Non resident Landowner incentive.

[SAJ-99]

The issue with just cutting/capping tags is you end up defunding core programs like Habitat MT, Block Management, UGHEP, Migratory Bird. Those are all earmarked with NR license dollars and changing those caps will hurt actual conservation and access programs. That was the problem with 3 of the 4 bills up when 533 was up.

Furthermore, we tried to simply cap the NR reduced licenses and remove the NR relative entirely this session and it made it through the hearing but then got summarily tabled because a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt.

While these decisions are easy to make on a forum, the real world application of these discussions runs into a Buzzsaw of fiscal reality that nobody seems to want to consider.

It's not a good trade to eliminate millions in access and conservation so that we can say we cut tags. We're working with the senate and house committees to get a study bill on this for the interim so we can all sit down and look at how to cut some NR tags, while also keeping an eye on the budget, and our core conservation and access programs.

In the meantime, there's going to be a solid effort from Ag, Outfitters and Hunters to find some common ground on the season setting proposals for the 25/26 seasons that look to restructure some opportunity, hopefully reduce the amount of time open for elk hunting, etc.

I understand the numbers, but they keep going after the excess $ from the weed tax that was earmarked for Habitat Montana, so it is clearly a question of where the legislative interest lies. If they have trouble building an excel spreadsheet, we have a few people on HT that could help.

"...a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt."

Oh FFS, only in Montana can one a-hole kill a decent idea. I'm not sure it would. They can keep Come home to hunt licenses, just take that allocation from the total. Basically, hold to the cap that was agreed upon. If that means my odds decrease, so be it. I would rather see that in the "simplification" category than stuff like this 14-day limit that makes it more convoluted.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand the numbers, but they keep going after the excess $ from the weed tax that was earmarked for Habitat Montana, so it is clearly a question of where the legislative interest lies. If they have trouble building an excel spreadsheet, we have a few people on HT that could help.

"...a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt."

Oh FFS, only in Montana can one a-hole kill a decent idea. I'm not sure it would. They can keep Come home to hunt licenses, just take that allocation from the total. Basically, hold to the cap that was agreed upon. If that means my odds decrease, so be it. I would rather see that in the "simplification" category than stuff like this 14-day limit that makes it more convoluted.

See the attached fiscal note for SB 512. It tried that and it's millions of dollars less for habitat MT and block mgt, with no plan to make up the lost revenue.

If you want to cut tags, then you will have to accept even more legislative oversight of FWP's budget and rely on their grace to fund core programs. As someone who has literally spent the last 20 years fighting this fight, I can assure you that you don't want to give the legislature more authority over wildlife conservation budgeting, you want them to have less.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

while also keeping an eye on the budget, and our core conservation and access programs.

Is there promised money to certain programs that they count on NR tag sales to cover said promised money?

 

[BuzzH]

The issue with just cutting/capping tags is you end up defunding core programs like Habitat MT, Block Management, UGHEP, Migratory Bird. Those are all earmarked with NR license dollars and changing those caps will hurt actual conservation and access programs. That was the problem with 3 of the 4 bills up when 533 was up.

Furthermore, we tried to simply cap the NR reduced licenses and remove the NR relative entirely this session and it made it through the hearing but then got summarily tabled because a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt.

While these decisions are easy to make on a forum, the real world application of these discussions runs into a Buzzsaw of fiscal reality that nobody seems to want to consider.

It's not a good trade to eliminate millions in access and conservation so that we can say we cut tags. We're working with the senate and house committees to get a study bill on this for the interim so we can all sit down and look at how to cut some NR tags, while also keeping an eye on the budget, and our core conservation and access programs.

In the meantime, there's going to be a solid effort from Ag, Outfitters and Hunters to find some common ground on the season setting proposals for the 25/26 seasons that look to restructure some opportunity, hopefully reduce the amount of time open for elk hunting, etc.

Resident elk tags at $20, deer at $16...I'm just totally stumped, and at a complete loss, on how to possibly come up with any lost revenue. I wonder if I really put my mind to it, if I can come up with a solution? I mean its a mix between rocket science and brain surgery...so probably not.

Here let me see if I can help with the massive struggle of funding facing the MTFWP and Resident Sportsmen:

WY Resident license fees:

ELK

Resident

$57.00

DEER

Resident

$42.00

ANTELOPE

Resident

$37.00

ANTELOPE

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

BLACK BEAR

Resident

$47.00

DEER

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

ELK

Resident Cow/Calf

$43.00

Oh, yeah...and in case you don't want to reinvent the wheel on season structures, I can help with that extremely complicated issue that Montana has found so elusive:

Regulations | Wyoming Game & Fish Department

January 16-17, 2025 - Commission MeetingCheyenne, WY The following regulation will be presented to the Commission at their January meeting:Chapter 66, Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan Revision Rules

wgfd.wyo.gov

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is there promised money to certain programs that they count on NR tag sales to cover said promised money?

Yes.

28.5% of the B10 & B11 goes to Habitat MT and Block Management.
100% of the NR migratory bird goes to the Migratory Bird Account (wetland restoration)
A portion of the B1 (upland) goes to the Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Program.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Resident elk tags at $20, deer at $16...I'm just totally stumped, and at a complete loss, on how to possibly come up with any lost revenue. I wonder if I really put my mind to it, if I can come up with a solution? I mean its a mix between rocket science and brain surgery...so probably not.

Here let me see if I can help with the massive struggle of funding facing the MTFWP and Resident Sportsmen:

WY Resident license fees:

ELK

Resident

$57.00

DEER

Resident

$42.00

ANTELOPE

Resident

$37.00

ANTELOPE

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

BLACK BEAR

Resident

$47.00

DEER

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

ELK

Resident Cow/Calf

$43.00

Oh, yeah...and in case you don't want to reinvent the wheel on season structures, I can help with that extremely complicated issue that Montana has found so elusive:

Regulations | Wyoming Game & Fish Department

January 16-17, 2025 - Commission MeetingCheyenne, WY The following regulation will be presented to the Commission at their January meeting:Chapter 66, Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan Revision Rules

wgfd.wyo.gov

SB 512 had a revenue offset of a 10% across the board bump in all licenses. It still didn't cover it, and more importantly, when you lose the earmark, you lose guaranteed funding.

You want even more politics in wildlife mgt? get rid of the earmarks.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Yes.

28.5% of the B10 & B11 goes to Habitat MT and Block Management.
100% of the NR migratory bird goes to the Migratory Bird Account (wetland restoration)
A portion of the B1 (upland) goes to the Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Program.

I understand why they do this, but if it's unsustainable for the resource the conservation money won't matter in the long run anyways because we deplete what their trying to conserve?

 

[rogerthat]

Resident elk tags at $20, deer at $16...I'm just totally stumped, and at a complete loss, on how to possibly come up with any lost revenue. I wonder if I really put my mind to it, if I can come up with a solution? I mean its a mix between rocket science and brain surgery...so probably not.

Here let me see if I can help with the massive struggle of funding facing the MTFWP and Resident Sportsmen:

WY Resident license fees:

ELK

Resident

$57.00

DEER

Resident

$42.00

ANTELOPE

Resident

$37.00

ANTELOPE

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

BLACK BEAR

Resident

$47.00

DEER

Resident Doe/Fawn

$22.00

ELK

Resident Cow/Calf

$43.00

Oh, yeah...and in case you don't want to reinvent the wheel on season structures, I can help with that extremely complicated issue that Montana has found so elusive:

Regulations | Wyoming Game & Fish Department

January 16-17, 2025 - Commission MeetingCheyenne, WY The following regulation will be presented to the Commission at their January meeting:Chapter 66, Wyoming Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Plan Revision Rules

wgfd.wyo.gov

Do you wear a cape?

 

[BuzzH]

SB 512 had a revenue offset of a 10% across the board bump in all licenses. It still didn't cover it, and more importantly, when you lose the earmark, you lose guaranteed funding.

You want even more politics in wildlife mgt? get rid of the earmarks.

Nothing tops Montana and the brain trust charging 1957 Resident prices for licenses to go along with their 1957 management.

I mean seriously, why change anything?

Good grief, 10% on $20...that should bump MT Resident fee's almost into 1960 pricing.

 

[BuzzH]

Do you wear a cape?

Not all hero's do...so no.

 

[SAJ-99]

See the attached fiscal note for SB 512. It tried that and it's millions of dollars less for habitat MT and block mgt, with no plan to make up the lost revenue.

If you want to cut tags, then you will have to accept even more legislative oversight of FWP's budget and rely on their grace to fund core programs. As someone who has literally spent the last 20 years fighting this fight, I can assure you that you don't want to give the legislature more authority over wildlife conservation budgeting, you want them to have less.

Montanans want everything but don't want to pay for it. I agree with @rogerthat. There are ways to structure the season to not reduce tags, you just have to split the seasons. They might even be able to increase the permit numbers if they can distribute pressure/tags over specific time periods. But allowing hunters to choose the dates just results in a lower-quality experience at the prime times for Rs. Or they could also stop being cheapskates.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nothing tops Montana and the brain trust charging 1957 Resident prices for licenses to go along with their 1957 management.

I mean seriously, why change anything?

Good grief, 10% on $20...that should bump MT Resident fee's almost into 1960 pricing.

I too prefer to make multiple cuts before measuring.

 

[TOGIE]

huh, i didn't quite realize wyoming res prices are pretty similar to colorado res prices.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand why they do this, but if it's unsustainable for the resource the conservation money won't matter in the long run anyways because we deplete what their trying to conserve?

Is it unsustainable for the resource? The B10 and B11 are capped. The B1 is capped at 10,000 and doesn't hit that mark. the NR Waterfowl subscription is larger than the others, but there is no shortage of ducks and geese, right?
It all goes back to season structure, as many have pointed out. The bills that have advanced this session are about measured cuts, with the understanding that the ensuing regulations around the next season have to comport. For example:

SB 281 directs the agency to sell no more than 2 B licenses to combo tag holders, or 1 to those w/o a combo tag. Follow this up with a quota of B tags in Regions 5,6,7 and you hit not only 90/10 split, but you keep those licenses lower by disallowing multiples being purchased from leftovers.

If we want to limit deer hunters entirely, then we get rid of the orphaned deer licenses that are turned in from the B10 and resold as B11's. That's led to a large increase in NR antlered deer hunters to the current level, which is roughly double the 6600 cap (4600 general B11, 2000 Landowner sponsored). But that's an almost $3 million hit to the general license account. Where does that get made up if it doesn't come from those licenses?

 

[TOGIE]

gosh ben, when you talk about all these combos and b tags and non combos and B this and B that and cap this cap that i feel like i'm trying to understand ancient egyptian hieroglyphs ... just me?

 

[Elky Welky]

The issue with just cutting/capping tags is you end up defunding core programs like Habitat MT, Block Management, UGHEP, Migratory Bird. Those are all earmarked with NR license dollars and changing those caps will hurt actual conservation and access programs. That was the problem with 3 of the 4 bills up when 533 was up.

Furthermore, we tried to simply cap the NR reduced licenses and remove the NR relative entirely this session and it made it through the hearing but then got summarily tabled because a committee member didn't want it to be harder for his son to come home to hunt.

While these decisions are easy to make on a forum, the real world application of these discussions runs into a Buzzsaw of fiscal reality that nobody seems to want to consider.

It's not a good trade to eliminate millions in access and conservation so that we can say we cut tags. We're working with the senate and house committees to get a study bill on this for the interim so we can all sit down and look at how to cut some NR tags, while also keeping an eye on the budget, and our core conservation and access programs.

In the meantime, there's going to be a solid effort from Ag, Outfitters and Hunters to find some common ground on the season setting proposals for the 24/25 seasons that look to restructure some opportunity, hopefully reduce the amount of time open for elk hunting, etc.

Also false. SB 525 wouldn't have defunded those programs because it gave FWP the discretion to set those caps, and the department would not have done anything to damage its funding. This is one of the largest lies opponents spread far and wide to have it killed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

gosh ben, when you talk about all these combos and b tags and non combos and B this and B that and cap this cap that i feel like i'm trying to understand ancient egyptian hieroglyphs ... just me?

Here's a clever mnemonic device to help:

 

[Ben Lamb]

Also false. SB 525 wouldn't have defunded those programs because it gave FWP the discretion to set those caps, and the department would not have done anything to damage its funding. This is one of the largest lies opponents spread far and wide to have it killed.

The fiscal note said otherwise, and that's why you had your amendment. Which was a great amendment, btw.

 

[TOGIE]

Here's a clever mnemonic device to help:

is this a leaked recording of a FWP commission executive session?

 

[Elky Welky]

The fiscal note said otherwise, and that's why you had your amendment. Which was a great amendment, btw.

It was, but sadly the damage was done. We'll be back at it again, Ben, and I look forward to working more closely with you and the MCEMC on it.