A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana

ajricketts

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
2,028
Location
East TN
Dad got to the front of the deer combo line literally the day we pulled into town. While he was buying his deer combo for +/- $630, the guy selling it commented on surprise at just how expensive it was. Apparently they don't sell a lot of non-resident licenses at the gas station there in Havre.

As we discussed the price and his shock, a local guy standing nearby was quick to chim in with something like, "Yeah, they keep finding a way to nickel and dime us too. Another $3 here and there..." He then walked up and asked for the full sportsman package or whatever with no hesitation.

And I don't think he cared lol.
 

BucksnDucks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
568
Location
Northern CA
Thread made me curious. Interesting info. Looks like MT is third highest in license/tag revenue behind CO and TX.
 

Attachments

  • Natl Hunting License Report 2019.pdf
    100.8 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

Hammsolo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
667
Just a swag, but Manage fish and game levels to provide the highest opportunity to Montana citizens. No differentiation between public land and private. Nothing about older age-class bucks and bulls. There is lots to criticize FWP about, but changing that goal is a tough road.
Thanks. So your saying the average citizen in Montana wants maximum opportunity? Could you elaborate? Is there a differentiation between public and private? Are you referring to land owner preference tags? The bucks and bulls comment makes me think you’re saying the average citizen is more concerned with quantity of harvest over quality. Wanting to understand.
 
T

timmy

Guest
Thanks. So your saying the average citizen in Montana wants maximum opportunity? Could you elaborate? Is there a differentiation between public and private? Are you referring to land owner preference tags? The bucks and bulls comment makes me think you’re saying the average citizen is more concerned with quantity of harvest over quality. Wanting to understand.
Fish and game talking points. I’ll clarify it for him.
 

Hammsolo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
667
Looking at this from the outside I don't think the "problem" with management is caused by a lack of funds. It may be an arguable point but from many threads here it appears to be decision making, not lack of funds. If it was a simple revenue issue, then a fee increase might be the answer. If the simple answer is not money and the question appears to be management why tax the user? As stated before pay more get less.
Again, I'm an outsider just relaying my experience in my state, which has an increase in fees yearly with not much to show for it in way of sound management.
A couple examples are bears and pigs. The state has a very large bear population, over populated actually. Talk with a biologist or Warden in Northern CA and they will encourage you to shoot a bear. With that said CA has no combo bear tag and a single bear tag is around $50. Pigs are non native and called invasive but a single tag is over $20, used to be $1 not long ago.
Once fees go up they never come down and usually just keep climbing. I would hate to see a state like Montana start taxing its resident hunters the way CA does.
I guess the dream would be to use current resources (which I don’t know if they have now) to gain perspective on wildlife health, future possibilities, public opinion, and what goals should be set. Actions should be set, and then funds should be requested. If they don’t have funds to form a plan then they should request them.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,987
Location
E Washington
Thanks. So your saying the average citizen in Montana wants maximum opportunity? Could you elaborate? Is there a differentiation between public and private? Are you referring to land owner preference tags? The bucks and bulls comment makes me think you’re saying the average citizen is more concerned with quantity of harvest over quality. Wanting to understand.
I’m saying there is no “average”. Most on HT want quality, which I equate with larger, older animals. But many, many want the chance to shoot a big deer but happily fill the doe/small bucket tag. Any solution requires sacrifice by both groups. To simplify, increasing tag prices might price out some hunters, but it also PRICES OUT THE COMPETITION and frees up land. No one wins, you just have to be willing to lose a little.
Keep in mind that many people have adapted to the model by leasing and change is equally disruptive to them. The result is no change and more pressure on public.
 
T

timmy

Guest
I’m saying there is no “average”. Most on HT want quality, which I equate with larger, older animals. But many, many want the chance to shoot a big deer but happily fill the doe/small bucket tag. Any solution requires sacrifice by both groups. To simplify, increasing tag prices might price out some hunters, but it also PRICES OUT THE COMPETITION and frees up land. No one wins, you just have to be willing to lose a little.
Keep in mind that many people have adapted to the model by leasing and change is equally disruptive to them. The result is no change and more pressure on public.
Tough, maybe we could manage wildlife and not hunters.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,987
Location
E Washington
Tough, maybe we could manage wildlife and not hunters.
Maybe. But wildlife don’t vote, nor do they directly contribute to PACs. If FWP managed for wildlife alone it would irritate a lot of hunters, even those that might benefit in the long run. Most of the complaining here is done by people who enjoyed the past “glory years”. For some, today is the “glory years” and getting them to buy in to any change will be hard.
 
T

timmy

Guest
Maybe. But wildlife don’t vote, nor do they directly contribute to PACs. If FWP managed for wildlife alone it would irritate a lot of hunters, even those that might benefit in the long run. Most of the complaining here is done by people who enjoyed the past “glory years”. For some, today is the “glory years” and getting them to buy in to any change will be hard.
What’s the point of doing aerial counts or having biologists if we manage off what the MTFWP says “this is what the majority of people want”. I just cut the cost of tags. Your welcome.
 

Hammsolo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
667
I mean if you look into what the future holds these probably are the “glory” days
We have choices to make. I speaking to our entire society, and then sub-societies. Are we willing to make hard choices? Can we delay gratification? Can we sacrifice? Can we invest?

We have watched species be saved. We have watched species expand. This has happened in the oceans. This has happened on our plains. Condors soar, whales swim, and grizzlies expand. Why? How can we harness that knowledge for the sake of our beloved species?

I for one need to find a way to be more of a positive effect. I bought my raffle tickets the other day. Have you?RMEF Raffle
 

BucksnDucks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
568
Location
Northern CA
Tough, maybe we could manage wildlife and not hunters.
A glimpse into the future. A few years back I was told directly in a conversation with the lead Fish and Game Deer Biologist for Northern CA, " we don't manage deer here, we manage people."
At times I feel like a Cuban or North Korean refugee attempting to warn against the slow creep of communism/socialism.
It's funny and sad at the same time to hear people in Montana bag on Californians then support the same policies/beliefs that have created the problem in CA. I'm going off topic, but this thread relates in the way of just tax and throw money at the problem, when it appears money is not the solution.
How about a sales tax? I'm thinking 8% with a portion from general fund to Wildlife and Parks. Or maybe a .75 cent gas tax. There's money available everywhere you look if you think more government is the answer.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
14,253
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
I’m not one to suggest simply throwing money at a problem in hopes of fixing it, but maybe your warnings are being ignored because you don’t fully understand the depth and the root of the issues?

One of the biggest hurdles to elk management in Montana is lack of landowner tolerance. One of the few ways you’re going to increase landowner tolerance is by creating a system to one pay for access and two pay for depredation issues.

Okay Neither of those is free, and when people are only paying $20 a year for an elk tag it’s pretty hard to take it seriously that they really give two shits.
 
Last edited:

Hammsolo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
667
A glimpse into the future. A few years back I was told directly in a conversation with the lead Fish and Game Deer Biologist for Northern CA, " we don't manage deer here, we manage people."
At times I feel like a Cuban or North Korean refugee attempting to warn against the slow creep of communism/socialism.
It's funny and sad at the same time to hear people in Montana bag on Californians then support the same policies/beliefs that have created the problem in CA. I'm going off topic, but this thread relates in the way of just tax and throw money at the problem, when it appears money is not the solution.
How about a sales tax? I'm thinking 8% with a portion from general fund to Wildlife and Parks. Or maybe a .75 cent gas tax. There's money available everywhere you look if you think more government is the answer.
I don’t understand why the “manage people” comment is necessarily bad. Can you more fully explain?
 

BucksnDucks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
568
Location
Northern CA
I’m not one to suggest simply throwing money at a problem in hopes of fixing it, but maybe your warnings are being ignored because you don’t fully understand the depth and the root of the issues?

One of the biggest hurdles to elk management in Montana is lack of landowner tolerance. One of the few ways you’re going to increase landowner tolerance is by creating a system to one pay for access in to pay for depredation issues. Neither of those is free, and when people are only paying $20 a year for an elk tag it’s pretty hard to take it seriously that they really give two shits.
So to help me understand. You're saying the issue is with private landowners and the approximately $40,000,000 is not adequate to come up with a solution? Is it a private landowner problem or do you think because a resident tag is cheap, elk hunters don't care?
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
14,253
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
So to help me understand. You're saying the issue is with private landowners and the approximately $40,000,000 is not adequate to come up with a solution? Is it a private landowner problem or do you think because a resident tag is cheap, elk hunters don't care?

I don’t have time right now to go through FWP‘s budget. I’m sure there are graphs you can look up that show how their yearly budget is allocated. There is also plenty of reading on elk management in Montana and the issues with the current EMP. I will try and elaborate more later,

I have no desire though to convince you that increasing the price of a tag is good. You seem to be fully focused on your bias against California and trying to apply that to a different issue.

Just to reiterate, you are correct in that some questions need to be asked and answered before simply agreeing to a price increase on a resident tag. That said, the bigger answers to increase in quality of hunting and Montana are going to cost some money, and at some point the residents need to pony up and stop expecting people from out of state to continually foot the majority of the bill.
 

BucksnDucks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
568
Location
Northern CA
I don’t understand why the “manage people” comment is necessarily bad. Can you more fully explain?
For a broad example in CA, especially on public land deer herds have suffered in recent years. The migratory herd in my area have been particularly hard hit. Yet, CA was still offering two buck tags per season. Late season hunts continue. The idea was managing people by providing opportunity with tags, seasons etc. even if the deer populations were diminishing.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
98,410
Messages
1,517,002
Members
31,019
Latest member
remmy120777
Top