Native Montana License

[Beartooth83]

I am curious how many of you former Montanans are taking advantage of the Native Montanan hunting licenses.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/all/nativeHuntingLicense.html

I was born in Montana. (But now I've been an ND resident for the past 2 years) My father and sister still live in MT, so I qualify for the discounted tags. It's a great benefit for us MT born hunters who want to keep coming back. It definitely keeps some cash in my pocket. And it will keep me coming back to Montana year after year. Whereas I would probably put more effort in other states if the benefit didn't exist.

With the spotlight on legislation in regards to special licenses, fees, etc., I'm concerned this special license may be one of the things being looked at. Does anyone know if this license is being addressed in any legislation?
Either way, I plan to express my appreciation for the license and explain how it is beneficial to both the ones that qualify for it, and how it is beneficial to the FWP and the state. I'd like to add that I'm not opposed to a slight proportional increase to these tags fees. I know resident tag price increases are being looked at and most residents are willing to pay a little extra. As am I for these special tags. I just don't want to see it totally go away.

Randy, in another recent post, you have a list of FWP committee members. Would these be the appropriate people to address my concerns? And are there others that I should include?

 

[Big Fin]

Yes, those would be the people you would communicate with. And yes, the special licenses are being looked at as big holes in the financial ship of FWP. I suspect that one of the two "former resident" license programs is going to be targeted for repeal.

You can contact the Senate Fish and Game committee, also. Those are the two committees that hunting/fishing bills will be heard in (most the time).

 

[Beartooth83]

Thanks for the reply, Randy.

I urge others who are participating in this program to join me in letting committee members know your thoughts on the issue.

 

[antlerradar]

The license and funding committee received a lot of comments on this. As I remember there was only more on the senior discount. The people using the program loved it. Lets just say that the other comments were less kind. I think the recommendation from the committee was that the two "former resident" license programs be combined and that the price be set at 50% of the nonresident price. I would have to look back the recommendations to be sure of the exact wording.

Antlerradar

 

[brownbear932008]

I think you are right I also believe I read 50% of non resident cost which to me seems like a fair price to a non resident by state law. I say you are very lucky Beartooth to get that wish my home state did this but I gotta pay full price to go home to hunt with buddies but, I am lucky that we have a family farm I can go home to hunt without buying a license if I want to hunt with family or grandbabies.

 

[Straight Arrow]

My nephew who lives and works in Richland, Washington, is a native Montanan who purchased the Native Montanan license this year and came to hunt for a week. Previously he had saved up for several years and came to hunt with a NR Elk combo tag about four years ago. He explained to me that family budgetary priorities would preclude the purchase of the full price NR license in the near future, however the Native Montanan opportunity makes it affordable for him every few years.

The point to consider is that he is likely to buy a license and come to Montana to hunt again in a few years. Without the Native Montanan license, he may not be purchasing a license in Montana again, thus one less license sold.

 

[Beartooth83]

Here's the bill as it sits currently. It looks like it would be a 50% reduction in price from the normal nonresident tag prices. So instead of paying $144 ($64 for deer and $80 for elk as the program is currently) the new tag fees would be $488 (50% of $976) for the big game combination. A difference of $344. I hope gas prices stay down a while so it would be a wash anyway! Unless this part of the bill gets revised, I guess I just need to work this into my personal hunting budget.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2015/billpdf/HB0140.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

Beartooth,

That was discussed this summer and there was a task force assigned to come up with several funding issues.

I attended the public meeting in Missoula and testified in favor of the 50% idea/bill you have the link to. I also testified that the cheapskate Residents need to start paying more. The room about had a heart attack when I told them what a Wyoming Resident pays for an elk tag.

I also found some MT Resident deer/elk tags from the mid-90's. IIRC, the elk tags were $16, deer were $12. Bottom line, is the current $20 elk tag and $16 deer tags have not even kept up with inflation or the prices MT residents pay for other items. I looked into real-estate prices, fuel, power bills, cost of new vehicles, etc. and gave testimony on how much prices had all gone up for those items, but license fees had essentially remained flat.

There was still a handful of whiners that said the current Resident fees are still either too high, or shouldn't be increased.

I think the new NR deal makes sense, as its plain ridiculous to pay only $144 (plus conservation) to hunt deer and elk in Montana as a NR.

However, the ridiculously low Resident Fees are an absolute joke.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I have benefited significantly from the reduced price native NR tag. That said, I understand that it is fiscally questionable for the FWP to continue.

The cost-benefit lines cross at a different $$ value for everyone. Getting back to MT to hunt with my family is very valuable to me, but at a certain price it's just too hard to justify in my budget. That's fine, and that's how it works for everybody else. I certainly won't complain if they do away with the tag or significantly increase the cost, but I have let the committee members know that I value the program and it has meant a lot to my family and I as it stands.

 

[BuzzH]

SnowyMountaineer,

I agree with you that its a great deal for getting to hunt with family and friends, But even at $488 for deer/elk/upland bird/fishing...that's a significant value for former Residents.

I feel like if hunting with family and friends is that valuable to you (it is to me), that coming up with an extra $344 shouldn't be the deciding factor. I would shovel snow, mow lawns, or cut my budget somewhere to come up with the extra $30 a month to cover that fee increase.

Perhaps you could work a reciprocal deal with your family and friends, where they come to Wyoming and hunt with you here as NR's every other year. That way, you will only have to come up with $174/year to hunt MT every other year with them.

I think there are ways to still get to hunt with your family without breaking the bank and there has to be some level of compromise regarding the cost.

I believe the 50% legislation is a fair compromise that balances MTFWP revenue as well as giving previous residents an incentive to keep hunting Montana with family and friends.

I only wish more legislation made that much sense, most of it doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I definitely get it, and I definitely don't know enough about the FWP budget to know where it will be most cost effective to set the final price. We definitely want a high net financial gain in all aspects of tag sales, and as such over-pricing for a given market can be just as negative as under-pricing. I personally find 50% reasonable, and hope that someone with considerable economics modeling skills has a say in how this plays out.

I do know that it's silly for people to complain if the native nr tag goes away--not saying anyone here is, but some will in general. It doesn't take people long to get used to a privilege and take it for granted.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I think the 50% legislation is fair for previous residents.

I would strongly support a raise in resident fees as well. Every time a fee hike comes up though, it seems like many MT residents view an Elk or Deer tag as a right - not a privilege.

 

[Big Fin]

I would strongly support a raise in resident fees as well. Every time a fee hike comes up though, it seems like many MT residents view an Elk or Deer tag as a right - not a privilege.

You've got that right. I wrote an article for Bugle about the need for residents to pick up their end of the deal. Given the protests I heard from resident hunters, you would have thought I had written a piece advocating we turn back our guns to the central government. I did get a lot of good emails and messages from folks who do not live in elk country, thanking me for advocating such.

It is a hard hill to climb with residents in many states. Western states have built such a dependency on non-residents that I think there has been a diminished appreciation for the great opportunity residents get in many states, especially in terms of what that great opportunity is worth. I wish it was different.

As to this Native License programs, I would be happy to see it at 50%. There is some rub with residents as to the history of these programs, as they were pretty much set up by a couple of legislators who were happy to see their kids move out of state and make big money, but wanted them to be able to come home and hunt on the cheap. If not for that history of these being rather nepotistic bills, I think they would have greater acceptance among residents. It is a really hard sell among residents who turned down job offers in other states, rather taking lower paying positions with less opportunity just so they could enjoy all that Montana has to offer. There are a lot of MT folks who have made that decision, and as such, these programs are first on the chopping block among that crowd.

I think the way you guys have articulated it here is very good and measured. Probably stands a much better chance of survival and support among residents when stated as you guys have.

 

[Pinecricker]

I know quite a few Montana natives that use this program. If Montana eliminates it, they will definitely lose revenue. You can't implement that big of a price increase and expect to come out ahead.

That being said, Fish and Game departments everywhere seem to have a terrible time getting pricing right. They often overlook the fact that things like cutting down the length of season or number of available tags can have a huge impact on sales. Look at what happened to sales in Idaho in 2009 when they cut our seasons half. Both R and NR sales plummeted. Same when they cut moose tags for the Clearwater way down. Regardless of what price you charge, you have to offer some type of value in return for paying it. Simply trying to recover the cost of running the department ignores reality of how people make purchasing decisions. You can't have wild fluctuations in price or the opportunity offered, then expect to have stable revenues or loyal hunters that purchase license and tags every year.

Putting a couple of additional price points in between the R and NR price (with restrictions) is a good strategy. They should also look at offering displaced Montana refugees a resident price for a lifetime license. Once people already have the sunk cost of the lifetime license, they are more likely to come back and spend money every year.

There is a big opportunity for F&G departments to optimize revenue, ( and to reduce costs, but that's a different conversation) but they tend not to possess enough business savvy to do it right.

 

[brownbear932008]

It seems for several years now this comes up on the forum how MTFWP is going to make it with a short budget. So over the years the NR's have gotten the screws historically. I think that boat is about capsized finally and NR's have found their limit on "what a tag is worth" in their eyes. I just gotta say guys I think it is time for residents to pony up and quit whining about their crazy cheap elk/deer tags costing to much and help the state operate better. That is the simple answer to MTFWP budget issues it's time for a significant rise in resident tag prices in Montana the time has finally came. If this is not going to happen then the state will be in some real trouble and will prob have to make some tough budget cuts which honestly most govt. agencies can usaully make anyway. I like small govt. myself.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I truly believe most Montana hunters appreciate the great opportunities at bargain basement prices and willingly will "pony up" to pay more of their fair share to reduce the disparity between R and NR fees.

The vocal whiners will always be there and seemingly take up too much volume in the room (in a number of ways), but nothing short of a free license would ever make them feel their glass is "half full". The true supporters of hunting, wildlife, and the work of FWP will quietly and gladly contribute.

 

[Beartooth83]

For those interested, I just got an email response from FWP. I asked how many NR Native tags were issued last year (2014). Here's the numbers:

Elk: 1,579 @ $80 ea = $126,320
Deer 1,817 @ $64 ea = $116,288

Elk/Deer total: $242,608

Given the proposed changes go through, I'm sure the number of people that purchase these tags will decrease. How much, I'm not sure. I know I will still participate even with the 50% discount. Out of my own curiosity, here's how the numbers play out if 75% of last years participants continue to participate at the new proposed rates (Note I'm using 1,500 as a total because it's not clear if each participant had both deer and elk, or just one or the other. So this might be a little skewed:

Elk/Deer Combo: 1,125 (75% of 1,500) x $488 (50% of $976) = $549,000

Again this is just an estimate I threw out there.

When I moved away from Montana two years ago, I was aware that I would qualify for this program. This made the move a little easier to swallow. But honestly, I have always questioned how long it would be in place. It's too good of a deal for it to last forever the way it is.

I'd like to add this about my experience with it. After my move to ND, I have shared my MT hunting experiences with several people here in ND. This has sparked more interest in them to try hunting in MT. This past fall, one of my buddies went with me (he paid the full price for the NR tags). Had he not known me or had no idea on where to hunt, he would have continued to hunt in CO or somewhere that offers less expensive elk tags. We were unsuccessful hunting this year, but I feel like he would do it again now that he's seen what MT has to offer. Here's the point. If some sort of program like this had not been in place, I know I could not afford to hunt elk and deer in MT every single year. Since I am able to afford it, I bought the tags and brought a buddy with who just so happened to contribute $1,000 to the FWP. It's almost like an unrealized referral program.

I agree, the way it is now is a smoking deal. Changing to 50% off would be a fair compromise. And the way I'm reading the bill, the 50% discount would also apply to NR fishing licenses. This would actually be an added benefit to the current NR fishing license fees. Anyway, regardless of what happens, Montana has elk, deer and trout and I'm going to hunt them.

 

[Pinecricker]

For those interested, I just got an email response from FWP. I asked how many NR Native tags were issued last year (2014). Here's the numbers:

Elk: 1,579 @ $80 ea = $126,320
Deer 1,817 @ $64 ea = $116,288

Elk/Deer total: $242,608

Given the proposed changes go through, I'm sure the number of people that purchase these tags will decrease. How much, I'm not sure. I know I will still participate even with the 50% discount. Out of my own curiosity, here's how the numbers play out if 75% of last years participants continue to participate at the new proposed rates (Note I'm using 1,500 as a total because it's not clear if each participant had both deer and elk, or just one or the other. So this might be a little skewed:

Elk/Deer Combo: 1,125 (75% of 1,500) x $488 (50% of $976) = $549,000

Again this is just an estimate I threw out there.

When I moved away from Montana two years ago, I was aware that I would qualify for this program. This made the move a little easier to swallow. But honestly, I have always questioned how long it would be in place. It's too good of a deal for it to last forever the way it is.

I'd like to add this about my experience with it. After my move to ND, I have shared my MT hunting experiences with several people here in ND. This has sparked more interest in them to try hunting in MT. This past fall, one of my buddies went with me (he paid the full price for the NR tags). Had he not known me or had no idea on where to hunt, he would have continued to hunt in CO or somewhere that offers less expensive elk tags. We were unsuccessful hunting this year, but I feel like he would do it again now that he's seen what MT has to offer. Here's the point. If some sort of program like this had not been in place, I know I could not afford to hunt elk and deer in MT every single year. Since I am able to afford it, I bought the tags and brought a buddy with who just so happened to contribute $1,000 to the FWP. It's almost like an unrealized referral program.

I agree, the way it is now is a smoking deal. Changing to 50% off would be a fair compromise. And the way I'm reading the bill, the 50% discount would also apply to NR fishing licenses. This would actually be an added benefit to the current NR fishing license fees. Anyway, regardless of what happens, Montana has elk, deer and trout and I'm going to hunt them.

Interesting way of looking at it. Don't forget that for every $1 of revenue that Montana generates in license and tag sales, the feds kick an additional $2 under the Pittman Robertson act.

 

[BuzzH]

Beartooth,

Great information there.

But, I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong), the coming home to hunt NR tags will see a reduction in price as this bill would now combine all the former resident tag programs to one price. The coming home to hunt NR tags are currently a full price NR tag.

So, there will be an increase in funding via the Native License program, but a decrease in price for the Coming Home to hunt license program.

I would like to see a total fiscal break-down in the combined lost/gain revenue for combining the 2 programs and setting price at 50%.

I'm "guessing" there would be a slight increase in over-all revenue, but don't really know. Surely there would be an increase in PR funding as indicated by Pinecricker.

 

[Beartooth83]

Good points Buzz. I didn't take the Come Home to Hunt program into consideration because there has been a surplus of NR combo tags available for several years. So it's really been an unused program in these surplus years. But you are right, a 50% discount probably will indeed bring about more interest in the program. Time will tell...