El Jason
Well-known member
Nope, I don’t know a thing about you. Neither am I offended.
I have told you how additions funding could be used to improve elk management for the unwashed public. So have several others.
A vote to increase resident permit cost in Montana
- Thread starter Hamm59701
- Start date
I have told you how additions funding could be used to improve elk management for the unwashed public. So have several others.
El Jason
Well-known member
Dead serious.
El Jason
Well-known member
That’s because the issues pertaining to deer management are completely different than those pertaining to elk management.
El Jason
Well-known member
Your questions have been answered. Several times. I’m not going to give you an actuarial analysis, nor am I going to tabulate FTE costs and everything else. I honestly don’t care if you agree with my premise or not. I completely understand why some are skeptical about the need for additional funds.
Right now Montana has over 30 combined game warden and field biologist positions vacant. Part of the reason is shitty pay. It’s not the whole reason, but it absolutely plays a role. Good luck adding more enforcement when they cannot retain what they have, and fill vacancies as they come.
Those 20 dollar elk tags are important though. Gotta keep folks in the field while they continue to pound every remaining public land elk out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Schaaf
Well-known member
“It’s my birthright as a Montanan to smoke a 1.5 year old deer on Thanksgiving morning, hang it in the garage with the back straps removed, let it hang for 3 weeks and throw it in the garbage as I hear the garbage truck come around the block at 8 am on a Tuesday morning. This is my heritage.”
El Jason
Well-known member
Way too much truth to this.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Sadly there is a lot of truth to this.
Should have read the next post before typing. JLS is faster on the keys than me.
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 934
i counted 8 carcasses yesteryday. within 6 miles off my house, backstraps and some meat missing on the quarters, 3 forkies rest does, i dont understand,,,,,,
SAJ-99
Well-known member
If you increase tag cost, hunter numbers may decline. Maybe not at $5 or $10, but double the cost and it certainly will. I think we would all generally agree on that. You need to keep revenue the same to keep funding the programs MT has. Simple economics. But any change to improve requires sacrifice, and that sacrifice may not be distributed equally. So your point is valid.
Yes MT revenue from tag sales is large. But Montana is a large state with lots of public land and diverse regions. You can’t manage eastern deer and western deer the same way. You need biologist that understand the dynamics of the region they cover. You also need game officers to cover all that ground. The number is large, but try dividing the revenue by the number of square miles and comparing it to the other states. It might be interesting to see the results.
It seems you tilt toward being anti-government. We are not going to change that here. All I can say is that 95% of those government employees are everyday people trying to do the best job they can with the resources they have, while raising families and living normal lives like everyone else. Keep that in mind when you attack the “wastefulness”.
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
I appreciate the reply, and do indeed understand the need for funding and support it.
This has been an interesting thread that seemed to focus on the need for increased tag revenue, citing all the potential benefits on a forum that in general has not praised the past work following increased revenue. A few years ago MT reached over $1000 for NR combo tags, that was a big increase. Have things changed much for the better?
My main questions are how much of an increase, what is the expected benefit, what is expected negative and is the goal to also price out some resident hunters (decrease numbers).
I was a little dramatic with the anti-gov tone, I see that. I'm just jaded, having lived in a state that has the highest taxes, fees, and general cost of living with little benefit coming back to residents. Tags and license cost increase yearly with little return to sportsman/woman. When fees, taxes etc go up they do not come down. It's usually a "some is good more is better" approach to keep dollars coming in.
The government employees I know and talk with are not offended by this conversation, mostly because they see it firsthand. I'm not looking to condemn the front line, hard workers in the field. It's usually the upper management decisions I disagree with.
It's indeed a unique situation when the "customer" voluntarily wants a price increase on goods or services offered to a certain group. Is the idea if we pay more, the extra money will certainly help or by paying more the tag has more value. Either reason is a leap in faith for such a large group of individuals that make up the group.
If the above theory works, can it be applied to other areas in which MT residents enjoy very affordable goods/services?
This is where my dramatic anti-gov sounding warnings apply.
If the theory is solid apply to vehicle registrations- roads cost money
Increase tuition at state schools-education is important
Sales tax- pump the brakes that's scary
Gasoline tax- because yea, the government likes money
Tag prices will eventually go up, whether the residents in MT want it or not. Asking for it early might make it feel better for some when it happens.
Lots of good info on this thread from all participants.
FWP's budget for 2021. It starts on Page 19: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0002.pdf
Budget summary: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/BA-2021/Section-C/FWP.pdf
Budget graph for some context: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...slature/fwp-101-fish-wildlife-budget-fy21.pdf
FWP, under HB 141 passed in 2015, set up a licensing committee that has done some really good work relative to maintaining FWP's revenue stream so as to ensure fiscal responsibility & having a more predictable cash flow issue. Since most F&G agencies are budgeted based on the ebbs & flows of license revenue and inflation, most agencies go through times of plenty and times of tightened belts. As such, financial managers for these agencies have to be able to flatten that curve to provide services on an even keel. In MT, we've had good revenue streams for a while now so the General License Fund is full and there's a balance that carries forward. That balance generally is left alone, but as some politicians wanted to increase their standing with the hunting community, the balance is slowly being spent down.
The Landowner programs available for folks to partake in hover somewhere around $14 million per year between Block Management, WHIP, Habitat MT, MTPLAN, etc. There is a need for increased funding within the agency, but it's not necessarily for access programs alone.
Furthermore, there are over 30 vacancies at the agency right now between just Wardens & Biologists, with at least another 4-5 vacancies elsewhere within the agency. That's a huge decline in personnel working on anything outside of Helena and it should be a major red flag for any sportsmen or landowner.
Habitat improvement funding is needed for public lands, etc. That's a massive blind spot in MT's picture for wildlife management. If sportsmen are to be asked to give up their long seasons, and have their tags raised in cost, then there has to be a significant investment in public land management for that in order to restore some length & opportunity that gets taken away. There also remains the need for better incentives and programs for landowners who don't necessarily fit into the current models that are out there. That can be achieved through a type 3 block management or through a damage program that works on a herd unit level rather than at an individual producer level.
Changing season structure is going to be difficult unless there is a well reasoned and defined outcome that hunters can support. Otherwise, you're just taking opportunity away and that's politically a loser argument.
FWP's budget for 2021. It starts on Page 19: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0002.pdf
Budget summary: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/BA-2021/Section-C/FWP.pdf
Budget graph for some context: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...slature/fwp-101-fish-wildlife-budget-fy21.pdf
FWP, under HB 141 passed in 2015, set up a licensing committee that has done some really good work relative to maintaining FWP's revenue stream so as to ensure fiscal responsibility & having a more predictable cash flow issue. Since most F&G agencies are budgeted based on the ebbs & flows of license revenue and inflation, most agencies go through times of plenty and times of tightened belts. As such, financial managers for these agencies have to be able to flatten that curve to provide services on an even keel. In MT, we've had good revenue streams for a while now so the General License Fund is full and there's a balance that carries forward. That balance generally is left alone, but as some politicians wanted to increase their standing with the hunting community, the balance is slowly being spent down.
The Landowner programs available for folks to partake in hover somewhere around $14 million per year between Block Management, WHIP, Habitat MT, MTPLAN, etc. There is a need for increased funding within the agency, but it's not necessarily for access programs alone.
Furthermore, there are over 30 vacancies at the agency right now between just Wardens & Biologists, with at least another 4-5 vacancies elsewhere within the agency. That's a huge decline in personnel working on anything outside of Helena and it should be a major red flag for any sportsmen or landowner.
Habitat improvement funding is needed for public lands, etc. That's a massive blind spot in MT's picture for wildlife management. If sportsmen are to be asked to give up their long seasons, and have their tags raised in cost, then there has to be a significant investment in public land management for that in order to restore some length & opportunity that gets taken away. There also remains the need for better incentives and programs for landowners who don't necessarily fit into the current models that are out there. That can be achieved through a type 3 block management or through a damage program that works on a herd unit level rather than at an individual producer level.
Changing season structure is going to be difficult unless there is a well reasoned and defined outcome that hunters can support. Otherwise, you're just taking opportunity away and that's politically a loser argument.
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
It's been interesting hearing your opinions. Glad to hear you're not offended by a challenge to your view point. We agree on this point. You have told of how additional funds could be used. Others have shared lists of ideas for spending. I understand completely. How those funds are actually going to used, at what cost to purchaser, and to what benefit is what I question.
Based on current budgets and projected revenue streams, you would need to raise revenue in order to achieve many of the described policies in this thread. Currently, the FWP budget is well allocated and fairly trim. There are always issues relative to PR revenue, etc but for the most part, FWP's budget is on fine footing for the foreseable future. But there's not a ton of overage that can be spent without fist projecting out base budget needs for the next few budgeting cycles.
New revenue isn't always needed for some programs (Access programs have their own revenue streams that are grandfathered in from the diversion issue) but for the needed programs that MT is currently underserving, yes, there needs to be some new cash brought to the table.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
So pricing a product at the higher price, while still maintaining a demand for that product, thus maximizing revenue- the basic foundation of capitalism, is actually communism in your eyes and should not be a strategy for State agencies? What exactly is your non-communism alternative?
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
No, not at all what I was saying in context of thread. But hey, thanks for joining conversation. It seems a bit disingenuous to attack a tiny piece of long conversation in order to prove some irrelevant point. We are talking about "customers" wanting an increase on themselves. Not a state agency economic strategy. But either way man you got me, what a burn.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
@Ben Lamb explains it all way better than I could.
To the highlighted point, resident vs non-resident fees is not the point of the thread. The increase in NR fees was mostly to pay for increases in costs of the existing programs. Increasing resident fees is a bit of a political landmine, and residents vote and NRs don't. I agree with most here that residents aren't really paying their fair share and the burden is being pushed to NRs. But NRs keep buying tags, so I don't feel too sorry for them.
The core problem is that new programs need legislative approvals and the way Montanans vote, it is getting harder and harder to make changes. The legislature this year tried to find ways to reduce the effectiveness of the current programs, like limiting payments for Block Management, trying to kill Habitat Montana, and prohibiting land purchases by the state are all limiting factors to public land hunters. Some of those died the appropriate death, but only because people who cared made an issue of it. There are a lot of threads in the Montana state forum debating this stuff. The change happening (evolution over the years) is that the wildlife is being privatized for $. We agree this is bad, but debate how to find $ to compete. Money talks and it certainly speaks loudly in Montana.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Disingenuous? You're the one attempting to make leaps of logic that Evel Knievel wouldn't attempt. Sorry if I'm just jumping in, I was in MT...
You could do some stuff relative to the B10 as far as decoupling the elk from the deer altogether to bring down the cost of the NR license in MT, but you can already do that by turning in the deer portion. MT is also blowing apart of the 90/10 split by allowing roughly 28K NR deer permits versus the 17K Elk. But whatever.
Resident prices re kept low because residents also pay local option taxes, property taxes & income taxes to fund the state government (Your tax burden has gone way up if you're a resident of MT, while corporate taxes have been severely reduced, btw). If your legislature is going to ask property owners to carry the lion's share of the tax burden for a state, then those folks should get low cost licenses as a benefit of being a citizen of MT.
The money issue is the key though. If you want to increase Block Management to actually compete with a lease, then you have to double the max payout ($25K) and provide all services for the hunting public rather than leave it up to the landowner. That funding comes from a portion of the B10 & B11 licenses that get sold, so we'd have to either statutorily reconfigure the funding allocation within the current structure or switch funding sources to the General License Account, which some at FWP would likely be more favorable too.
I would hope that the legislative battles are done with Habitat MT for a while (Dumb bills will continue to be introduced but the likelihood of passage is low). There are good champions in both parties for the program and it's been less than volatile in the budgeting process. That doesn't mean this administration will use the program, but even if it sits idly by for 4 or 8 years, then it still exists & can be used when a more pro-sportsman governor is in place.
Resident prices re kept low because residents also pay local option taxes, property taxes & income taxes to fund the state government (Your tax burden has gone way up if you're a resident of MT, while corporate taxes have been severely reduced, btw). If your legislature is going to ask property owners to carry the lion's share of the tax burden for a state, then those folks should get low cost licenses as a benefit of being a citizen of MT.
The money issue is the key though. If you want to increase Block Management to actually compete with a lease, then you have to double the max payout ($25K) and provide all services for the hunting public rather than leave it up to the landowner. That funding comes from a portion of the B10 & B11 licenses that get sold, so we'd have to either statutorily reconfigure the funding allocation within the current structure or switch funding sources to the General License Account, which some at FWP would likely be more favorable too.
I would hope that the legislative battles are done with Habitat MT for a while (Dumb bills will continue to be introduced but the likelihood of passage is low). There are good champions in both parties for the program and it's been less than volatile in the budgeting process. That doesn't mean this administration will use the program, but even if it sits idly by for 4 or 8 years, then it still exists & can be used when a more pro-sportsman governor is in place.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So per this, are resident taxes only going to specific programs?
For instance warden salaries, those are only coming from license sales and not taxes?
For the most part, the GLA, General License Account, is the primary account for salaries, benefits, etc that employees get and that is mixed in with a portion of Pittman Robertson funding. I am not aware of any general fund )tax dollars) that go to the agency in any meaningful manner (this excludes some cost-sharing, etc).
Similar threads
