Draft Elk Management Plan is out

[Elky Welky]

You’re so correct Ben. The best habitat in the world will not stand infinite pressure. We must start limiting ourselves. It is self evident that the hunting community can’t/won’t do that on their own, FWP has to do this.

But some at FWP and/or in the legislature see hunters more as dollar signs than as tools for management. Real efforts to reduce pressure were by and large shot down this year in the session. So until and unless they are willing to have less hunter money coming in, we will continue to go around and around.

 

[antlerradar]

But some at FWP and/or in the legislature see hunters more as dollar signs than as tools for management. Real efforts to reduce pressure were by and large shot down this year in the session. So until and unless they are willing to have less hunter money coming in, we will continue to go around and around.

Increasing Montana's ridiculous low resident prices would likely reduce pressure and increase FWP revenue. Win,Win, well maybe.

 

[Elky Welky]

Increasing Montana's ridiculous low resident prices would likely reduce pressure and increase FWP revenue. Win,Win, well maybe.

I have no objection to marginally raising resident prices to offset costs, although residents shouldn't be priced out when they are the ones who live and work here year-round. But that doesn't address pressure without capping or reducing nonresident numbers. Resident hunter numbers have actually fallen by 7% over the last ten years, while nonresident numbers have skyrocketed by 80%. Couple that with a decrease in lands accessible by private permission or enrollment in Block Management, and here we are.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

although residents shouldn't be priced out when they are the ones who live and work here year-round.

LOL. How much per day is that elk tag?

 

[Elky Welky]

LOL. How much per day is that elk tag?

Between our property taxes, income taxes, and incredibly low wages, the price of that tag is pretty dang high.

 

[SAJ-99]

although residents shouldn't be priced out when they are the ones who live and work hunt here year-round.

FIFY. LOL

Also, I am starting to question this argument. On one hand, Montana's are complaining about all the people coming into the state and on the other trying to say how much of a sacrifice it is to live there. This isn't 1990. Jobs that can be done from home can be done wherever home is and the pay is the same.

 

[DFS]

I have no objection to marginally raising resident prices to offset costs, although residents shouldn't be priced out when they are the ones who live and work here year-round. But that doesn't address pressure without capping or reducing nonresident numbers. Resident hunter numbers have actually fallen by 7% over the last ten years, while nonresident numbers have skyrocketed by 80%. Couple that with a decrease in lands accessible by private permission or enrollment in Block Management, and here we are.

Did you get your property tax increase yet? I would bet more hunters have quit because of decreased quality of hunt or success than being priced out. It’s not unreasonable for an elk tag to cost as much as a tank of gas.

 

[bigsky2]

I have no objection to marginally raising resident prices to offset costs, although residents shouldn't be priced out when they are the ones who live and work here year-round. But that doesn't address pressure without capping or reducing nonresident numbers. Resident hunter numbers have actually fallen by 7% over the last ten years, while nonresident numbers have skyrocketed by 80%. Couple that with a decrease in lands accessible by private permission or enrollment in Block Management, and here we are.

This has been posted on here before.....lots of room between dirt cheap and being priced out.

 

[Elky Welky]

Did you get your property tax increase yet? I would bet more hunters have quit because of decreased quality of hunt or success than being priced out. It’s not unreasonable for an elk tag to cost as much as a tank of gas.

I never said it was. I said I don't object to marginally raising resident costs. I don't think an $80 would price too many of us out.

That's a very privileged argument @SAJ-99. The majority of the work Montanans do (aside from those that live in Bozeman and work in tech) is in agriculture, healthcare, service, other work that requires a person to be present. My job, for example, is not one that can be done from home, and compared to the national average, I make 1/2 to 2/3 of what others in my position do nationwide, and it is the same across my industry.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If y'all want to start talking about cutting licenses, etc, then you need to know the budget & how your choices are going to impact every other aspect.

For example, if you want to cut the B10 & B11 tags, FWP loses the earmarks that protect Habitat Montana funding and Block Management Funding.

Simply cutting the orphaned deer licenses that get resold as B11's, you're looking at a $3 million hit. You'd have to double the price of a resident deer tag to just make up the loss of those 7,000 or so licenses.

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/2025-Biennium/Section-C/Session/FWP-Budget-Information-and-Guide.pdf

 

[SAJ-99]

I never said it was. I said I don't object to marginally raising resident costs. I don't think an $80 would price too many of us out.

That's a very privileged argument @SAJ-99. The majority of the work Montanans do (aside from those that live in Bozeman and work in tech) is in agriculture, healthcare, service, other work that requires a person to be present. My job, for example, is not one that can be done from home, and compared to the national average, I make 1/2 to 2/3 of what others in my position do nationwide, and it is the same across my industry.

Just trying to square the argument. Your unemployment rate was 2.3% in May. I think you need to ask for a raise.

 

[Elky Welky]

Just trying to square the argument. Your unemployment rate was 2.3% in May. I think you need to ask for a raise.

I appreciate you questioning it, it's a valid point (I'm also happy to tango with "have your cake and eat it too" arguments). And believe me, if I got a raise, I'd gladly start paying the department more money to do their job better.

Awesome @Ben Lamb! So all you are saying is my deer tag should be $32 as opposed to $16 and that would reduce pressure? That makes the point right there!

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Between our property taxes, income taxes, and incredibly low wages, the price of that tag is pretty dang high.

Red herring alert.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I appreciate you questioning it, it's a valid point (I'm also happy to tango with "have your cake and eat it too" arguments). And believe me, if I got a raise, I'd gladly start paying the department more money to do their job better.

Awesome @Ben Lamb! So all you are saying is my deer tag should be $32 as opposed to $16 and that would reduce pressure? That makes the point right there!

Sure. You just also have to be ok with losing access and habitat conservation funding in the budget process.

 

[SAJ-99]

I appreciate you questioning it, it's a valid point (I'm also happy to tango with "have your cake and eat it too" arguments). And believe me, if I got a raise, I'd gladly start paying the department more money to do their job better.

Awesome @Ben Lamb! So all you are saying is my deer tag should be $32 as opposed to $16 and that would reduce pressure? That makes the point right there!

I would start by spitting the elk and deer into two tags and making them pay $16 for each. Just for a year. We will get to measure the price elasticity of demand. But I agree, the state issues too many NR tags. If the ag producers are hurting so much, maybe they should get transferable tags. I'm sure they will declare it as income on the tax return.

 

[Elky Welky]

Sure. You just also have to be ok with losing access and habitat conservation funding in the budget process.

Therein lies the rub. We've tethered all of this to money, and you are actually making my point for me. My argument is the same argument Nick Gevock made when MSA was testifying in support of 525. If we only think about the money generated by sportsmen's dollars, then we have to maintain an unsustainable model of throwing more hunters on the landscape to keep up. It's clever and ties our hands.

 

[SAJ-99]

Sure. You just also have to be ok with losing access and habitat conservation funding in the budget process.

When an increase is suggested, people will use "But there is a budget surplus" and "They're not using the money they have"...and they are not wrong. They are just a bit naive in thinking it is their money that created the surplus.

 

[Elky Welky]

When an increase is suggested, people will use "But there is a budget surplus" and "They're not using the money they have"...and they are not wrong. They are just a bit naive in thinking it is their money that created the surplus.

It's the weed, man.

 

[SAJ-99]

It's the weed, man.

From the 2.3% that are unemployed obviously.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Therein lies the rub. We've tethered all of this to money, and you are actually making my point for me. My argument is the same argument Nick Gevock made when MSA was testifying in support of 525. If we only think about the money generated by sportsmen's dollars, then we have to maintain an unsustainable model of throwing more hunters on the landscape to keep up. It's clever and ties our hands.

Respectfully, I don't think it makes the point you or Nick think it does. It's essentially playing into the hands of Rosendale (PR/DJ funding elimination) and Lee (LWCF opposition) as those individuals continu to make the case that all conservation spending should be allocated on a yearly basis and not contain clauses that allow for statutory appropriations. Stable, reliable funding sources do more to enact long-term conservation plans that the herky-jerky back and forth of the biennial season setting process. by eliminating the funding sources for conservation, you simply give the legislature far more authority over wildlife management than if you left the funding mechanisms alone and focused on other issues within the same sphere.

When the B10 & B11 were brought into existence in the 80's or 90's, the compromise that conservationists were able to establish is that the NR licenses that get sold the most should fund programs that benefit resident hunters, landowners and wildlife. Because Montana's wildlife funding has to go through a budgeting process, unlike Wyoming, the ability of legislators to mess with FWP funding has been severely limited in terms of raising funding to pay for other things. It's also helped create a much stronger advocacy for conservation funding because there's a stable, secure source of money to help ensure we have more WMA's, Conservation Easements & almost 7 million acres of public access to private land through Block Management.

There are ways to cut NR licenses that don't get into the mix of conservation and access funding. 525 was not one of those ways. That bill would have eliminated the funding for the migratory bird conservation fund (wetlands restoration that helps wildlife, including native fisheries and species in need of conservation like sage grouse) and it would have cut the Upland Game Bird Habitat Enhancement Fund to almost nil as well. That helps ensure that we have grouse and private lands access. That's why the 13 national groups lobbied against 525 and the Molnar bills which would have totally eliminated Habitat MT funding out of the license dollars (while Molnar was trying to kill 442, which if he was successful, would have totally gutted Habitat MT and gutted funding for the access enhancement account (Block Mgt)

The reason sportsmen dollars are the primary driver of FWP budgeting is precisely the reason why we've had to defend the recreational mj tax funding going to Habitat MT, non-game, trails and parks. It has come under attack both sessions, and we're going to see more attacks on this funding in the next session, and probably for a few after that.
Like it or not - the budget is what drives 99% of all policy decisions. For wildlife, if we start cutting willy-nilly, we end up shortchanging not only the general license account, but the actual conservation of all wildlife. As I mentioned to several folks who were working on 525, crunch the numbers and know what you're cutting and who's ox is going to get gored.

Meanwhile, FWP funding is pretty stable and if you look at the budget picture encased in the pdf I linked too earlier, there are going to be years where the Ending Fund Balance is out of alignment with the cost/revenue estimates. There are ways to cut licenses without impacting the bottom line outside of the GLA hit, which can be made up through targeted license increases.

if the desire of the legislature and the people is to bust up the B10's & B11's, then we need to understand the total impact of those decisions before sending a bill to the Governor's desk. If we're going to try and cut NR waterfowl hunters or upland hunters, then there should be a replacement funding source identified before hand - unfortunately, the USFWS has indicated that any more grandfathering of dedicated funding sources using license dollars is likely a loss of control issue for PR/DJ and as such the agency isn't willing toi lose the PR/DJ funding to try and alter those programs too far outside of the boundaries that the Service laid out.

Conservation shouldn't suffer because of an attempt to course correct on resident versus non-resident, I don't think that's really a radical position.