MT License Revamp

[RobG]

I'm talking about insulated funding sources like a portion of the lodging tax, a natural resource trust account that sets aside a portion of general fund revenue to be used by FWP with little oversight by the Leg or even having the General Fund look at paying for health insurance and other benefits.

ha ha.... with little oversight... and don't forget using the same power to create a "money fairy" to cover any shortfalls when the legislature messes with the rest. I think hunters will just have to pony up the cash. I didn't think the outfitter sponsored tags was a bad way to shift the burden to the people who could most afford it but I guess most here disagree.

I'd hate to be the guy who stands up and says that a combat vet shouldn't get a free or reduced cost license. Same with old folks or younguns.

Then write the letter and sign my name to it! My 12 year old daughter or her grandpa aren't going to suddenly decide to hunt because of a license discount. And I suspect the majority of vets don't want to contribute to a shortfall.

I don't like tying the funding to any resource extraction - then those industries hold the money over the hunter's heads when it comes time for regulation.

Question for someone: would taking the P out of MFWP help? Where does the money for parks come from?

 

[Ben Lamb]

ha ha.... with little oversight... and don't forget using the same power to create a "money fairy" to cover any shortfalls when the legislature messes with the rest. I think hunters will just have to pony up the cash. I didn't think the outfitter sponsored tags was a bad way to shift the burden to the people who could most afford it but I guess most here disagree.

Then write the letter and sign my name to it! My 12 year old daughter or her grandpa aren't going to suddenly decide to hunt because of a license discount. And I suspect the majority of vets don't want to contribute to a shortfall.

I don't like tying the funding to any resource extraction - then those industries hold the money over the hunter's heads when it comes time for regulation.

Question for someone: would taking the P out of MFWP help? Where does the money for parks come from?

I'd support making Parks their own agency. But there are a lot of fiduciary entanglements that come along with that, specifically with Land & Water Conservation Fund monies. I think it would be a net benefit for the F&W side though.

As for the money fairy comment - you can either fight on your feet or die on your knees - your choice. Big things can happen, but it takes a huge effort to keep it from going off the rails.

 

[RobG]

As for the money fairy comment - you can either fight on your feet or die on your knees - your choice. Big things can happen, but it takes a huge effort to keep it from going off the rails.

I guess I see it all as being controlled by the legislature one way or another. They will always want to keep FWP under their thumb. I really don't know how the funding of the Parks part of FWP works. It might not be a bad idea to have other income sources for that portion, but I like the hunters paying for themselves otherwise you wind up being held hostage to a non-hunting entity.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I guess I see it all as being controlled by the legislature one way or another. They will always want to keep FWP under their thumb. I really don't know how the funding of the Parks part of FWP works. It might not be a bad idea to have other income sources for that portion, but I like the hunters paying for themselves otherwise you wind up being held hostage to a non-hunting entity.

Parks isn't funded by license dollars, IIRC. It's from your opt-out when you get your plates as well as some other funding sources. It wouldn't be much of a net positive, but I just don't think that when you combine parks & a game agency, then you split the focus.

As for the legislature - It's a fight to be sure. But if our forefathers could do it 100+ years ago, why can't we do it now?

If the Legislature won't, then perhaps another ballot initiative to take the Leg out of wildlife management will be necessary. You can do anything you want in a ballot initiative except appropriate funding. I'd rather fight the Leg on funding than on 200 bills every freaking session.

 

[Oak]

Parks isn't funded by license dollars, IIRC. It's from your opt-out when you get your plates as well as some other funding sources. It wouldn't be much of a net positive, but I just don't think that when you combine parks & a game agency, then you split the focus.

Parks can't be funded by license dollars, or it would be considered a diversion of funds and MT would lose PR dollars.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Parks can't be funded by license dollars, or it would be considered a diversion of funds and MT would lose PR dollars.

Unless it's directly related to wildlife management or enforcement, correct? Wardens are sometimes called into the Parks to assist or enforce game laws.

 

[RobG]

Parks isn't funded by license dollars, IIRC. It's from your opt-out when you get your plates as well as some other funding sources. It wouldn't be much of a net positive, but I just don't think that when you combine parks & a game agency, then you split the focus.

Yeah, forgot about that. Found their website: http://stateparks.mt.gov/about-us/parksForSix.html.

 

[schmalts]

The MT resident fees are so low that even a 20% increase isnt going to be a huge hit to those tags, but it will help out. MT is pretty far behind the rest of the west as far as resident tag fees and many of you know that. Many of the resident I know even say they would rather pay higher fees than see more outfitter type of programs go into place.

 

[Oak]

Unless it's directly related to wildlife management or enforcement, correct? Wardens are sometimes called into the Parks to assist or enforce game laws.

Sure, if they are enforcing game laws. But you can't use license dollars to hire the guy collecting trash in the campground, or the person collecting money in at the entrance station. I believe that would be a diversion. You might get away with paying for a boat ramp or something like that, which would provide fishing access. But it's still a gray area.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure, if they are enforcing game laws. But you can't use license dollars to hire the guy collecting trash in the campground, or the person collecting money in at the entrance station. I believe that would be a diversion. You might get away with paying for a boat ramp or something like that, which would provide fishing access. But it's still a gray area.

Correct.

Lots of federal funds used for fishing access sites. That's a big prt of the federal portion of State Parks budget.

Pat - those hunters better show u
Over the next 16 months and let their legislators know they support higher resodent locense fees. The other side will tkae up the other voice sooner rather than later.

I for one support a 20% increase in my hunting amd fishing licenses. I also support broadening the funding structure to include non-consumptive users who benefit from wildlife managment. If that means a non-consumptive seat at the table, so be it. We do it woth ramchers already

 

[Straight Arrow]

schmalts, you are spot on and I am one of those guys you speak of.

 

[TheJason]

Sure, if they are enforcing game laws. But you can't use license dollars to hire the guy collecting trash in the campground, or the person collecting money in at the entrance station. I believe that would be a diversion. You might get away with paying for a boat ramp or something like that, which would provide fishing access. But it's still a gray area.

P-R monies cannot be used for law enforcement. The only way enforcement folks can use them for operations monies is if they are helping collect biological data at check stations, etc.

You could potentially use them for state parks, but there would have to be a nexus to fish and/or wildlife habitat improvement, surveys, etc.

 

[Oak]

P-R monies cannot be used for law enforcement. The only way enforcement folks can use them for operations monies is if they are helping collect biological data at check stations, etc.

You could potentially use them for state parks, but there would have to be a nexus to fish and/or wildlife habitat improvement, surveys, etc.

Yeah, you're right. That's a good point. I believe a couple of the more common uses are for hunter education and develpment of shooting facilities.

 

[Goldtip]

I think the current multiplier for the NR native tags is 4X what a resident pays, and I think the resident deer tag is at $16 and the resident elk tag is $20. This makes the NR native tags $64 and $80 respectively. If they increase the Resident tag costs to $24 for a deer and $30 for an elk, this would then increase the NR native tags to $96 and $120. I take advantage of the NR native tags to come home and be able to hunt regularly with my folks and brother/sister. Not sure how many NR native tags they sell, but with an increase like that, between the residents and NR natives, that may go a long way to help filling the gaps, and would certainly not be an exorbitant tag price as compared to neighboring states resident prices.

Now some may say that I am turning hunting into a rich man's sport by suggesting a 50% increase in resident tags, but let's be straight up honest, if $54 is more money than you can afford for the opportunity to hunt deer AND elk, then you probably shouldn't be spending the money on hunting anyway. As one of the NR natives, I am happy to simply be able to KNOW that I can get a tag every year and hunt with my Dad, if it costs me more and helps the F&G budget, then I'm willing to kick in.