Bulls for Billionaires - MT EQC Meeting today 1:30 PM

[The Hedgehog]

FWP isn't hurting for cash, so not sure why you would raise resident pricing, although yes, it is a ridiculously inexpensive when a sportsman's w/bear costs less than a tank of gas in a full-sized truck.

What percentage of FWP revenue comes from residents vs. non-residents? It's our God given right as a resident to get to hunt anything, almost anywhere, anytime, any weapon, for nearly free. Don't change any of that, maybe just charge more for non-residents, or give them a few 5 day seasons.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

What percentage of FWP revenue comes from residents vs. non-residents? It's our God given right as a resident to get to hunt anything, almost anywhere, anytime, any weapon, for nearly free. Don't change any of that, maybe just charge more for non-residents, or give them a few 5 day seasons.

pure troll baiting, or your delusional and mentally challenged
inflation is a x factory in every state budget, F&G is just mismanaged by not increasing licensing fees for residents

 

[DFS]

View attachment 216580
pure troll baiting, or your delusional and mentally challenged
inflation is a x factory in every state budget, F&G is just mismanaged by not increasing licensing fees for residents

What’s the weather like in texas this time of year?

 

[The Hedgehog]

I see I forgot the sarcasm font?

 

[Ben Lamb]

What percentage of FWP revenue comes from residents vs. non-residents? It's our God given right as a resident to get to hunt anything, almost anywhere, anytime, any weapon, for nearly free. Don't change any of that, maybe just charge more for non-residents, or give them a few 5 day seasons.

It's something around 70-30 split in favor of R's.

Here's a handy chart from the agency: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...slature/fwp-101-fish-wildlife-budget-fy21.pdf

License revenue is is about $63-64 million, give or take. That means the Resident contribution is about $20 million. In order to bring that up and eliminate NR's, each person who purchased a base hunting license would have to spend another $260 or so to make up the lost revenue.

I don't see that passing.

Even if you cut that in half, and cut the number of NR's, you're still looking at some big numbers for each license holder that would prove to be politically unpopular and unable to pass.

 

[Irrelevant]

Well, with all the fellacio that’s been taking place behind closed doors with Hank playing a key hrole.. There’s surely a handful of people that value them..

com'on... I expect better

 

[Gerald Martin]

FWP is mismanaged. But at this point the mismanagement is not a factor of resident licenses being too cheap.

Mismanagement is because of misplaced values and the management policies that arise from those misplaced values as well as trying to achieve good goals with tools and policies that ensure meeting those goals are impossible.

The schizophrenic, piecemeal, policies forced upon elk and the stakeholders of public wildlife in MT by the MT legislature and FWP leadership ensures that conflict will continue until better policies are forged by interested shareholders that better reflect the shared priorities of all shareholders and are biologically and legally viable.

No one would trust a brain surgeon who wants to use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to remove a small tumor.

Yet, we see a continuing cycle of regurgitation of policies that don’t resolve conflict because they are either legally or biologically deficient in their approach to the real problems.

Landowners who advocate for bull tags or who don’t want to see as many elk in their region don’t have an answer for how you can address elk on private property where the landowner doesn’t want to allow access or lower elk numbers on land they control. Yet, there are continuing complaints about too many elk and FWP responds with management strategies that kill different elk in other areas in as a way of “solving the problem.”

Insanity? At a minimum. Probably more like assininity.

 

[Beignet]

Let’s clarify one thing. There wasn’t 280-300 elk taken due to the program. A huge chunk of those came off one place that has allowed access via Block Management for at least 9 years. So this program wasn’t responsible for those hunters being successful. With that being said, If anyone deserves a bull tag it’s them…they provide a ton of access every year and still manage their place for a quality hunt.

I know who of Carnage speaks and echo his statement. The elk taken in their area are done via BMA. They allow a ton of access through a well-managed program to try to mitigate elk damage and hunter misbehavior instead of just complaining about elk and wanting a bull tag handout.

I’d been thinking about them throughout the 454 debate am not sure that any other beneficiaries have truly earned a bull tag as much as this property owner has. Hell, they should be what the program is modeled after.

 

[DFS]

FWP is mismanaged. But at this point the mismanagement is not a factor of resident licenses being too cheap.

Mismanagement is because of misplaced values and the management policies that arise from those misplaced values as well as trying to achieve good goals with tools and policies that ensure meeting those goals are impossible.

The schizophrenic, piecemeal, policies forced upon elk and the stakeholders of public wildlife in MT by the MT legislature and FWP leadership ensures that conflict will continue until better policies are forged by interested shareholders that better reflect the shared priorities of all shareholders and are biologically and legally viable.

No one would trust a brain surgeon who wants to use a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to remove a small tumor.

Yet, we see a continuing cycle of regurgitation of policies that don’t resolve conflict because they are either legally or biologically deficient in their approach to the real problems.

Landowners who advocate for bull tags or who don’t want to see as many elk in their region don’t have an answer for how you can address elk on private property where the landowner doesn’t want to allow access or lower elk numbers on land they control. Yet, there are continuing complaints about too many elk and FWP responds with management strategies that kill different elk in other areas in as a way of “solving the problem.”

Insanity? At a minimum. Probably more like assininity.

Spot on there is no solution to the problem. They can throw as many tags at it as they want, it isn’t going to help. Aerial gunning maybe, we have to think outside the box. (Sarcasm font)

 

[antlerradar]

It's something around 70-30 split in favor of R's.

Here's a handy chart from the agency: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...slature/fwp-101-fish-wildlife-budget-fy21.pdf

License revenue is is about $63-64 million, give or take. That means the Resident contribution is about $20 million. In order to bring that up and eliminate NR's, each person who purchased a base hunting license would have to spend another $260 or so to make up the lost revenue.

I don't see that passing.

Even if you cut that in half, and cut the number of NR's, you're still looking at some big numbers for each license holder that would prove to be politically unpopular and unable to pass.

You are probably right. I have been to the meetings when a resident price increase is brought up. The whining would make fingernails on a chalkboard sound pleasant. I just wish that some of those whiners would realize that until residents step up to the plate and pay up, nonresidents that want to pay their way to the front of the line are going to find someone willing to listen in FWP and the legislature.

 

[BuzzH]

It's something around 70-30 split in favor of R's.

Here's a handy chart from the agency: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...slature/fwp-101-fish-wildlife-budget-fy21.pdf

License revenue is is about $63-64 million, give or take. That means the Resident contribution is about $20 million. In order to bring that up and eliminate NR's, each person who purchased a base hunting license would have to spend another $260 or so to make up the lost revenue.

I don't see that passing.

Even if you cut that in half, and cut the number of NR's, you're still looking at some big numbers for each license holder that would prove to be politically unpopular and unable to pass.

Revenue requirements aside.

Here is what I say is happening. Many residents are simply not demanding change to properly manage elk because its a whopping $20 for a chance to bust an elk if you get lucky and actually see one.

If they had to pay $50, $100, $200 for a tag, maybe they would actually want real management to start taking place because they aren't getting anything for a more significant investment.

My own family is the perfect example. The ONLY reason they buy elk tags is because they're cheap and so they can apply for the breaks. Otherwise, its pray to get lucky and find a legal elk on public land, which is quickly becoming about akin to finding a unicorn.

If they actually want a good chance at a decent elk hunt, they come visit Wyoming and have no problem forking over higher NR fees to do it.

Why? because of management and hunt quality. They actually see elk that aren't stacked up on a piece of private they can't hunt.

 

[rogerthat]

Revenue requirements aside.

Here is what I say is happening. Many residents are simply not demanding change to properly manage elk because its a whopping $20 for a chance to bust an elk if you get lucky and actually see one.

If they had to pay $50, $100, $200 for a tag, maybe they would actually want real management to start taking place because they aren't getting anything for a more significant investment.

My own family is the perfect example. The ONLY reason they buy elk tags is because they're cheap and so they can apply for the breaks. Otherwise, its pray to get lucky and find a legal elk on public land, which is quickly becoming about akin to finding a unicorn.

If they actually want a good chance at a decent elk hunt, they come visit Wyoming and have no problem forking over higher NR fees to do it.

Why? because of management and hunt quality. They actually see elk that aren't stacked up on a piece of private they can't hunt.

You obviously haven’t read the latest gohunt report for Montana elk. Mt general elk tags are one of the best in the west with bulls 330+ available for the hunter willing to put the work in

 

[DFS]

Revenue requirements aside.

Here is what I say is happening. Many residents are simply not demanding change to properly manage elk because its a whopping $20 for a chance to bust an elk if you get lucky and actually see one.

If they had to pay $50, $100, $200 for a tag, maybe they would actually want real management to start taking place because they aren't getting anything for a more significant investment.

My own family is the perfect example. The ONLY reason they buy elk tags is because they're cheap and so they can apply for the breaks. Otherwise, its pray to get lucky and find a legal elk on public land, which is quickly becoming about akin to finding a unicorn.

If they actually want a good chance at a decent elk hunt, they come visit Wyoming and have no problem forking over higher NR fees to do it.

Why? because of management and hunt quality. They actually see elk that aren't stacked up on a piece of private they can't hunt.

Exactly how would a resident go about demanding change to properly manage elk and have any success. I think there are plenty that would like to see it. It’s like beating your head off the wall. No different than mule deer buck hunting the whole rut demand change and FWP is going to laugh at you.

 

[BuzzH]

You obviously haven’t read the latest gohunt report for Montana elk. Mt general elk tags are one of the best in the west with bulls 330+ available for the hunter willing to put the work in

Yeah, I have to wade through the photos on hunttalk of all the general elk photo's with 330+ bulls every year that are killed in Montana on public land.

@tjones needs to set up a 330+ bull express thread next year.

 

[rogerthat]

Exactly how would a resident go about demanding change to properly manage elk and have any success. I think there are plenty that would like to see it. It’s like beating your head off the wall. No different than mule deer buck hunting the whole rut demand change and FWP is going to laugh at you.

Keep submitting your comments. It will pay off!!!

The problem is that you are one of few that want change. Sucks to be a minority

 

[BuzzH]

Exactly how would a resident go about demanding change to properly manage elk and have any success. I think there are plenty that would like to see it. It’s like beating your head off the wall. No different than mule deer buck hunting the whole rut demand change and FWP is going to laugh at you.

Pitchforks and torches if that's what it takes.

And being willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ultimately, this is not a R v NR hunter issue.

At the heart of this issue is that various stakeholders have different interests and different priority of those interests.

We hear a lot of statements of fact thrown around like “too many elk” and “landowners want xyz” or “hunters want xyz” as if these are universally accepted values akin to gravity or laws of physics.

Who gets to decide what the right number of elk are? What is that number?

Personally, I vehemently reject the concept that Montana has too many elk. We certainly don’t have as many elk as there once were or even as many elk as we had a decade ago. We certainly don’t have nearly as many elk on public land as we did just a few years ago.

I think that a state wide objective of 90,000 elk is ridiculous, biologically unhealthy and harmful to the interests of other wildlife and the residents of MT who consider higher elk numbers as being beneficial to their quality of life.

Personally, while I am very appreciative of the attitudes and wildlife management policies of a majority of ranchers and landowners, I am also frustrated by the arrogance of other landowners who view their commercial interests and preferences as being the highest priority on the management totem pole.

Those individuals and entities who seek to promote their self interests above other shareholders at the expense of the health of the resource should not be allowed to dictate the course of wildlife management in Montana.

All shareholders have a reasonable expectation to have their preferences considered and reasonably accommodated. That’s where collaboration among shareholders can give robust and durable policies according to the needs of shareholders in various regions. In a scenario like that everyone gains by ensuring that everyone’s preferences are considered.

As a public land hunter whose quality of life has been negatively affected from the unintended consequences of management policies legislatively forced on us by the Agriculture and Ranching Lobby, I would like to know what is going to be done to remedy that? How are my preferences(and tens of thousands of other public land hunters) going to be accommodated?

Are there private land shareholders who take my preferences seriously and attempt to accommodate me and work in fair collaboration for our mutual benefit? Or can I continue to expect additional legislative assault on the wildlife and recreational experiences I treasure until I conclude that I am completely neglected and the only recourse I have is to increase my representation and force a change of policy regardless of how it impacts other shareholders?

(edit) Additionally, I want to know why almost all the attention of elk management is being monopolized by central and eastern MT which has less than 1/3 of the elk in this state? Why are the demands of certain private landowners in these regions being allowed to set management policies that negatively affect the rest of the state?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Greenhorn is a very gracious and appreciative guest when hunting.

Sadly though there is a lot of truth in what you say for many hunters. Likely has closed down more ranches than all the billionaires combined.

It would be interesting if gohunt/OnX made an app for permissions that helped connect landowners with hunters, and that gave you an ability to leave reviews like uber.

Hunters open the app, the see the properties of participating landowners highlighted, they can contact the landowner, once the property has a hunt/party for the day it stops popping up for other hunters. Landowners can manage all their requests at once, at their leisure.

For a hunter to sign up you have to provide your Driver's license info.

Landowners get to rate you after your hunt, if you don't shut gates, drive off roads... are generally a dick, they can give you 1 star and then other landowners know not to work with you... also encourages folks to be on their best behavior so they don't get booted.

 

[rogerthat]

Pitchforks and torches if that's what it takes.

And being willing to make the sacrifices to make it happen.

Sheesh. I think I will just push the easy button and move to Wyoming with you

 

[rogerthat]

It would be interesting if gohunt/OnX made an app for permissions that helped connect landowners with hunters, and that gave you an ability to leave reviews like uber.

Hunters open the app, the see the properties of participating landowners highlighted, they can contact the landowner, once the property has a hunt/party for the day it stops popping up for other hunters. Landowners can manage all their requests at once, at their leisure.

For a hunter to sign up you have to provide your Driver's license info.

Landowners get to rate you after your hunt, if you don't shut gates, drive off roads... are generally a dick, they can give you 1 star and then other landowners know not to work with you... also encourages folks to be on their best behavior so they don't get booted.

Yes!!! I’m thinking more like an Airbnb app where you can “book” your ranch on the calendar. With the same rating system as you described just like on Airbnb. Of course there will be lots of fees also, my app management fee and cleaning fees etc. Heck I will even put my new ranch that I buy with all the fees I collect on there available for booking. I like it!!