Extreme hunting pressure in region 7.

[Forkyfinder]

Your point is that people are using BMA's without contributing, correct?

My point is that NR bird hunters use an outsized amount of BMA funding and space, relative to their fees, and that the # of them is growing unsustainably.

Do you have bma numbers by utilization? I cant find that data, if it exists.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My point is that NR bird hunters use an outsized amount of BMA funding and spacd, relative to their fees, and that the # of them is growing unsustainably.

Every NR upland hunter contributes $40 directly into the hunter access fund. Every NR upland season license contributes $23 to the Upland game bird program, which provides access.

So if the NR upland hunter is contributing $63 directly to MT access programs, how is that outsized compared to others, including residents who contribute far less to the program?

 

[SAJ-99]

Pavolvian tree carp esque response

Id support your state prioritizing its residents too.

Because my post was a joke, I won't take that treecarp reference personally. LOL.

Montana residents have put themselves in a bit of a pickle. Montana has a low population for its size, FWP if self-funded and doesn't use general tax funds, you have an expensive BM program to get access, and Montanas as a group are cheap. So while the post was a joke, the situation is a real problem. Like others have said, let's see if next year's changes help.

I never really ran into bird hunters when I lived there. But I can remember 10yrs ago seeing a lot of what is being described - a few truckloads of dog beds in NR hunters trucks. I don't get it. I have hunted birds and I like a good hike, but am certainly not driving halfway across the country to do it. I figure the average cost of grouse is about $80/lb. But to each their own.

I will be there in a few weeks for deer I will keep an eye out for bird hunters and see if i notice a difference.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So if the NR upland hunter is contributing $63 directly to MT access programs, how is that outsized compared to others, including residents who contribute far less to the program?

Dont you believe in some level of prioritization? Compare them to the same "group" or "class of license" they reside in. I dont disagree MT R tags are too cheap, and we contribute little to nothing to bma, thats not the point.

The following seems to be how every state handles priorities for recreation and wildlife harvest opportunity:

1. Landowners
2. Residents
3. Non residents

Comparing NR bird hunters to NR deer hunters is relevant. Comparing R hunters to NR bird hunters is irrelevant.

 

[Southern Elk]

 

[bigsky2]

It would be really interesting to know how much BMA money is "wasted". I can think of one BMA in particular, where the county road runs through it with sign in boxes on each end. Nearly every hunter that drives through there stops and signs in at the box, just in case they happen to see a deer from the road while driving through the BMA. The vast majority don't even step foot on the BMA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Dont you believe in some level of prioritization? Compare them to the same "group" or "class of license" they reside in. I dont disagree MT R tags are too cheap, and we contribute little to nothing to bma, thats not the point.

The following seems to be how every state handles priorities for recreation and wildlife harvest opportunity:

1. Landowners
2. Residents
3. Non residents

Comparing NR bird hunters to NR deer hunters is relevant. Comparing R hunters to NR bird hunters is irrelevant.

We did support the resident 10 day priority and it was our work that added UGEP lands to the bill (another 300K acres of opportunity for residents first). So yes, prioritization for resident opportunity is important. But so is making decisions based on cold facts rather than emotional responses that would have deleterious consequences to access programs.

Your point was that for the utilization of the BMA, upland hunters don't contribute as much as they should. That's incorrect simply because of their base license, which provides $40 out the overall $50 base license. 3 day licenses contribute $10 to UGEP while season licenses contribute $25 or some such.

If you are a NR upland hunter, then out of the $160 you have paid for a base license and your season license, $65 or over 1/3 of the license fee has gone directly to access programs. This doesn't include the conservation license, of which a portion goes to the DNRC to pay for state lands access as well. So if over 30% of their license fees go directly to access programs, why should they pay even more than they already do?

I do think comparing that to what a resident puts in the kitty for access is relevant to the discussion as it helps color the debate with reality based on past experiences. People can claim that "well we'd obviously have to increase the resident license side" have never gone through a license fee increase. There is little understanding of how much work that takes, nor the pitfalls that surround us as we go down that route.

 

[Forkyfinder]

We did support the resident 10 day priority and it was our work that added UGEP lands to the bill (another 300K acres of opportunity for residents first). So yes, prioritization for resident opportunity is important. But so is making decisions based on cold facts rather than emotional responses that would have deleterious consequences to access programs.

Your point was that for the utilization of the BMA, upland hunters don't contribute as much as they should. That's incorrect simply because of their base license, which provides $40 out the overall $50 base license. 3 day licenses contribute $10 to UGEP while season licenses contribute $25 or some such.

If you are a NR upland hunter, then out of the $160 you have paid for a base license and your season license, $65 or over 1/3 of the license fee has gone directly to access programs. This doesn't include the conservation license, of which a portion goes to the DNRC to pay for state lands access as well. So if over 30% of their license fees go directly to access programs, why should they pay even more than they already do?

I do think comparing that to what a resident puts in the kitty for access is relevant to the discussion as it helps color the debate with reality based on past experiences. People can claim that "well we'd obviously have to increase the resident license side" have never gone through a license fee increase. There is little understanding of how much work that takes, nor the pitfalls that surround us as we go down that route.

Nice comparison of the nr big game hunter and nr upland hunter.

 

[El Jason]

Nice comparison of the nr big game hunter and nr upland hunter.

Fishing season is open. October is a wonderful time to swing streamers or spoons. Stop arguing and go do something outdoors.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Fishing season is open. October is a wonderful time to swing streamers or spoons. Stop arguing and go do something outdoors.

Thought you were packing?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nice comparison of the nr big game hunter and nr upland hunter.

I recognize your acknowledgement that you were incorrect about NR upland hunters substantial contribution's towards MT's access programs.

 

[El Jason]

Thought you were packing?

I did. I’m now at work and needed a break from reviewing documents.

Sorry for trying to rescue you from yourself. Proceed with your misery fest.

 

[Forkyfinder]

But so is making decisions based on cold facts rather than emotional responses that would have deleterious consequences to access programs.

Interesting. Especially considering you started with "we."

Is "we" the same people that claim "thousands" of elk get harvested via general public and the 454 program? Just want to be sure i understand what "cold hard" facts are.

I recognize your acknowledgement that you were incorrect about NR upland hunters substantial contribution's towards MT's access programs.

Do you recognize that a NR big game hunter contributes significantly more, or...?

 

[SAJ-99]

The following seems to be how every state handles priorities for recreation and wildlife harvest opportunity:

1. Landowners
2. Residents
3. Non residents

I will say that WA does prioritize residents over NR in terms of cost. But we also have seasons that last 10-20 days, not months like Montana. WA probably sells 2-3x as many R licenses and has much less land. The common theme is that neither state seems to be prioritizing the resource.

People can claim that "well we'd obviously have to increase the resident license side" have never gone through a license fee increase. There is little understanding of how much work that takes, nor the pitfalls that surround us as we go down that route.

I can think of a few HT members that should run for the Legislature. Some would be great at the job and others need it to get a reintroduction to reality.

A state sales tax would bring in some new income. Just throwing that out there...

 

[Forkyfinder]

WPeople can claim that "well we'd obviously have to increase the resident license side" have never gone through a license fee increase.

Did someone claim that?

I must have missed it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do you recognize that a NR big game hunter contributes significantly more, or...?

Percentage wise, the NR upland hunter is outsized. Dollar wise, the NR big game hunter is outsized.

Do you feel that people should have to pay over $1K for bird hunting in MT?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I thought you weren't comparin the two?

Percentage wise, the NR upland hunter is outsized. Dollar wise, the NR big game hunter is outsized.

Do you feel that people should have to pay over $1K for bird hunting in MT?

I was comparing nr bg to nr upland hunters - in terms of bma utilization relative to fee assessed.

Do you have bma by utilization numbers? Genuine question.

No i dont think 1k is fair. That seems steep. Do you feel NR hunters visiting in MT should significantly more than SD, given that the MT upland provides much more access to huntable land (private and public)?

Montanas current pricing:
110 (upland) +10 (conservation) + 15 (base hunting) =$135
South dakota
$142

Not to mention 2 additional weeks of season...

 

[El Jason]

A state sales tax would bring in some new income. Just throwing that out there...

I saved a couple tanks of gas by buying new tires in Billings last month.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I was comparing nr bg to nr upland hunters - in terms of bma utilization relative to fee accessed.

Do you have bma by utilization numbers? Genuine question.

No i dont think 1k is fair. That seems steep. Do you feel NR hunters visiting in MT should significantly more than SD, given that the MT upland provides much more access to huntable land (private and public)?

Montanas current pricing:
110 (upland) +10 (conservation) + 15 (base hunting) =$135
South dakota
$142

Not to mention 2 additional weeks of season...

Got it, I misread. My apologies.

I don't have that and I'm not sure how you sus it out given the cross-over between license types and holders. NR combo license holders have upland licenses included, so if they shoot a grouse while deer hunting, where do they fall, for example.

Your numbers are not up to date:

$110 for a seasonal license (B1)
$50 for a 3 day (B2)
$50 for a base license
$10 for conservation.

So it's $170 for a season, which starting next year excludes the first 10 days of public land/access program grouse & roosters. Most die hard upland guys (the ones with trailers full of dogs, etc) want to hunt MT in early Sept due to the early opener. I think Nebraska & Wyoming open around the same time. Majority of states open around the 15th of Sept. Most NR's who want to hunt those early states work in a pattern that moves from earliest opener to latest. So by cutting the first 10 days out of MT - those NR's are more likely to go to Nebraska or Wyoming (Sept 1 openers). By removing the first 10 days you remove the primary driver of NR upland hunter desire - to get out as early as possible.

 

[El Jason]

Montanas current pricing:
110 (upland) +10 (conservation) + 15 (base hunting) =$135
South dakota
$142

Do you bird hunt?