MT License Revamp

[RobG]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_d4cc8ae6-1511-11e3-870e-001a4bcf887a.html

They might be reducing the number of special discount licenses...

 

[DreaminofMT6X6s]

This is almost the exact discussion we've had on here many times. The FWPs income and overall budget status over a ten year period and how we are close to needing to do something serious as we are near the end of that period.

Someone had a really great chart that demonstrated exactly where the FWP is at; although, it was seriously depressing. I'll be really interested to see if this is the only measure they take.

 

[mtlion]

A step in the right direction.

 

[Oak]

Someone had a really great chart that demonstrated exactly where the FWP is at; although, it was seriously depressing. I'll be really interested to see if this is the only measure they take.

They ought to create a chart that compares resident license fees of all western states.

 

[Ben Lamb]

They ought to create a chart that compares resident license fees of all western states.

& what those licenses give you in terms of opportunity.

 

[blb078]

Do they sell out of the left over NR elk/deer combo licenses? I was under the assumption that having those left over was part of the reason they are losing money or am I misinformed on that?

 

[mtlion]

Read the link the op posted, reduced price licenses cost FWP approximately 5 million a year.

 

[blb078]

I read that, but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do they sell out of the left over NR elk/deer combo licenses? I was under the assumption that having those left over was part of the reason they are losing money or am I misinformed on that?

It's year to year depending on how many licenses are leftover. There's still quite a few now, but the rifle season is still 2 months away.

FWP isn't losing money to be honest. They budget based on influxes of cash through license increases and hold in reserve a lot of money to pay for the years where license revenue isn't comensurate with expenses. It's like trying to budget your personal or business expenses on a highly fluctuating wave rather than a simple, straight projection of income. A CPA could explain it better than I (cough, anyone, cough).

The real reason that there's more leftover licenses is because of HB 607 in 2011 where unsuccesul LE permit applicants can return their license for a refund.

It may just be that MT offers too much opportunity for the available NR market. At some point we have to realize that license fees only work when there is a surplus of demand. With more boomers retiring or being physically unable to hunt, we're going to see a decline in revenue along with the decline in hunters.

That's why I would hope to see this panel looking at alternative sources of funding that help restore the independence of the FWP rather than hand more control over to the legislature.

 

[mtlion]

I don't have the energy...Ben? A little help?

From what I see the unsold licenses (as of now) are worth about $2,750,000...A bigger deficit is created through underpriced resident tags (including bird hunting and fishing) and the reduced price tags. Time for reduced price tag buyers and res hunters to cowboy up.

 

[mtlion]

Oh posted while I was replying thanks Ben.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a graph that kind of explains it. It's a couple of years old now but I think it's still fairly relevant.

For me, this is one of the biggest issues hunters and anglers face across the west. If folks don't step up to the plate and find new sources of funding that maintain the independence of Game & Fish Agencies, then we all end up like Utah, especially considering the make up of state legislatures in the West. The push to privatize government doesn't work well with a public resource like wildlife. There is no benevolence in a profit margin.

We all stand at the precipice of the funding issue. We have to be cognizant so that license fees are not exorbitant, but they also have to reflect current values. I think we're also entering the end of a political climate that sees increased license bills as automatic and that puts our wildlife funding on slippery ice. If hunters & anglers don't step up and offer meaningful alternatives to just license fees, then we will lose all we've gained over the last 100 plus years.

 

[RobG]

If hunters & anglers don't step up and offer meaningful alternatives to just license fees, then we will lose all we've gained over the last 100 plus years.

What alternatives are you talking about?

 

[Beartooth83]

I was born in MT and lived there for 29 years. I have hunted and fished in MT all my life. I have now moved to ND to be closer to my wife's famiy. I miss MT like crazy and wish I was closer. However, I am able to take advantage of the nonresident native program that FWP offers. Since I was born in MT, and have held a MT hunting license, and as long as I have a parent or sibling that resides in MT, I can buy an elk tag for 80, deer tag for 64, and upland bird for 30. For me, this is HUGE. I would not be able afford to return to MT to hunt if it weren't for this program. Not only is FWP giving me incentive to return home to hunt, but I am pumping money into MT's economy that otherwise would not happen if I had to pay 900 dollars to come home to hunt. That would be a deal breaker for me, or at least I would only do it every 5 or ten years.

 

[DreaminofMT6X6s]

Ben -- thanks for posting that. That's the chart I was referencing. Not sure where I stand personally, but increasing resident fees at least a little might help.

Alternatives? I wouldn't have the faintest clue where to start there, but (not many people are fans of this) maybe auctions for trophy game. I think we already do this though don't we? Not sure how a couple of those would really benefit FWP over the long haul. Where were you going with the alternatives? Are there ideas FWP is considering?

I love MT and the hunting, but am subject to the NR elk fees. I'm lucky my wife still let's me do that when I'm not deployed, but it's pricey and always hard to say goodbye to $800+. I love too much to quit.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What alternatives are you talking about?

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. Not sure how MT is structured but generally, when the state gives increased wages to state working, Game & Fish agencies have to make that up with existing revenue streams. Same goes for health benefits when rates go up.

The $4.8 million in free & reduced cost licenses could be made whole by requiring any of those types of licenses to be funded through the general fund rather than be a revenue loss for the FWP. 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.

But whatever we come up with, it has to be a long term solution. There will be no end to short term solutions that only serve to weaken the agency and the NAM. Those will be the politically easy ones to pick up and run with. There will have to be a dedicated core of folks who stand up for Access, the NAM & the equitable allocation of the resource as well as keeping politicians hands out of the wildlife treasury.

 

[blb078]

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

I've mentioned something like this on other forums when talking about WY. Here in MO our Dept of Conservation(our version of fish and game) is not only funded by licenses, permits, etc. But 1/8 of a cent of all sales tax also goes to them. Last year that tax alone brought in the MO Dept of Conservation over $100 million. But you have to raise taxes which people don't like. Could also be done on what you stated, lodging or restaurants, and sporting goods. But again, when people hear "raise taxes" they tend to cringe and shy away from that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've mentioned something like this on other forums when talking about WY. Here in MO our Dept of Conservation(our version of fish and game) is not only funded by licenses, permits, etc. But 1/8 of a cent of all sales tax also goes to them. Last year that tax alone brought in the MO Dept of Conservation over $100 million. But you have to raise taxes which people don't like. Could also be done on what you stated, lodging or restaurants, and sporting goods. But again, when people hear "raise taxes" they tend to cringe and shy away from that.

MO & ARK I think help lead by example. MT doesn't have a sales tax, so we can discount that. I also think politically it becomes difficult when you look to raise taxes on specific industries like mining, oil & gas to pay for the impacts they created.

Ultimately, there will have to be significant support from tourism, nat resource industry non-consumptive users & hunters & anglers before anything will move. If some folks try and take this debate and move it towards the Utah style of management (which they will in both WY & MT) then there will be another wall of orange at the Legislatures to stop the tag grabs and privatization of wildlife.

 

[dustinf]

I've mentioned something like this on other forums when talking about WY. Here in MO our Dept of Conservation(our version of fish and game) is not only funded by licenses, permits, etc. But 1/8 of a cent of all sales tax also goes to them. Last year that tax alone brought in the MO Dept of Conservation over $100 million. But you have to raise taxes which people don't like. Could also be done on what you stated, lodging or restaurants, and sporting goods. But again, when people hear "raise taxes" they tend to cringe and shy away from that.

Hell, the county I live charges 7% sales tax, most other counties in PA it's 6%. Guess what the 1% is for? A NFL and a MLB stadium!

We also pay an additional 10% drink tax on poured drinks at bars and restaurants. This tax was created to support The Port Authority, the company that runs mass transit in Pittsburgh.

Our Game Commision hit the lottery with the current natural gas mining boom, their state game lands are sitting on billions of dollars worth of gas. The game comission lives by the, "Drill baby, drill!" motto.

My point being, there are always means of alternate funding.

 

[EasternMTHunter]

Something I sent to the committe, more tha nlikely round file fodder but hopefully at least some ideas that aren't soley dependent on license sales.

I am contacting you in regards to the committee that is looking at license fee changes and long term funding for FWP. I have had a few conversations with friends and have some suggestions to consider.

1. Increasing the bed tax that hotels charge with the entire increase ear marked for FWP. Tourism is a very big draw to the state and managing the wildlife is a big part of that. There would also be less cry from the locals about having to pay more, even though I think all residents need to pony up more.
2. Adding a box on the tax return that allows you to make a donation to FWP for either a set amount or one that the filer chooses
3. Consider adding a very small percentage on to property tax something like .001%, then everyone in the state will contribute as the FWP now has to manage even nongame species. I lived in Missouri and voted for the very small increase in sales tax to fund the FWP there and believe that without a sales tax here the property tax would be one way to get something similar and it would be a source that is not dependent on people buying licenses.
4. A small increase in resident license cost say every other year until an amount you see fit is raised. A large jump all at once will not doubt cause a lot of grumbling and complaints
5. A block management stamp of $20 as we as residents need to help pay for a program we enjoy. That said, the program needs to be monitored better to ensure quality places are enrolled. I’ve been to many areas in region 7 that are nothing more than a barren cut wheat field with nothing on it, not even a hedge row or other cover and I believe that is money wasted. I’ve also been on places where hunter numbers are restricted and the quality is extremely better. There are also some landowners who take reservations from non-residents for the following year and will book up their entire season with out of state hunters with no chance of a resident hunter ever getting on their land to hunt.