More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[Mtnhunter1]

Back to the original topic:

I have several friends and family that take advantage of these relatively recently "ADDED" opportunity nonresident tags. Before these guaranteed tags became available, they would put in via the general nonresident drawing. Drawing their Montana tags was never a guarantee and there were several years that they would not be hunting in Montana.

Now, with these guaranteed nonresident tags, Montana has become an annual hunt for both my friends and family members.

My friends archery hunt elk in September and return in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks. My family members return each year in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks and winter range bulls.

So I don't have a problem with our legislators handing out additional guaranteed nonresident tags! "BUT", I feel that ""ALL"" these guaranteed nonresident tags should be taken out of the nonresident 17,000/4,600 cap.......

""ALL"" of these GUARANTEED tags could be purchased before the actual nonresident drawing and the numbers purchased should be deducted from the 17,000/4,600 nonresident cap. Resident license costs should then be raised to cover the lost revenue.

Then Montana can concentrate on changing the way that our game management via hunting is implemented for our future generations.

Mtnhunter1

 

[sapperJ24]

What, no sponsors? Who wrote this the #MAGA Klan?

Not trying to derail this thread, but the bill was requested by Keith Regier (Kalispell) and drafted by Padraic McCracken.

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

 

[Treeshark]

Resident license costs should then be raised to cover the lost revenue.

If Montana would charge straight non-resident fees for all of these added tags, couldn’t they then simply remove them from the NR quota and then still have these programs remain cost-neutral?

I personally think that raising the resident fees would give a lot more leverage back to Montana residents as well, but it seems like it would be possible to get to net $0 by just charging NR fees for all of these pseudo NR tags.

 

[sacountry]

Back to the original topic:

I have several friends and family that take advantage of these relatively recently "ADDED" opportunity nonresident tags. Before these guaranteed tags became available, they would put in via the general nonresident drawing. Drawing their Montana tags was never a guarantee and there were several years that they would not be hunting in Montana.

Now, with these guaranteed nonresident tags, Montana has become an annual hunt for both my friends and family members.

My friends archery hunt elk in September and return in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks. My family members return each year in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks and winter range bulls.

So I don't have a problem with our legislators handing out additional guaranteed nonresident tags! "BUT", I feel that ""ALL"" these guaranteed nonresident tags should be taken out of the nonresident 17,000/4,600 cap.......

""ALL"" of these GUARANTEED tags could be purchased before the actual nonresident drawing and the numbers purchased should be deducted from the 17,000/4,600 nonresident cap. Resident license costs should then be raised to cover the lost revenue.

Then Montana can concentrate on changing the way that our game management via hunting is implemented for our future generations.

Mtnhunter1

Not a bad idea. Only thing I would add, remove any discounts associated with the NR exceptions. This would lighten the revenue impact of what you propose.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Not a bad idea. Only thing I would add, remove any discounts associated with the NR exceptions. This would lighten the revenue impact of what you propose.

I understand your point but I would rather see these discounted guaranteed nonresident tag numbers coming out of the "hard cap" NR pool and us residents pay more to cover the difference in revenue.

If us resident hunters truly want things to improve, we must take back the responsibility of funding our wildlife management.

 

[sacountry]

I understand your point but I would rather see these discounted guaranteed nonresident tag numbers coming out of the "hard cap" NR pool and us residents pay more to cover the difference in revenue.

If us resident hunters truly want things to improve, we must take back the responsibility of funding our wildlife management.

I would pay more to hunt here, especially if I knew that my more was going to the Block Mgt program or habit or even more human resources on patrol. At the same time as a MN transplant to MT, if I want to go home to MN to hunt or fish with my dad, I have to buy a full priced NR license even though I'm a native there. It's a reasonable expectation since I'm not a taxpayer in MN. That to me is what needs to be protected, the right to hunt or fish with family. I know if I go home I can buy that fishing license. If I were native MT it would be a huge blessing if I knew I could buy a guaranteed tag just to hunt with my or father.

 

[cgasner1]

Back to the original topic:

I have several friends and family that take advantage of these relatively recently "ADDED" opportunity nonresident tags. Before these guaranteed tags became available, they would put in via the general nonresident drawing. Drawing their Montana tags was never a guarantee and there were several years that they would not be hunting in Montana.

Now, with these guaranteed nonresident tags, Montana has become an annual hunt for both my friends and family members.

My friends archery hunt elk in September and return in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks. My family members return each year in mid November to rifle hunt rutting bucks and winter range bulls.

So I don't have a problem with our legislators handing out additional guaranteed nonresident tags! "BUT", I feel that ""ALL"" these guaranteed nonresident tags should be taken out of the nonresident 17,000/4,600 cap.......

""ALL"" of these GUARANTEED tags could be purchased before the actual nonresident drawing and the numbers purchased should be deducted from the 17,000/4,600 nonresident cap. Resident license costs should then be raised to cover the lost revenue.

Then Montana can concentrate on changing the way that our game management via hunting is implemented for our future generations.

Mtnhunter1

If they want this so bad it should be a separate draw that’s guaranteed for the people that qualify. They pay full price and that numbers of applicants comes out of the non resident cap

 

[TheJason]

If they want a guaranteed tag maybe they should just move back and be a resident?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Finally got around to doing some back of the napkin math.
The three reduced cost licenses for Non-Residents that have the most subscription are:
Come Home to Hunt: 712 licenses across the deer, elk & big game combos
Nonresident Youth - 1329 licenses between deer, elk & big game combo
Nonresident Relative: 1398 licenses.

That's a total of 3,439 reduced cost licenses, that combined create an over $1 million net loss of revenue from the full priced structure.

All three programs do essentially the same thing and all of them are seeing mission creep & expansion in their existence. Perhaps another approach here is to consolidate all three of these into one program and put a reasonable cap on them.

These would be above the 17K cap, but let's be honest about both the B10 & B11 caps - we've not had those in reality for a while now, especially on the deer side when the returned portion of the B10 oversells the actual 4600 cap on the B11.

Pulling the reduced cost licenses out of the cap will likely increase conflict with outfitters and result on a $1 million loss in revenue for the agency, so culling some of these licenses by simply lowering the overall cap by 30% from 3439 to about 1800 - 2200 would be preferable from a revenue standpoint while still reducing pressure on public lands and providing an avenue for families to hunt together, even if they aren't living in the same state.

 

[Beignet]

If they want a guaranteed tag maybe they should just move back and be a resident?

Or hire an outfitter since they hooked that up last go around.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If they want a guaranteed tag maybe they should just move back and be a resident?

Bingo. I would like to be able for my brother and his boys who aren’t residents to be able to get discounted, OTC tags so they can come hunt with me every year.

Why should a former resident who was born in MT get preference to hunt with his MT family members over a nonresident who was born in a different state who would like to hunt with his MT family members?

 

[mtmuley]

Bingo. I would like to be able for my brother and his boys who aren’t residents to be able to get discounted, OTC tags so they can come hunt with me every year.

Why should a former resident who was born in MT get preference to hunt with his MT family members over a nonresident who was born in a different state who would like to hunt with his MT family members?

I don't think any former resident should get preference to hunt Montana. Period. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

I don't think any former resident should get preference to hunt Montana. Period. mtmuley

I completely agree.

 

[brockel]

I don't think any former resident should get preference to hunt Montana. Period. mtmuley

Yep you made the decision to leave. Montana owes you nothing.

 

[BuzzH]

Bingo. I would like to be able for my brother and his boys who aren’t residents to be able to get discounted, OTC tags so they can come hunt with me every year.

Why should a former resident who was born in MT get preference to hunt with his MT family members over a nonresident who was born in a different state who would like to hunt with his MT family members?

Guessing because they were born in Montana?

If the program can't be done away with, at least make the native licenses come off the cap and charge full price.

Going to be tough to repeal them or increase the price.

Could also make up the revenue by charging residents more than $16 for a deer tag and $20 for an elk tag. Raise resident deer and elk tags $5 each...revenue problem solved. $21 for deer and $26 for elk isn't even half of what Wyoming residents pay...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Could also make up the revenue by charging residents more than $16 for a deer tag and $20 for an elk tag. Raise resident deer and elk tags $5 each...revenue problem solved. $21 for deer and $26 for elk isn't even half of what Wyoming residents pay...

Yeah, well, you're only 1/2 as likely to kill an elk in MT as you are in WY, so there.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Guessing because they were born in Montana?

If the program can't be done away with, at least make the native licenses come off the cap and charge full price.

Going to be tough to repeal them or increase the price.

Could also make up the revenue by charging residents more than $16 for a deer tag and $20 for an elk tag. Raise resident deer and elk tags $5 each...revenue problem solved. $21 for deer and $26 for elk isn't even half of what Wyoming residents pay...

I am completely willing to pay more for resident licenses if that accomplishes gaining me better quality for that price increase.

However, subsidizing cheaper NR tags for a privileged few that won’t benefit me by paying more to experience less is a nonstarter for me. I am not going to pay more because more hunters are are now hunting.

If we are going to give preference to MT born NR and take it out of the cap, then I demand a preference for anyone I want to sponsor out of that same cap…

The only thing that actually makes sense is to eliminate any preference for any NR, native born, outfitted, sponsored, polka dotted, pin striped, or (insert any other adjective here).

 

[BuzzH]

I am completely willing to pay more for resident licenses if that accomplishes gaining me better quality for that price increase.

However, subsidizing cheaper NR tags for a privileged few that won’t benefit me by paying more to experience less is a nonstarter for me. I am not going to pay more because more hunters are are now hunting.

If we are going to give preference to MT born NR and take it out of the cap, then I demand a preference for anyone I want to sponsor out of that same cap…

The only thing that actually makes sense is to eliminate any preference for any NR, native born, outfitted, sponsored, polka dotted, pin striped, or (insert any other adjective here).

You can, buy enough property and you can sponsor anyone you want. Further it's a totally separate cap for landowner sponsored tags.

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah, well, you're only 1/2 as likely to kill an elk in MT as you are in WY, so there.

Not all elk hunters are created equally...

 

[RandanP]

The really smart people from other states will start having “anchor babies” here to accrue lifetime resident benefits. I see a blossoming economic sector.