More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[BuzzH]

There is a delicate balance between cutting tags and funding the agency to be sure. However, when we see a marked increase in NR hunting opportunity stacked up by the Legislature, then the legislature is the appropriate place to try and fix that. The B10 & B11 fund block management and Habitat Montana. Do we want to cut funding for two of the most successful access & conservation programs at the state level? The caps of 17K and quota for the B11 (which is a joke since the turned in B7 can be resold as a B11) are based on what the resourse can bear. We've added over 23,000 Elk B tags (antlerless) to the NR roles and somewhere around the same for antlerless deer. The only way to change that is through the Legislature to limit what NR's can purchase. That's not really taking away from NR hunters so much as it is looking out for the resource and allowing the right-sized opportunity.

NR hunters make up about 73% of the license revenue from FWP. Cut too deep and you lose programs and you make the Resident pay for more, which is always a challenge to get through.

What does that mean for loss of PR/DJ funding and what does that mean for budget shortfalls elsewhere?

Season setting in 2023 starts again, and that's where you work to fix season structure.

The new EMP begins in earnest in 2023 as well. That's where you work on the larger policy issues that plague low hunter success and problematic concentrations.

About those NR b-tags...

Do away with all of the B-tags for Non Residents, Residents will gladly snap them up for $20 and the same number of elk and deer die...how does that fix the impact to the resource?

Doesn't matter who does the killing...

 

[Ben Lamb]

About those NR b-tags...

Do away with all of the B-tags for Non Residents, Residents will gladly snap them up for $20 and the same number of elk die...how does that fix the impact to the resource?

Doesn't matter who does the killing...

Getting to B-tag reduction isn't just a one time thing Buzz. The resident portion is where commission action comes in to play. Having the commission limit that to no more than a regionwide B, or making them good only on private land whitetail is the best course of action through season setting.

You have to legislatively limit the NR side as that's where most of the mission creep has happened in terms of over-prescription on the NR side. Resident side has an easier path.

 

[BuzzH]

Getting to B-tag reduction isn't just a one time thing Buzz. The resident portion is where commission action comes in to play. Having the commission limit that to no more than a regionwide B, or making them good only on private land whitetail is the best course of action through season setting.

You have to legislatively limit the NR side as that's where most of the mission creep has happened in terms of over-prescription on the NR side. Resident side has an easier path.

So, you're saying that NR B-tags for elk and deer cannot be limited by the Commission or in regulation?

Seems to me that there was NO legislative action required when the Region 2 OTC whitetail B-tags went away via the commission/regulation. It didn't take legislative action.

I don't think what you're saying is factual.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So, you're saying that NR B-tags for elk and deer cannot be limited by the Commission or in regulation?

Seems to me that there was NO legislative action required when the Region 2 OTC whitetail B-tags went away via the commission/regulation. It didn't take legislative action.

I don't think what you're saying is factual.

Blanket application of the decision that affected all users versus targeted restrictions to NR licensing means we need to go the legislative route, i.e. going after the B11 oversell, Native NR licenses, etc. We have to remove those from the statute in order to limit them. That's the point. Apologies if Imixed my A tags and B tags, it's a very complicated system that clearly needs some simplification .

 

[Big Fin]

This is anti-NR, Resident protectionism. It is very understandable, and something many of us have done in our own states. We want higher quality/quantity in our own states and first instinct is to make sure less of that quality/quantity leaks across the border. It is a Montanans right to do this by way of citizenship and voting rights.

But please don't pretend that is not what this is. Own it.

No amount of word count, data or polish changes what this is. It is simply OK to be the resident who expresses his desires to an elected official to be treated better.

Montana is returning the punch inflicted by the WY task force. Soon, the residents of Colorado might punch. And down the line until tourism dollars or a legislator with NR in-laws gets in the way.

Understandable or not, that assertion would be incorrect. Opposition to this bill is about keeping things as they are and stopping the handout programs, whether they are for residents or non-residents. We just happen to have a bill that expands one of the many a non-resident programs that have been implemented to circumvent the normal caps, which is part of a concerted effort by the Montana legislature that has increased non-resident hunting tags by 220% over ten years.

I don't know of any Montana who asked for this bill or similar bills. You state that it is a punch at the Wyoming Task Force, I'd be interested in how to connect those dots. I couldn't have dreamed up that connection of these issues with 1,000 guesses. I bet the bill sponsor couldn't tell you what the Wyoming Task Force was/is, so I doubt he could craft a bill in response to that task force he is unaware of.

Nobody is pretending here. Two years ago Montana residents fought hard and burned a ton of energy and political capital defeating a bill that hurt self-guided non-residents, when MOGA tried to take 40% of the non-resident tags for their clients. Montana resident hunters had nothing to gain in fighting that proposal, in anything, resident hunters maybe had something to loose, as that 2021 bill may have put more hunters on inaccessible private lands. History doesn't support your assertion of anti-NR or resident protectionism, though I agree some residents have that sentiment in spades.

That number is insane. Montana residents should see that and have a lightbulb come on as to why their voice seems to be diminishing by the year.

^Fact. That light has been on with many residents and many have tried for decades to get Montana resident fees raised. To the point of folks not wanting to give up anything or change anything once they get some benefit from it, the Montana resident fee increase is a classic example.

About those b-tags...

Do away with all of the B-tags for Non Residents, Residents will gladly snap them up for $20 and the same number of elk die...how does that fix the impact to the resource?

Doesn't matter who does the killing...

Agree. Which is why many here advocate to reduce B-tags, get rid of them all together, or make them valid only properties where true problems. It matters not who does the killing if the resource is taking the beating. Another example of folks wanting different outcomes, but not willing to change anything if it might require them to change.

The only thing that gets more Montana residents to complain than cutting b-tags is if you propose a resident fee increase. Both of which need to be changed, and both of which are disconnected to the expansion of the "Montana Native" program under LC0209.

 

[antlerradar]

NR hunters make up about 73% of the license revenue from FWP. Cut too deep and you lose programs and you make the Resident pay for more, which is always a challenge to get through.

Seventy three percent, I think I remember that NR license revenue made up somewhere around 66% when I was on the licensing committee. My hope was to get that number down. Looks like we failed in that regard. Long over dew for R to step up and pay up.

 

[Scott85]

What if they charged R prices and put them in the NR pool for draws?

 

[schmalts]

Can I be Greenhorn's Domestic Partner and get in on the cheap fees? What a bunch of garbage

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Too logical. How would they set the tag numbers though?

 

[rogerthat]

Can I be Greenhorn's Domestic Partner and get in on the cheap fees? What a bunch of garbage

Who is greenhorn? Or has the freak month ended?

 

[BuzzH]

Blanket application of the decision that affected all users versus targeted restrictions to NR licensing means we need to go the legislative route, i.e. going after the B11 oversell, Native NR licenses, etc. We have to remove those from the statute in order to limit them. That's the point. Apologies if Imixed my A tags and B tags, it's a very complicated system that clearly needs some simplification .

I think we're not talking about the same thing.

B-tags for both deer and elk are set by the commission, not the legislature. These are additional antlerless permits and there is no legislative action required to reduce, adjust, or even make them valid on only private land. The commission already has that authority.

The B-10 and B-11 LICENSES are the landowner sponsored tags IIRC which are in statute as to numbers.

Those are two separate tags/licenses.

 

[bigsky2]

Here's a 10 year accounting of license sales from the agency. The NR Native licenses are significant in terms of overall NR license sales. Adding these new prescriptions means a lot more competition on public land, and a lot less opportunity to actually kill a critter for residents.

Thanks for bringing this forward, Randy. Sen McGillvray has always been a professional, IMO, so please use your best inside voice to politely ask him to not bring the bill forward.

That license sale document is pretty interesting. What jumps out to me is the resident conservation license sales- 91,397 in 2011 vs 287,734 in 2021. It was even higher in 2020 at almost 308,000. Still managing the same way though.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm not pointing the finger at the NR. For real. I spend a ton of time focusing on plenty of the other issues that create problems in Montana. That doesn't mean we ignore other proposals that contribute to some of the problems we see, the greatest being too much pressure on a finite resource, something LC0209 would increase.

I agree, Montana has a plenty of problems arising from a lot of different causes. Yet for the issues around LC0209, there are some realities that are placing pressure on a resource that FWP, the Commission, or in this case, the Legislature, seem oblivious to.

From 2011-2021, Montana's population increased by 10.7%. During that time, resident license hunting sales increased by 8.7%, which in true numbers is about 13,000 increase.

During that same period, non-resident hunting sales increased by 220%, which in true numbers is an increase of over 47,000. I know of no other state where the rate of increase in non-resident license sales was 20x the rate of increase in resident sale. Or in true numbers, where the increase in numbers of non-resident licenses was 34,000 more, or almost 4x.

That data shows how much these Legislative stunts have been used to work around the 17,000 non-resident cap that existed for a long time. These programs are really workarounds to the 17,000 non-resident cap we are always told exists and that I think most Montana hunters are acceptable to.

Every workaround contributes to the trend shown in the numbers above. We don't need more expansion of these programs at a time when the resource is already struggling to support the current harvest.

There is not a single change that will make a huge difference to any of the problems we might feel exists in Montana. Yet, there are small changes, or rejection of ideas such as LC0209 that continue to incrementally add to the trend above, that can improve things or in this case, reduce the rate at which we put more pressure on the resource. If the resource could withstand the pressure, I have no problem increasing opportunity, whether it be residents or non-residents.

This is not pro-resident or anti-nonresident, nor is it slanted one way for/against outfitted hunters. This bill forces a discussion of the fact that the Montana Legislature continues to ignore the resource and keeps giving away "non-resident" treats to any constituent they deem needs to be pleased that day.

These expanded non-resident programs started when a Gallatin Valley legislator wanted to make sure his non-resident kids could come home and hunt, at a discounted price, without being subject to the non-resident drawing, thus giving his kids the best of both worlds - high paying jobs out of state and preference over other non-residents when it came to Montana hunting tags. It was purely self-serving and that was pointed out. And once it started, just like was predicted by those of us who opposed it back then, non-resident tag "workarounds" has grown to the level we see today and what we see in this proposed bill.

Even though I have a family member that could benefit from these "workaround" programs, I still think they are BS. I opposed all of them at the time and I oppose expanding them at this time. And I will also keep focusing on many other issues that impact hunting in Montana.

It's funny how "making it simple" was a big theme of the session but they just keep adding more and more stupid rules.

IMHO the system:

Deer Combo
Elk Combo

Remove the big game combo
Get rid of all these work arounds.

Take the "true" number of NR license sold in 2022, shave 30% off the top and make that the new cap for licenses.

Go general season versus limited units (like WY or CO), get rid of the whole permit thing, then use a 3 pp then bonus point system like CO MSG.

Straight forward and fair.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we're not talking about the same thing.

B-tags for both deer and elk are set by the commission, not the legislature. These are additional antlerless permits and there is no legislative action required to reduce, adjust, or even make them valid on only private land. The commission already has that authority.

The B-10 and B-11 LICENSES are the landowner sponsored tags IIRC which are in statute as to numbers.

Those are two separate tags/licenses.

Yep, I'm being obtuse & you are being acute. Two triangles ringing a different bell. My apologies.

 

[BuzzH]

Yep, I'm being obtuse & you are being acute. Two triangles ringing a different bell. My apologies.

No worries, just making sure we're on the same page.

What a poor choice to make the landowner sponsored tags another "b" tag..they don't know there letters in the alphabet other than a and b?

 

[Lakavea]

Tag numbers would be based as a percentage of annual game counts and factoring in anticipated and desired harvest.

Mandatory harvest reporting is the first step towards setting accurate and responsible tag allocation.

Mandatory reporting is critical. We just implemented here in MI for whitetails. We now know how many are harvested and approximately where. It doesn’t go to the extent of exactly where. I believe it is a 10 radius of the given location and then reported by county.

 

[MTGomer]

I use the nonresident native program, but would be happy to see it go away, or have our tags taken out of the 17,000.

I certainly do not want to see it expanded to include spouses

 

[Gerald Martin]

Where is Lorrie Morgan singing “What Part of 17,500 Don’t You Understand?” when you need her?

 

[RobertD]

Mandatory reporting is critical. We just implemented here in MI for whitetails. We now know how many are harvested and approximately where. It doesn’t go to the extent of exactly where. I believe it is a 10 radius of the given location and then reported by county.

GA just implemented a new harvest reporting system as well. Ours isn't even truly mandatory but everyone I know uses it and the state says compliance was high right out of the gate. Technology is making it so easy that even the private land/whitetail states are implementing; it trips me out that Montana hasn't/won't.

 

[Bambistew]

Wasn't the total 17,000 big game combo tags and 9800 deer combo tags? Also was there ever a cap on purchasing doe or cow tags when they were sold OTC? For the draw cow/doe tags I think you had to have a combo tag to apply, but OTC doe tags and then later OTC cow tags, had no cap for NR as far as I know.

How many additional buck/bull tags are actually issued above the 17,000/9,800 cap? While there are way more hunters today, is there that many more dead bucks/bulls above the original split? Que mandatory harvest reporting. haha

Isn't it hard to argue against NR tags when they're being issued to harvest surplus or over objective animals?

Hunters will not willing give up opportunity, period. Doesn't matter if the resource is on the brink of collapse, it will always be someone else that should give it up first. I can't imagine how bad the hunting will be next year. The limited cohorts will impact the total available bucks/bulls to shoot over the next year years. I till take a long time to bounce back if it ever does. It sure seems like once tags are issued it gets pretty hard to reduce them.