SB 380 Increase Non resident tags in Montana

[JMG]

Eric, Commercialization of our wildlife is nothing more than some private individuals profitting from a public resource at the expense of the residents. Often, the private individual sells access or opportunity to harvest a public resource and in the process excludes the residents of this this State.

When I (my own opinion) say "expense of the residents", I am referring to the landowner getting an "agricultural tax" assessed versus a "business tax" assessed. Or another way of viewing it; is the harvesting of timber or coal (both public resouces) that are taxed when harvested.

Respectfully,

Jim

 

[Big Fin]

Turbo - I hope you come to Montana and have a great time. There are plenty of tags and plenty of places to go.

A couple things about the "up to 10%" rule. Montana, Idaho, and Arizona all implement this rule, in differing degrees. Other states such as Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico have separate non-resident pools that the non-residents compete for, with differing percentages of tags that go into that non-resident pool.

Montana is a different duck in many respects and makes it hard to compare MT to some of the other states. Almost all of our non-resident and resident tags are general unit tags. With the exception of moose, goat, and sheep, we have a very small percentage of our tags issued as limited entry.

We sell 120,000 +/- resident deer/elk combo tags every year. We sell 25,000 +/- NR tags, of varying types each year. In that equation, NRs are getting around 15% to 18% of the tags, depending upon the sales that year.

They get this percentage of tags without being forced to buy a $140 +/- non-refundable license just to apply, as is required in Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and cheaper licenses in New Mexico and Utah.

Non-residents can get a large percentage of their money refunded, well into the summer, for no stated reason. In most states, license purchases are non-refundable.

The cost to buy a point for our limited entry tags is very cheap for NRs, relative to some other states. In Wyoming, it is $100 per point for M/G/S. For elk it is $50, deer it is $40, and antelope it si $30. To build points in AZ, UT, and NV, you are buying expensive non-refundable licenses, plus paying application/point fees on top of that.

Additionally, in MT for moose, goat, and sheep, NRs get 10% of the tags by region, not by unit. There have been years when NRs have drawn the majority of the goat tags in my back yard, the Bridger Mountains, one of our best goat areas. They have drawn more than 10% of the ram tags in some of the good areas of the state, as the application demand for NRs in our best sheep units is very high and the 10% is based on other sheep units in the region that might not have very good rams.

Example being Unit 482 in the Breaks. Great sheep. Region 4 gives out a ton of sheep tags over on the Rocky Mountain Front, though few NRs apply there. In many years, NRs can end up with more than 10% of the sheep tags in Unit 482, as they get 10% of all Region 4 tags, capped at the region level and not the unit level.

I am curious as to what other residents, outfitters, and non-residents think about a 10% pool for NRs. Personally, I have no problem if Montana put together a separate drawing pool for NRs, like other states. If we did that to conform more to the models of other statets, I would want us to make changes that are more like other states' systems for NRs. Ideas I think might be worth at least considering as part of a license system overhaul would be ....

>> If we do that, we put 10% of our tags in the pool and round down from .5 or less, round up from .51 or more. That means NRs will never draw a Bridger goat tag, be capped at 2 sheep tags in Unit 680, be capped at 1 sheep tag in Unit 482, etc. If the statewide total is under 10%, we would round up in units that had only 5 tags, until we got to a 10% total NR quota.

>> I would demand that we get rid of the refund clauses that allows NRs to get big refunds way after the draw date that causes MT to be stuck with many left over tags to sell at the last miinute. You apply and draw, you just bought it. No test drives.

>> We would charge a non-refundable license fee as NV, AZ, ID do, at a similar price, just to apply.

>> I would raise our NR moose/goat/sheep prices to something more in line with other states. I would also raise resident fees on these to a price more in line with other state resident fees.

>> As an option other than a non-refundable license for those who do not want to apply and send in the entire fee but still want to earn a point, I would demand that we would allow the purchase of "points only," at the price similar to Wyoming. I would allow that for both R and NR, at fees that reflect the value of being allowed to keep building points without sending in the big money.

>> We would no longer calculate the 10% NR quota by Region for M/G/S, rather 10% by unit. If the state wide total was less than 10% due to rounding down in cases of 15 or 25, we would round up in units with 5 tags until we reached the 10% NR statewide quota.

>> I would ask that we "decouple" the elk-deer combo tags. We would sell them separately to NRs and probably reduce the price on both, but the combined price if someone wanted both would probably be higher than today. I would also get rid of the fishing and small game part of that combo license. We are making NRs buy licenses in a package where they don't want/use much of the package. Let them apply for what they need.

>> The last one I would propose and I know it would get the most resistance is this. We would be like North Dakota, where the number of general deer/elk tags available to NRs the following year would be 10% of the numbers of resident tags sold the previous year. So, if we sell 120,000 resident elk tags and 180,000 resident deer tags in 2013, in 2014, we would sell 12,000 NR elk tags and 18,000 NR deer tags, decoupled as I explained above. This would require a resident fee increase to make up for the lost NR revenue, if we end up selling fewer NR tags. That is fine by me, given how low our resident fees currently are.

Right now, we have a statutory requirement to sell a set number of non-resident tags, regardless of herd health, etc. It ends up with 17,000 elk tags, alone. Wyoming has a similar statute, but caps NR elk tags somewhere near 7,500.

Not saying all of these would fly. Hell, if allowed to think about them for more than twenty minutes it took me to type these ideas, I might not like some of the ones I tossed out there.

If Montana is going to catch up to the other states in how we do our tag pricing, it seems a lot of changes are necessary. Some would benefit specific groups, while other ideas may hurt specific groups.

Interested in ideas other folks have the would get Montana out of the 1970's as far as our tag pricing, format, and allocation systems and get us closer to what other states are doing.

A big part of what we fight about in Helena is due to the archaic old system we have for tag allocations. The amount of legislative tinkering that happens to that system, reminds me of how Congress uses the IRS tax code changes for their social engineering. It is not nearly as complicated as the tax code, but rather than tinkering and complicating each legislative session, we need a total revamp. Adding new tag subsidies as we have over the last few years, and as would happen with SB 380, does nothing but exacerbate the problem.

Now that I am sure my ideas for consideration have raised hackles on all sides, I will take my dogs for a walk and see how much hate mail I get by the time I return.

 

[Turboewen]

You have some great ideas randy.of course you will never please everyone. When I started applying in mt ten or so years ago they used to have a different drawing for res and nr the special tags area (380) I really am thankfully for your response. More often than not common sense will not prevail. And the battle will continue. Hopefully some day I can move to mt and enjoy the res benefits.

 

[LopeHunter]

I also think there is a positive link between a state's revenues from license sales and the resulting allotment % of Pittman-Robertson gun/ammo tax.

I am not a resident of MT so will not be happy to spend more to play the MT game but I am more about quality of hunting than my happiness level as apply.

You know what is rarer than a hen's tooth? A resident hunter that will call up a state official and ask to pay more for a tag! Montana residents have a very good deal going but does depend to some extent on having enough non-residents play to game the application and tag game to offset the low resident tag costs.

 

[Straight Arrow]

LopeHunter, I do understand what you are saying, even though I think you should proof read your sentences before posting, as they are a bit confusing. However, there are many of us who have been advocating for a tag fee increase for Montana resident hunters. In fact, I understand there is an interim study to consider that. So your assertions are not completely accurate.

 

[JMG]

Is there any news on the current status of Senate Bill 380??

 

[Ben Lamb]

Is there any news on the current status of Senate Bill 380??

Passed committee 12-8. Should be up on the floor tomorrow.

 

[Straight Arrow]

My frustrated, sick-of-partisan-politics guess is that the vote was 12 R's to 8 D's. Is that correct?

 

[Ben Lamb]

My frustrated, sick-of-partisan-politics guess is that the vote was 12 R's to 8 D's. Is that correct?

You can watch the video here: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Video-and-Audio/archives/av.asp

Yes, it was a party line vote, but I would caution people not to paint this as partisan in nature. The House FWP Committee was excellent this year. They did not put party ahead of the issue, rather did a great job in weighing the pros and cons of each bill.

While I do not like the outcome of this vote, it is not because of the party affiliation.

Watch the video and see what they said during executive action.

 

[Eric Albus]

Jim, neither coal nor timber are a "public resource" if held within the confines of private land. If I own the land the timber grows on I profit from the harvest of it, if I own mineral rights and have coal, I can profit from the mining...same w/ oil/gas...and WISH I were taxed according to the sale of such.

Were landowners "selling wildlife" I can see a case for changing the tax structure, however it's illegal to sell wild game.

howler, I can't argue w/ you on the breaks over-crowding issue...I just wish the commission would have attempted less severe measures first...permits should be a last resort.

straight...still waiting to hear about all the "leasing in the breaks"....I would like to know where access is an issue in the breaks.

turbo, very few outfitters in Montana take residents, it may comprise 5% of clients in a years time. (this is just a guess, but I bet I'm not far off) That said, I am taking more and more residents every year. We had several residents use our service for breaks rifle elk hunting, and even a 622 sheep hunter.

Randy, I could live w/ the no refund on elk/deer combo license, but have the PERMITS be drawn first, and allow the permitee to recieve a license if successful. It is not fair to anyone to have to buy a very expensive license first, then draw for a low odds permit and not have an option for refund.

 

[ismith]

I think a non-residents should be able to apply for a permit/license combo, if they draw the permit they get a license.

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots Straight......if you (or anyone else for that matter) think that by choking back the numbers of non-residents, all of the outfitters will be gone and that all of this private ground will open up.....you should set your bong down and step away, because it will not happen. When landowners lease their property to someone, they are leasing the right to access it. Like Eric stated, it is illegal to sell wildlife. The days of showing up at "Joe Ranchers" house with a processed ham, some Black Velvet and a bottle of Mad Dog for the wife so that you can hunt are long gone. It's not the non-residents fault, it's not the outfitters fault, but merely the God given right of a landowner to do with his land as he/she sees fit.

I'm sure that we can all remember not so many years back when they were pushing I-161....
"This will cripple the outfitting industry and in turn will open up access to acres and acres of private property that has not been open for years...yada....yada...yada". But....did it really? Not so much. The non-resident, DIY or guided, has every right to be here. Randy has some great ideas that need to be looked at, as do some others on here.

We all need to start thinking outside of the box a little instead of just pushing the issues that benefit ourselves. Just my opinion.

 

[howler]

giving the ranchers wife a bottle of Mad Dog might be a good way to stay un-invited, yuck

 

[howler]

howler, I can't argue w/ you on the breaks over-crowding issue...I just wish the commission would have attempted less severe measures first...permits should be a last resort.


Eric there was several strageties that did preclude the actual permit, it was pretty much the last resort. one of the biggest problems we have these days is we have people making the rules who don't really know the history of the problems and are using information that isn't valid. I think Randy is right we need a complete over haul and it needs to be done by groups of people who know the issues.

 

[Turboewen]

I also agree if you apply for a tag and get drawn u should keep it unless a medical or some other reason comes up. This getting drawn for a big game combo then get money back for not taking the elk tag makes no sense to me other than a round about way to increase your buck tag odds. I believe if outfitters don't pay the money for private land hunts people will. These ranches are not going to go from making a lot of money to just letting the average joe on the property for nothing.

 

[shoots-straight]

We all need to start thinking outside of the box a little instead of just pushing the issues that benefit ourselves. Just my opinion.

Are you serious dude.

Did you re read your post before you hit send? You really should.

Your the only one that's messed up.

I-161 (for the thousandth time) was not about opening up private lands to residents. It was about stopping the commercialization of our wildlife, upholding the North American Model of Wildlife conservation, and stopping subsidies to one group of hunters over another. Tea Braggers should embrace doing away with subsidy's, but most are hypocrites.

Your like a little kid, who keeps repeating what he wants to hear. Saying it 3 times makes it so.

SB 380 is exactly another bill to benefit someones pocket book.

We went to the well on I-161, and can do it again. This time we will take away all the giveaways and cap the non residents to a number that will be lower than pre SB 380.

There can be repercussions for certain actions..

 

[Big Shooter]

Shoots.....tell me this, in which sentence of my last post did I promote 380? Apparently you think I did, so please, point out which one it was. Now that you can't do that, prove to me...or us actually, that I-161 was not about access. If it wasn't, then why were the majority of the signature gatherers promoting increased access to otherwise locked and/or leased ground?

You need to consider your last phrase about "repercussions for certain actions", because a lot of what you have or are trying to oppose or promote, may cause you and your peanut gallery to come up short later on.

Howler.....if that particular ranchers wife actually likes Mad Dog (which means that she can probably pack 500 lbs. of loose hay under each arm), it may be worth the trip back. You never know!

 

[howler]

Big Shooter lol

 

[BuzzH]

Shoots Straight......if you (or anyone else for that matter) think that by choking back the numbers of non-residents, all of the outfitters will be gone and that all of this private ground will open up.....you should set your bong down and step away, because it will not happen.

Randy has some great ideas that need to be looked at, as do some others on here.

We all need to start thinking outside of the box a little instead of just pushing the issues that benefit ourselves. Just my opinion.

Look who crawled out of his hole...big shooter, good ol Rod Paschke.

You have the nerve to accuse others of pushing issues to only benefit themselves? You mean something akin to guaranteed outfitter licenses? How did that benefit anyone but outfitters? Dont give me the broke down line of the BM program...outfitters contributed exactly NOTHING to that program.

When you wrote that chitty email to WYOGA, MOGA, and IOGA regarding Randy's appointment to the RMEF board...was that thinking outside the box? Was there a bong in YOUR hand at the time? I would hope so, since that could be the only explaination that would justify your actions.

I think it was more along the lines of you just excercising your right to be your usual asshat self.

I will say one thing, you have plenty of nerve to post on this board again...in particular when all you think of Randy is that he's anti-outfitter. Thats not true, and Randy has been wayyy too tolerant of you and your ignorance. You sir, are a liar and a fake.

Even more entertaining that you'd make a lame attempt to suck up to him and say his ideas need to be looked at.

Rather than come on this board and make a lame, weak attempt to defend outfitters, you'd be better off just leaving it alone. If all outfitters were like you, there wouldnt be one outfitter left in the State of Montana.

On second thought, keep posting your bullchit...you're doing a great job of "representing" outfitters.

What a spineless tool...

 

[shoots-straight]

Shooter,

I assumed that because your a Outfitter you would welcome more non resident tags.

So where do you stand, and are you a member of MOGA?