Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[Forkyfinder]

I would be fine with LE. My biggest fear would be FWP would set the quotas so high that it would just be choose your unit.

I get that.

I know people (both r & nr) who ride dirt roads for hours and hours during the rut. Literally just haul arse down a gravel road until they see a nice buck. Drive from sidney to glasgow on gravel and theres bound to be a 4x4 within a half mile from the road. Itd sure make that end at least though.

The statutory cap for non-resident antlered deer licenses is:
B10 (big Game Combo): 17,000
B11 (deer combo) 6600 (4600 general, plus 2000 landowner set asides).

If you want to eliminate the B11 entirely, you are looking at a revenue drop of approximately $9-10 million. So if that's your approach, have a budget cut ready. Also, be prepared to fight the vast majority of conservation groups who will oppose due to the loss of conservation funding.

Essentially meaning that each resident hunter (150-200k?) needs to spend another 70 dollars on tags per year to lose all those NR? Sounds good to me. The revenue could also be made up with charging higher for NR hunters that get an outfitter preference point or charging more for all NR tags?

 

[Treeshark]

Montana needs outfitter/transferable landowner tags for any of that to even have a chance of happening.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Essentially meaning that each resident hunter (150-200k?) needs to spend another 70 dollars on tags per year to lose all those NR? Sounds good to me. The revenue could also be made up with charging higher for NR hunters that get an outfitter preference point or charging more for all NR tags?

You lose the earmarked funding for Block Management, Habitat Montana and other programs (depending on where else legislation goes). The NR Combination licenses are grandfathered in from the USFWS as far as dedicated funding for conservation and access. If you start to mess with that code, you lose those dedicated funds. Right now, there is some political insulation from stealing that money because the legislature would create massive issues with the hunting community for stealing their money, and the tie in with Pittman/Robertson - Dingle/Johnson means the state loses the federal match, which would create an even larger loss of funding (about 40% of the overall FWP budget.)

FWP funding has been the most stable of any agency that I've seen due to the HB 140 task force from around 2015 that did some amazing work relative to FWP's revenue stream. After a decade, FWP is finally starting to see a downward trend in revenue that normally happened every 4-5 years (which was the traditional timeline for adjusting license fees). Currently, the NR combos are tied to the Consumer Price Index, and their cost fluctuates with inflation and deflation.

So, you're looking at a very large and complex bill to totally rewrite how NR liscencing occurs and adding a large increase to residents who will still be upset over property taxes, heading in to a legislative session where resident tax relief is going to be one of the larger conversations.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You lose the earmarked funding for Block Management, Habitat Montana and other programs (depending on where else legislation goes). The NR Combination licenses are grandfathered in from the USFWS as far as dedicated funding for conservation and access. If you start to mess with that code, you lose those dedicated funds. Right now, there is some political insulation from stealing that money because the legislature would create massive issues with the hunting community for stealing their money, and the tie in with Pittman/Robertson - Dingle/Johnson means the state loses the federal match, which would create an even larger loss of funding (about 40% of the overall FWP budget.)

FWP funding has been the most stable of any agency that I've seen due to the HB 140 task force from around 2015 that did some amazing work relative to FWP's revenue stream. After a decade, FWP is finally starting to see a downward trend in revenue that normally happened every 4-5 years (which was the traditional timeline for adjusting license fees). Currently, the NR combos are tied to the Consumer Price Index, and their cost fluctuates with inflation and deflation.

So, you're looking at a very large and complex bill to totally rewrite how NR liscencing occurs and adding a large increase to residents who will still be upset over property taxes, heading in to a legislative session where resident tax relief is going to be one of the larger conversations.

70 dollars is not a large increase.

FWP adding endless NR tags as a revenue stream was akin to using the credit card too much. It wasnt sustainable. And now - to give @DFS credit - they are harvesting over half the deer in 2 regions.

With demand the way it is you could probably increase the NR fee and people would pay it. Montana is cheap compartively.

I get what youre saying. Ill stop pie in the sky'ing - but NR not losing an ounce on this is hard to stomach.

 

[Ben Lamb]

70 dollars is not a large increase.

FWP adding endless NR tags as a revenue stream was akin to using the credit card too much. It wasnt sustainable. And now - to give @DFS credit - they are harvesting over half the deer in 2 regions.

With demand the way it is you could probably increase the NR fee and people would pay it. Montana is cheap compartively.

I get what youre saying. Ill stop pie in the sky'ing - but NR not losing an ounce on this is hard to stomach.

The B10 and B11 combinations have not increased in number since put into statute. Those have been in existence since the 1970's. The increase in NR licensing was through antlerless. That's been dealt with under SB 281 that directs the agency to only allow 2 B licenses for NR's who hold a B10 or B11, or 1 antlerless license to a NR otherwise. The fiscal impact of SB 281 is estimated to be about $50-75,000.

Reselling the orphaned deer tags from the B10 and new B11's doesn't technically increase the number of NR licenses, but it does increase the number of people that are hunting under a B11 by almost 100% or more, on any given year). Those licenses also fall outside of the earmarks, which is why the group identified those are one area of legislative action that can occur to reduce hunter pressure from the NR side, and it would be less expensive for Residents to make up the difference.

 

[DFS]

Even with an October mule deer season nonresident regional caps would need to be put in place.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Montana needs outfitter/transferable landowner tags for any of that to even have a chance of happening.

Montana I-161, Increase Nonresident Hunting License Fees, Abolish Outfitter-Sponsored Licenses, and Dedicate Revenue Initiative (2010)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

MT has been pretty clear on that issue, and I don't see transferable licenses passing the legislature, or getting signed by this governor.

 

[Stifler]

Depends what tags you pick to distribute the costs. It could be small if it was conservation license increase. Around 20 bucks. Just depends how it was distributed. Sure it's not the deer/elk license but I'd fight it's technically for conservation, so fork it up. It also wouldn't be hard to tell the nr it's more money now... wouldn't be any sweat of my sack. We could also implement a system nr must buy a license to get in the pool. Call it a small game license. Start charging so they can shoot a gopher/coyote whatever you wanna call it. Non refundable. To me but there is plenty of ways to increase revenue if one was lost.

Someone smarter then me to lobby for a r tax for a basline fund for fwp... shit I could do this all day... time to get back into work.

I get that.

I know people (both r & nr) who ride dirt roads for hours and hours during the rut. Literally just haul arse down a gravel road until they see a nice buck. Drive from sidney to glasgow on gravel and theres bound to be a 4x4 within a half mile from the road. Itd sure make that end at least though.

Essentially meaning that each resident hunter (150-200k?) needs to spend another 70 dollars on tags per year to lose all those NR? Sounds good to me. The revenue could also be made up with charging higher for NR hunters that get an outfitter preference point or charging more for all NR tags?

 

[Treeshark]

MT has been pretty clear on that issue, and I don't see transferable licenses passing the legislature, or getting signed by this governor.

I do- it might take a few years, but it will happen. And the points brought up in last several posts is exactly the type of thing that is going to provide inertia needed to make it happen.

Residents will get butthurt, NRs DIY will get squeezed, and landowners/outfitters will get their piece of the pie to keep them from blocking it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I do- it might take a few years, but it will happen. And the points brought up in last several posts is exactly the type of thing that is going to provide inertia needed to make it happen.

Residents will get butthurt, NRs DIY will get squeezed, and landowners/outfitters will get their piece of the pie to keep them from blocking it.

Some will try.

They will fail.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana needs outfitter/transferable landowner tags for any of that to even have a chance of happening.

I do- it might take a few years, but it will happen. And the points brought up in last several posts is exactly the type of thing that is going to provide inertia needed to make it happen.

Residents will get butthurt, NRs DIY will get squeezed, and landowners/outfitters will get their piece of the pie to keep them from blocking it.

Lol and hear i thought @Shed God and i had selfish pie in the sky dreams.

 

[8andcounting]

I think some people need to reset their expectations. This proposal has a lot of good points and if it were up to me I would implement it immediately. And see what tweaks it may need later . But the chances of it being implemented are small . Remember who you’re up against. That doesn’t mean don’t fight for it we all should be but it’s an uphill battle for sure . But something needs to be done . I commend all the folks that worked on this

 

[Treeshark]

Some will try.

They will fail.

I don’t know, Ben- I like their chances this time around. It makes too much sense to the majority of stakeholders to not give it a close look.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don’t know, Ben- I like their chances this time around. It makes too much sense to the majority of stakeholders to not give it a close look.

You're a Cleveland Browns fan as well, aren't you.

 

[Treeshark]

You're a Cleveland Browns fan as well, aren't you.

Cmon now… there is no reason to hit below the belt like that!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Cmon now… there is no reason to hit below the belt like that!

I love Browns fans. The fact that so many people hold that kind of hope so tightly every day despite all evidence to the contrary is a wonderful thing.

 

[mtmuley]

I love Browns fans. The fact that so many people hold that kind of hope so tightly every day despite all evidence to the contrary is a wonderful thing.

I see what you did there. mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

I see what you did there. mtmuley

Me too, I like Ben’s sense of humor- it’s smart. Him pointing out that creating a $10m budget shortfall just to slap NRs in the weenie might cause some issues was smart too

Anyway, apologies for taking the thread off-track- I know it wasn’t part of the proposal from the original group, so I will refrain from diverting any further.

 

[Shed God]

Browns fans DeShawn Watson really.

Charge more for tags, mt shed hunting tag. But make the public better.

I don't think resident public land hunters would be pissed off by waiting 3 to 5 yrs to kill a muley. Many will let u kill a cow elk for meat.

Why is private land so coveted because people pay $$$ to hunt better than average bucks and bulls. Private manages it like a business. Because that is what it is. Why it's otc. Gaurenteed tags to outfitters and non residents.

So who cares. Give them LE with % to land owners and outfitters. Only make the public better.

Private land hunting is gay anyway

 

[Ought Six]

Private land hunting is gay anyway

Just when I start thinking your posts don’t make any sense, you totally redeem yourself.