually said the opposite. I simply stated that you were being generous and that I pay that much for a small game license in a couple states.

Read below and then leave me alone and go get your dirt-cheap tag and keep wondering why you don't have more of a seat at the table even though you're a resident.

Mallardsx2 said:
How generous. LMFAO

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

Ive trolled you a lot on here about NR fees and opportunity. However i get your frustration. I probably wouldnt feel a lot different in your shoes.

But you are quite wrong that folks dont listen to resident hunters. We have a seat at the table - we CHOOSE to leave it empty.

If anyone doesnt believe me - check out how little testimony or feedback our legislators get about bad wildlife legislation.

 

[406elkaholic]

I still don't understand what you're bitching about. I truly don't.

I never said that anyone wasn't being generous enough. I actually said the opposite. I simply stated that you were being generous and that I pay that much for a small game license in a couple states.

Read below and then leave me alone and go get your dirt-cheap tag and keep wondering why you don't have more of a seat at the table even though you're a resident.

Mallardsx2 said:
How generous. LMFAO

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

sure seemed like sarcasm to me with the LMFAO directly after. Sorry for the insinuation. but it's funny if you think any of us have a seat at the table... the biologist don't even have a seat and you sure don't either. No point in having a seat at a table of politicians not listening to anything hunters and biologist have to say...

 

[406elkaholic]

Ive trolled you a lot on here about NR fees and opportunity. However i get your frustration. I probably wouldnt feel a lot different in your shoes.

But you are quite wrong that folks dont listen to resident hunters. We have a seat at the table - we CHOOSE to leave it empty.

If anyone doesnt believe me - check out how little testimony or feedback our legislators get about bad wildlife legislation.

They don't even listen to the biologist most of the time if it doesn't make them money. They sure don't listen to hunters when we decide to give feedback it feel wasted.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Ive trolled you a lot on here about NR fees and opportunity. However i get your frustration. I probably wouldnt feel a lot different in your shoes.

But you are quite wrong that folks dont listen to resident hunters. We have a seat at the table - we CHOOSE to leave it empty.

If anyone doesnt believe me - check out how little testimony or feedback our legislators get about bad wildlife legislation.

Most people don't want to say much of anything until it is too late. Let your voices be heard.

I'm glad residents in all states get cheap licenses. Truly am. But if you want more of a say, (I feel) you'll need to have more skin in the game and stop relying so heavily on NR funding.

You could just follow Wyoming's model and keep increasing the price until only the rich can afford to hunt and you'll still sell out all the tags. That IS an option. I don't like it, but it IS an option.

 

[Mallardsx2]

They don't even listen to the biologist most of the time if it doesn't make them money. They sure don't listen to hunters when we decide to give feedback it feel wasted.

Colorado is the same way, but I have found that if you e-mail the commission, they (sometimes) do at least read your emails. The only thing you can do is keep trying.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Doesn't have much to do with wildlife, just meant residents pay our fair share in other places to be able to enjoy our resources. But I'm certainly not against paying more as a resident to a certain point of course. except the fact I know they won't spend my money properly just like the feds

Sure. I understand that states with desirable hunting/fishing opportunities often come with other compromises to live in said state and there should be significant benefits to resident hunters/anglers over NR.

I'm just saying that the point about high property taxes is like saying "We make the non-residents pull the load on wildlife funding but we pay a lot of taxes to fund our schools, utilities, fire dept, and transportation". Bummer but it has nothing to do with having more skin in the game on wildlife decisions.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sure. I understand that states with desirable hunting/fishing opportunities often come with other compromises to live in said state and there should be significant benefits to resident hunters/anglers over NR.

I'm just saying that the point about high property taxes is like saying "We make the non-residents pull the load on wildlife funding but we pay a lot of taxes to fund our schools, utilities, fire dept, and transportation". Bummer but it has nothing to do with having more skin in the game on wildlife decisions.

The thing is - the funding of our states deparment gets you nothing.

Just like the consumers funding a corporation doesnt get anyone a seat at the corporate board meetings.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Lol the uproar on facebook is pretty pathetic.

Alright NR of HT - you were right. These people act as if they need a gofundme to buy a tag if its not less than a good box of ammo.

What's the uproar about from residents since this is about NR paying more yet? Got a link?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

The thing is - the funding of our states deparment gets you nothing.

Just like the consumers funding a corporation doesnt get anyone a seat at the corporate board meetings.

Gets NR nothing or would get Residents nothing if they contributed more?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Gets NR nothing or would get Residents nothing if they contributed more?

Both. Not either.

 

[406elkaholic]

Sure. I understand that states with desirable hunting/fishing opportunities often come with other compromises to live in said state and there should be significant benefits to resident hunters/anglers over NR.

I'm just saying that the point about high property taxes is like saying "We make the non-residents pull the load on wildlife funding but we pay a lot of taxes to fund our schools, utilities, fire dept, and transportation". Bummer but it has nothing to do with having more skin in the game on wildlife decisions.

Sure. I understand that states with desirable hunting/fishing opportunities often come with other compromises to live in said state and there should be significant benefits to resident hunters/anglers over NR.

I'm just saying that the point about high property taxes is like saying "We make the non-residents pull the load on wildlife funding but we pay a lot of taxes to fund our schools, utilities, fire dept, and transportation". Bummer but it has nothing to do with having more skin in the game on wildlife decisions.

No but 20% of taxes from Marijuana sales go to FWP.... non residents sure pull the load still but it's the same as every state so....

 

[406elkaholic]

No but 20% of taxes from Marijuana sales go to FWP.... non residents sure pull the load still but it's the same as every state so....

8.75 million dollars to fwp from taxes from Marijuana so there you go.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No but 20% of taxes from Marijuana sales go to FWP.... non residents sure pull the load still but it's the same as every state so....

It's actually 32%

20% for Habitat MT
4% for trails
4% for State Parks
4% for nongame

 

[Carnage2011]

8.75 million dollars to fwp from taxes from Marijuana so there you go.

Maybe…we’ll see if the legislature changes that. Gregory is hell bent on it.