Poll: Should NRs have a larger say in Montana Wildlife Management?

[SAJ-99]

I read an article in the Gazette today about Whitefish-area outfitter Patrick Tabor, a nominee for the Fish and Wildlife Commission, who was answered questions from of Senate Fish And Game Committee. Quote from article below.

Under further questioning from Cohenour, Tabor said he is not interested in “bulldozing or coming in with a specific agenda.”
However, he went on to say that he feels nonresidents, who supply a large portion of the funding to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks because their hunting and fishing licenses are more expensive, deserve a larger say.
“I’ve always felt quite strongly that nonresidents don’t have a voice relative to what happens in Montana … I think when we talk about sportsmen it needs to be all inclusive.”

What do you think?

 

[Cornell2012]

Legally? NRs don't need to have a larger say. From a business perspective it is typically a good idea to get input from your customers, and finding ways to keep your big spenders spending money is probably important.

It also varies from topic to topic. For example, if MT wanted to require nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt, I think they should get input from the NRs. If they want to tie the NR tag prices to an inflation metric? Maybe not so much.

 

[SAJ-99]

Legally? NRs don't need to have a larger say. From a business perspective it is typically a good idea to get input from your customers, and finding ways to keep your big spenders spending money is probably important.

It also varies from topic to topic. For example, if MT wanted to require nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt, I think they should get input from the NRs. If they want to tie the NR tag prices to an inflation metric? Maybe not so much.

I get all that, but don't over complicate it. "It depends" can be the answer to everything. It's a yes or no question. There are a specific number of people on this committee. Should one of them speak for NR and give them a voice?

 

[Nameless Range]

I am a resident and I said no. NRs hunt at the pleasure of those for whom the wildlife is managed in trust - residents. There are many reasons to consider the needs,benefits, and contributions NRs make to hunting in Montana, but should they have an actual say as in an opinion with official/legal power? No.

 

[7mm08mo]

I’m a non resident and I’d voted no. It like eating at a restaurant, if I don’t like your food or service I don’t have to come back and I’ll go elsewhere. I wouldn’t want non residents coming to my state and telling us how to manage or do things.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

No. They don't live there and not forced to hunt there. If they don't like Montana policy u have many other states to choose from. If you want a say pack up the uhaul and move there. I moved 2000 miles across the country to give myself better opportunity hunting wise others can do the same.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

No

 

[belshawelk]

I dont live there and should have 0 say. Period

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I get all that, but don't over complicate it. "It depends" can be the answer to everything. It's a yes or no question. There are a specific number of people on this committee. Should one of them speak for NR and give them a voice?

Here's how I see it: If MT decides to go 100% guided, so combos are only given to guided hunters, then most NR will stop hunting the state, no one will pay for bonus points. Montana will lose a pile of money.

Residents cry big crocodile tears for having to pay $20 more for a tag, imagine if they have to make up a 900% difference.

The stinginess of the resident is at odds with the greed of the outfitter. Those two can duke it out.

As I NR I will politely point out to legislators the benefit I am to the MT system and the reasons I should continue to be allowed to hunt there, but at the end of the day my $ spends just as good in CO/WY/ID/NM/AK/ etc etc etc.

 

[325 WSM]

I'm a Non Resident who hunts MT every year & I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest I have a voice in how things are run there. I accept what it is & make the best out of it. Just my $.02

 

[Nick87]

I dont need to have a say there just like I dont want a non resident too have one where I live. Got enough problems already.

 

[TOGIE]

gosh, sometimes i think the biologists are the only ones that should have a say in anything at all.

i'm an NR and i voted no

i keep thinking about how the average NR hunter is probably wealthier than the average R hunter and how that might color my view of how much say they should have..... in the context of the NAM and how much pull money should and could have in the system.... just a thought a haven't hashed out yet

 

[Big Shooter]

Funny thing fellas.......when all of the emails came flooding in to the Senators and Legislatures in opposition to 143......a HUGE amount of them were nonresidents. That was thanks to a huge push from the fringe groups and......well......I’ll leave that one alone. But most on here sure didn’t think it was bad then. I know Pat Tabor very well, and he has an open mind and will be a very good person in that position. Just saying.

 

[ccc23454]

Hell no! Wheres that button?

 

[Oak]

Funny thing fellas.......when all of the emails came flooding in to the Senators and Legislatures in opposition to 143....

Now let's have a poll on who thinks state general assemblies should have more say in wildlife management decisions.

 

[mtmiller]

NRs are not the decision makers, nor am I. If it is a substantive comment (don't confuse with a vote) that leads to the best decision for the resource(s), I am in favor. Lots of smart people out there capable of educating those making the decisions. On the flip side, lots of dumb people out there on both side of a geographical boundary.

 

[bennirio]

I voted no as a non-resident. I believe that Montana should do what is best for the animals, as should every state for that matter. More animals equals more opportunities for everyone.

 

[WIbiggame]

Funny thing fellas.......when all of the emails came flooding in to the Senators and Legislatures in opposition to 143......a HUGE amount of them were nonresidents

I have to agree with @Big Shooter on this. Seeing people say with great conviction NO or HELL NO, but than asking for emails puts a bad taste in my mouth.

Seems like us NR are only good if we help your believes or cause?

With all of that being said I don't think I should have a voice per say as a NR but feel my voice should be considered and heard on things that affect me. IE 143 and 505.

 

[BuzzH]

No.

 

[WIbiggame]

should they have an actual say as in an opinion with official/legal power? No.

With all do respect and it is A LOT OF RESPECT for you and all you have done with this legislation stuff. And helped us NR. How can you say this but than ask me as a NR to email Legislatures asking for them to support or oppose something?

I totally get not having a vote but not having an opinion? Seems like 143 wouldve had an easier path without the opinion of a lot of NR emailing people.