Alt funding for MFWP?

[shoots-straight]

I know you are very defensive about this, but no, I have been paying attention and understand the entire picture, especially the part you left out. The increased revenue came from the substantially increased price. This was necessary because you gave up a huge revenue source. This was well known from the start - it's not even a debatable topic. You could have made even more money with a moderate price increase and keeping the outfitter tags. Again, this isn't even debatable. You threw out a lucrative funding source. Again, not debatable.

That's horse shit Rob. Is what 's not debatable is the FACT that we are making more money off of I-161 than before. We gave up nothing! Less hunters for more money is a win. You can't say we lost money because the tags never sold, the FACT is we made more than IF they had sold out. Thats not debatable.

You can suppose and guess on how many hunters would have, or would not have came with keeping OSL all you want. The FACTS are that those tags would have dropped in price significantly as the year before I-161 they never sold out. Why was that? The fact that our elk herds in our most heavily hunted public lands was decreasing, the perception that wolves killed all the game and the economy are bigger reasons.

I saw the power point presentation in Helena by Sue Daily concerning 607 4 years ago. The head of the agency pulled the plug on that presentation for political reasons. If not for I-161 the agency would have been in serious shit.

That bill created the opportunity for people to turn back in their tags if not drawn for LE tags. That clearly was a loss in total revenue, but still more than before I-161. The fact that we have been giving away close to $5 million dollars in special tags a year is a real loss, not a gain because we sold more.

OSL sales was not a guarantee!

 

[RobG]

Robert, I believe you when you say we are making more money, but you are missing my point. However, don't worry about it since arguing it will just piss each other off for no good reason.

What was in the Daily presentation?

 

[shoots-straight]

Here's a file that was hushed up back when I was attending the power point that got squashed.

It shows we made close to $2 million, (that's right) $2 million dollars more the first year.

That's compared to the 5 year average of tags sales before I-161 which even fudged things against it. Sales were slipping and headed for a bigger loss.

This year sales are on the uptick which shows that the wolf issue and public perception was a bigger issue.

Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming all have been losing revenue, the same as Montana but even more so.

 

[RobG]

OK, that is good info, but I'm not disputing the $2 million increase post I-161. I'm just saying that it came from the ~$230+ average increase in the license fee for the 17,000 NR licenses. Alternatively, that $2 million could have been generated by increasing the the 7,800 OSL prices by $256 - basically if that was done only the OSL people would have to pay the same premium they pay now. Furthermore, you could have generated $3 million by also increasing NR licenses by $110, but the NR prices now are probably too high to increase them further.

Is there any support for undoing 607? I hear it tossed around, but never figured out what went into this session's bill.

 

[shoots-straight]

Alternatively, that $2 million could have been generated by increasing the the 7,800 OSL prices by $256

Nope, wrong again! You didn't read what I said:

You can suppose and guess on how many hunters would have, or would not have came with keeping OSL all you want. The FACTS are that those tags would have dropped in price significantly as the year before I-161 they never sold out. Why was that? The fact that our elk herds in our most heavily hunted public lands was decreasing, the perception that wolves killed all the game and the economy are bigger reas

So when that happens, the price of the OSL was reduced to keep up sales. I can make a case that the price would have slipped farther because those OSL tags would have continued to decline is sales, as nationally all sales did. Just look at the Fishing license sales. Lets not speculate as there's very little evidence to support your case.

 

[shoots-straight]

Is there any support for undoing 607? I hear it tossed around, but never figured out what went into this session's bill.

Yes there was, but somehow got lost in all the other F&G nonsense.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Rob,

You missed the point and I'm not sure you comprehended what I wrote.

Here's what I wrote:

What I took away was not so much about power and who controls what but that we need to find a way to sustain the agency in order to maintain our heritage and our way of life both for those who hunt & fish and those who don't. I'd like to see some local businesses at the table and a few more from Ag as well.

The discussion was primarily focused on sustainable, long term funding. We also spent a lot of time talking about trust and how to rebuild it between organizations so that we get to a place that advances the conversation.

As far as the legislature, I think there is a path to passage. We were able to pass good legislation this session by building coalitions and compromise. I don't think it's politically feasible in 2017, but 2019, sure. There's also the initiative process. While we can't appropriate under a statutory initiative, you can enact significant policy that will get us to where we need to go.

Thinking that we can rely on an aging customer base and ignore the long term averages of declining numbers overall, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[RobG]

Nope, wrong again! You didn't read what I said:



So when that happens, the price of the OSL was reduced to keep up sales. I can make a case that the price would have slipped farther because those OSL tags would have continued to decline is sales, as nationally all sales did. Just look at the Fishing license sales. Lets not speculate as there's very little evidence to support your case.

OK, I see what you are saying, but it depends where you are on the demand curve on how much money would be generated by an increase in fees - i.e. less sales at a higher price producing more revenue.

Don't you think your last comment is a little rude considering there's very little evidence for your speculation that more revenue couldn't be generated by keeping the OSLs? In fact, there's plenty of evidence to support that you are wrong. Basically you took a benefit away that people were willing to pay for. Any time you do that you lower the potential revenue.

 

[shoots-straight]

Basically you took a benefit away that people were willing to pay for. Any time you do that you lower the potential revenue.

With all do respect to you Rob, What the hell are you talking about? Nothing was "Taken away" . Those people still came and paid for a license. They have never sold out sense I-161. If their using an outfitters the price was less to begin with,(than before I-161) so why would their have been less sales because of the Initiative? After lagging sales the price of OSL would have went down, so we would have lost more revenue. They only used X amount of tags for outfitters. The outfitters claimed they bought more leases because they had more clients, because they had more tags available. Makes no sense to say that something was taken "AWAY".

My evidence is that all states in the Rocky Mountain West sold less licenses without I-161 to blame. I used my file to prove that Fishing licenses went down in sales too. The economy was down and still sluggish, but now sales are on the uptick. That points to the economy. We gave away close to $5 million in reduced tags.

 

[RobG]

Robert - thousands of people were willing to pay extra for certainty in getting a licenses. Maybe not the full 7,800 people at the end, but thousands. I-161 took away that option for using people willing to pay extra by making it illegal.

Similarly, the fact that they no longer sell out right away took away the ability to even market these OSLs to the people who were willing to pay extra for the certainty that they can get for free now. So in two ways I-161 took the marketable benefit of certainty away.

And I said I wouldn't debate this topic since you are so passionate about it... oh well, I have learned something from this discussion. I hope you don't take any of this personally.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Rob and Shoots, I see the perspective from both views and feel humbly inadequate to debate either way.
Unfortunately I-161 was contentious from the outset and even now stirs debate concerning the consequential ramifications. It is clear that the analysis involves much more than suppositions about impacts on outfitting, NR hunters numbers, and NR motivational factors. There are many other pertinent factors that don't even relate to hunting. So I'm more interested in Ben's bent on the long range, forward-looking view. After all, it's the future (and financing) of wildlife, hunting, and FWP that is the critical concern.

 

[shoots-straight]

Robert - thousands of people were willing to pay extra for certainty in getting a licenses. Not one NR has lost that "Certainty" and we've got more out of them sense I-161. Maybe not the full 7,800 people at the end, but thousands. I-161 took away that option for using people willing to pay extra by making it illegal. Sense they've never been sold out that's meaningless in content.
Thank God or we would be selling OSL for far less, and still no lack of clients to outfitters.
Similarly, the fact that they no longer sell out right away took away the ability to even market these OSLs to the people who were willing to pay extra for the certainty that they can get for free now. That took place before I-161. They would apply for the cheaper tags, and then if they didn't draw they would buy the OSL. So in two ways I-161 took the marketable benefit of certainty away. The "Benefit" was already lost. Besides being wrong!

And I said I wouldn't debate this topic since you are so passionate about it... oh well, I have learned something from this discussion. I hope you don't take any of this personally.

There's no loss of revenue associated with the lost of OSL. None! Tag sales slipped overall (region wide) because of a variety of reasons we went into. You take care of the resource, keep in place opportunity to access that resource, and create an environment where the recreational value stays high, your going to sell tags. Opportunity sells tags!

Can you reduce game populations and expect to sell more tags? Makes about as much sense as this discussion.

Will people come to hunt if it's a marginal hunting experience? Crowded?

If it's free they might. So how do we raise funds with that?

 

[antlerradar]

There was some discussion of repealing 607 in the license and funding citizens advisory council. I argued against the repeal. This is why. I live is one of the 23 districts that are bundled into the 900 archery license. At the time the draw odds for 900 archery was about 50/50. If 607 was repealed the effective price of a nonresident 900 archery license would be twice the cost of a combo license. If the draw odds got worse the effective price would increase. Repealing 607 could price many DIY hunters of modest means out of a 900 or Breaks Archery Elk Tag. The result could be fewer nonresidents applying for the combo license. If you didn't draw special elk the combo license just became a over priced deer license. It is not certain the repeal of 607 would result in more revenue.
Also repealing 607 would only help the more well off hunter as his chances to draw will increase. For instance if the 900 archery odds for nonresidents went to 75 % with most of the applicants coming form people willing to pay to play it is likely that more land would be leased for archery elk.

Antlerradar

 

[RobG]

Shoots - I disagree with your conclusion but I'd just repeat myself again so I'll let your post be the last one on that tangential topic.

What do you think about tapping into other sources and what would those sources be?

 

[EasternMTHunter]

I would have to say that I agree with Ben on alternative funding source. However, I also agree with Randy about being careful with who is helping pay so they don’t get a louder voice. I would like to think that if everyone paid into it in some fashion then one of the “groups” couldn’t claim they were paying more and deserved more of a say at the table. While I was living in Missouri I voted for the minor increase in sales tax to fund the FWP there. Everyone in the state benefits from the job that FWP does so why shouldn’t everyone have to contribute? I had suggested some ideas to the committee such as a small increase in the bed tax, a small increase in the gasoline tax, or a tax on the gambling. Trying to add on something small so that everyone would pay and not complain. Not promoting more taxes but it would have to be an idea where everyone contributes so no one group can claim a larger voice than the sportsman who have gotten us this far.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I think that the outdoor industry should support another run at CARA. I know I would have no problem having some increased prices on gear. Patagonia does their 1% for the planet, but they get to choose where the money goes.

"Non-consumptive" users definitely have an impact on game when recreating. I see just as much game when I'm out in the backcountry during the winter in a non-hunting trip. I have inadvertently spooked elk when skiing.

Is the sportsman's voice tied to Pittman/Robertson and tag funding? I thought that the make-up of State Game committee's was more tied to the North American Model of Conservation (when those committee's were established). So wouldn't there need to be changes in the structure of state government in order for "greenies" to truly have a seat at the table?

Sorry for some basic questions - just trying to further understand folk's point of view on this.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I think that the outdoor industry should support another run at CARA. I know I would have no problem having some increased prices on gear. Patagonia does their 1% for the planet, but they get to choose where the money goes.

"Non-consumptive" users definitely have an impact on game when recreating. I see just as much game when I'm out in the backcountry during the winter in a non-hunting trip. I have inadvertently spooked elk when skiing.

Is the sportsman's voice tied to Pittman/Robertson and tag funding? I thought that the make-up of State Game committee's was more tied to the North American Model of Conservation (when those committee's were established). So wouldn't there need to be changes in the structure of state government in order for "greenies" to truly have a seat at the table?

Sorry for some basic questions - just trying to further understand folk's point of view on this.

I agree with you on CARA. Another run should be made at it.

The sportsman's voice is via their commission and/or directors, and to a certain extent legislators. PR money can be allocated, but most agencies still need either commission approval or legislative approval to access and spend it.

You are correct in that non-consumptive users would need to be appointed to commissions, advisory groups, etc in order to have more of a voice. Some states, like Washington, have people on their commission that are not necessarily hunters or anglers. This has its pros and cons.

The pros are that oftentimes these folks do a very good job of adhering to science based management, they don't have their own agendas in terms of trophy units, gear restrictions, etc, and they are more likely to be objective on polarizing issues like wolves and grizzly bears.

The cons are that they don't have the hunter or angler perspective, which I think is critical to maintain from a heritage standpoint. They may not have the perspective to view things that are important to hunter and angler recruitment and retention. It can be very easy to view things from only a scientific standpoint, without the eyes to look for opportunities to be had without any associated costs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think that the outdoor industry should support another run at CARA. I know I would have no problem having some increased prices on gear. Patagonia does their 1% for the planet, but they get to choose where the money goes.

"Non-consumptive" users definitely have an impact on game when recreating. I see just as much game when I'm out in the backcountry during the winter in a non-hunting trip. I have inadvertently spooked elk when skiing.

Is the sportsman's voice tied to Pittman/Robertson and tag funding? I thought that the make-up of State Game committee's was more tied to the North American Model of Conservation (when those committee's were established). So wouldn't there need to be changes in the structure of state government in order for "greenies" to truly have a seat at the table?

Sorry for some basic questions - just trying to further understand folk's point of view on this.

Agree on CARA and the Outdoor Industry. They do need to step up to the plate and help.

The sportsmen's voice is not just tied to tags & PR/DJ but based on who shows up as well. Many commissions have specific seats for landowners, hunters, etc and places like CA have added non-consumptive users to the commission but ultimately, I don't think that's a good concept because it only further polarizes the conversation and focuses on the issues that divide us rather than unite us.

If the constitution mandates that FWP manage wildlife for all citizens, then all citizens should have an equal voice, even those I disagree with.

 

[Big Fin]

If the constitution mandates that FWP manage wildlife for all citizens, then all citizens should have an equal voice, even those I disagree with.

Agreed. And the Constitution does say "citizen(s)."

But wait, the USSC says corporations have individual rights too. So maybe that extends to non-profit groups, since they are technically formed under the Incorporation statutes of the state they are incorporated in. Following the Citizens United case, I guess we need to manage wildlife for not just citizens, but corporations, non-profit groups, and whoever else can establish some sort of quasi-citizenship.

 

[RobG]

If the constitution mandates that FWP manage wildlife for all citizens, then all citizens should have an equal voice, even those I disagree with.

Ben, what you don't seem to "comprehend," to use your words and tone, is that they already have a voice. In fact, the wolf advocates already have a disproportionately greater voice as evidenced by the fact that hunters who support the wolf introduction are in a clear minority. In spite of that fact you keep getting quoted in the press representing hunters saying we need to bring these guys to the table. Nonsense, they are already there. They already have a substantial influence on wildlife policy that cost Montana millions and required Tester/Simpson to set a terrible precedent. And as our population changes the anti-trappers and anti hunters will have an increasing amount of influence even without any financial lever. The worst thing you could do is give them a bigger financial lever to give them even more influence because once it is there it isn't going away. And yet every time I see you quoted you are saying we need to bring these guys to the table and give them an equal voice. Even with the wolf stamp.

And for those who think I'm being a dick in this exchange to anyone with a differing viewpoint, you aren't getting the whole story. When I brought this up elsewhere Ben told me I needed to go board myself up in house because I was being paranoid and we could trust Montana to do the right thing. Wow.

I'm not saying exclude them from the conversation or not focus on common goals or that DOW isn't one of the better groups, but for crying out loud, don't be giving credibility to the myth that they don't have a say in what is going on or we owe more to them because of our constitution. They have a hell of a lot more say than I do and they already have a lot more than they originally negotiated. And this input is coming from someone (me) that has always supported wolves, but I'm not foolish enough to trust these guys to think these guys need more influence in our wildlife.