House Bill 609 Fee increase!

[RobertR]

Randy I cannot believe you would support a licenses increase when iits hard enough getting new hunters started. Do we want to make hunting an elitist sport and loose intrest because lower income people cannot afford a license.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_f7bfaaee-9e29-5289-9de9-e24427fe0dec.html

 

[mtmuley]

Robert, I don't think a fee increase for resident hunters is going to make hunting an elitist sport. There's a lot of other issues with more of a threat. We've been spoiled here for a long time. mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

We have been making much noise in support of FWP; now we need to provide more than just noise. We have been adamant about offering nonresidents hunting opportunity but also concerned about ensuring reasonable limitations. Now it is encumbent on resident hunters to provide a more equitable piece of the funding for FWP.

FWP could effectively use additional funding for adequate pay for game wardens, more game wardens, and bolstering of many shoestring budget programs. We Montana hunters have the most hunting opportunities for the least amount of fees when compared to other western states.

It is important to hold the Commission and the FWP agency responsible, but it is equally important to fund FWP adequately.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Randy I cannot believe you would support a licenses increase when iits hard enough getting new hunters started. Do we want to make hunting an elitist sport and loose intrest because lower income people cannot afford a license.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_f7bfaaee-9e29-5289-9de9-e24427fe0dec.html

If $28 bucks breaks the bank for you to hunt elk, you've got problems. As a NR, I'm expected to pay about 35x that amount. Who's making what an elitist sport?

 

[whiskeydog]

Our fees have been raised only 2 times in the past 22 years! I couldn't even tell you how much a deer, elk, fishing, upland, or sportsman license even costs because they are so cheap that I don't even pay attention. If raising my fees a few bucks helps FWP, then I'll support it...as long as they don't use the money for another retarded big horn sting operation.

 

[MTbowhunter84]

I think an increase would be a good thing and have no problem with it. As a resident of MT it is amazing the opportunity we are given at such a low cost. As always there will be people very much against an increase, but it is way past due. I don't believe an increase for a resident will be so high that people won't be able to afford it. When you look at what you can hunt when you get the sportsman's with bear its pretty incredible and we have nothing to complain about. An increase will definitely not deter me each fall. Growing up in SD a res. deer tag alone as I remember was $45.00.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy I cannot believe you would support a licenses increase when iits hard enough getting new hunters started. Do we want to make hunting an elitist sport and loose intrest because lower income people cannot afford a license.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_f7bfaaee-9e29-5289-9de9-e24427fe0dec.html

The bill is a study bill, not a rate increase. FWP is forced to give away about $5 million per year in free or reduced cost licenses because the Legislature constantly gives away the resource without thinking how their little pet project fits into the aggregate.

The study will look at that, license fees, the budget & a whole host of other issues related to licensing. I think it's long overdue to have this. I also think it's time for resident hunters to have a modest increase, just like I think it's time to explore other sources of funding.

 

[Bambistew]

If you are complaining about the pitiful low price you pay now, and don't want an increase, I can safely say I do not want you representing hunters in general. $100 in MT will get you a pocket full of tags and a fishing license, yet you think raising the fee will keep people from getting into the sport? Good! The people that don't care enough to spend a couple more bucks to keep a system running they benefit from are just the type we don't need or want.

Everyone wants something for nothing. Montanan's are probably the most notorious for this.

I thought Montana was "red" state?

 

[theat]

I think a modest increase in resident license fees is long overdue. When compared to surrounding states it is pretty pathetic how little residents contribute to the management of our wildlife.

From the linked article in the initial post:

According to information on its website, hunting and fishing license sales account for almost 68 percent of the department’s revenue stream. Breaking that down, 33 percent of the license fees come from resident license sales with 67 percent coming from nonresidents.

Compare that to Colorado where nonresidents pay for 17% of the CPW budget. This number came from the CPW memo found in Big Fins post here: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=254408

If the residents of Montana want more influence on how our FWP department and legislature manage our wildlife, maybe instead of having nonresidents pay for almost 70% of the budget, we should at least pay over 50%. This could also decrease the influence groups like MOGA and SFW have on the process.

 

[Big Fin]

The bill is to fund a study of our licensing system and our fee structures. I am fully in support of that, for lots of reasons that I will briefly touch on below.

I am also in support of a resident fee increase. I have been in support of that for years and will continue to advocate for such.

I just submitted an article to Bugle Magazine comparing, state-by-state, the varying fees for elk hunting, the non-resident tag allocations, and the percentage of funding that comes from residents v. non-residents for each elk hunting state. Not sure if it will get published, but I hope it does.

It will show just what a cheap ride Montana hunters are getting. Not just in terms of fee differences, but in terms of tag allocations and the way we make NRs buy their licenses in bundles.

We end up having NRs pay more than 40 fold what a non-resident pays for the same elk tag. Idaho is next highest in the disparity ratio of non-resident to resident fees. Both are over a 30 to 1 ratio. Both have had recent fee increases. Both have had the greatest difficulty selling their tags, even though they are not the highest fees in the west. Coincidence?

We allocate "up to 10%" of the tags to NRs, even though they usually don't get the full 10%. Colorado and Wyoming are way more generous in NR tag allocations, with Arizona and Idaho using the same "Up to 10%" rule that Montana does. Nevada and Utah use 10% and actually put those NR tags in a separate drawing for NRs.

Nothing wrong with making a restriction on NRs, but when you combine that with crazy fee differences and making people buy stuff they don't want, it makes MT look very skewed in our treatment of NRs and opens our flanks to requests for a greater percentage allocation to NRs. Two bills in this legislative session serve as example to what I am talking about.

We make non-residents buy a bundle of licenses and permits that they will probably not use, rather than let them just buy what they want/need for that hunt. We let residents buy things "a la carte," but not non-residents.

And, then when NRs and their interests have huge sway with the Legislature and the Commission, we complain. When one stands back and looks at the big picture, we residents have nothing to complain about.

By resisting resident fee increases for so many years, the percentage of the budget residents fund has shrunk every year and the percentage funded by NRs has increased every year. We are getting a lot, for very little, and someone else is paying it, not us.

And we wonder why the Legislature and the Commission pay so much attention to the concerns of NRs. Well, we have pretty much sold our seats at the table. You can't blame the policy leaders for worrying about the impacts on NRs, when we have made NRs the golden goose to funding of conservation and management in Montana.

If we want more say and more influence, we need to buy back a few of the seats at the table that we have sold over the last thirty years. That can only be done with resident fee increases. We can do it in a way that does not impose costs on youth hunters.

As far as low income hunters, I don't know how to answer that question. I grew up as "low" as low income gets. I found a way to buy a hunting license every year, and I was a teenager. If an adult in a similar "low income" situation cannot find a way to buy a hunting license, I am not sure the entire system should be altered or amended to help that person.

My wife and I just went for a latte and a scone this morning. We stopped and got two gallons of milk on the way home. That came to the same price as my Montana elk tag. That is laughable.

I know I am going to take heat from resident hunters over my advocacy for a resident fee increase. I am accustomed to that, having taken heat when I tried to get the same thing done in past Legislative sessions.

I look at the situation as being at a cross roads. Either we suck it up and we start paying our fair share, or we continue down the path of selling our seats at the table to the point where some day we find that we don't have any seats at the table.

Many of the bills we end up fighting in the Legislature is a function of how little we residents pay and how much we rely on NRs. Many of the bills are also a function of the archaic licensing system we still have as a remnant from the 1970's. Changes to both of those will be good for the future of hunting in Montana and the funding of conservation and wildlife management.

Whether we want to admit it, or not, the Non-resident is a serious component to the funding of our hunting. Though many NRs do not hunt with outfitters, the fact that many do use outfitters, gives the outfitting community a very powerful voice in the discussion, as it should under the current situation. We can either continue down that path and see more and more outfitter influence on resident hunting, or we can do something about it.

I intend to do something about it. I have been in the battles longer than most. I hunt every western state and I see just how lucky we are in Montana, relative to hunters in any other state. If a few people get mad at me for trying to find ways to keep Montana the great hunting place it is, then so be it.

We do so many stupid things with our licensing system and license structures that cost us money. Other states have figured it out, yet Montana is stuck in the era of Dingo Boots, polyester Angel Flight Pants, and the Bee Gees.

Look at Moose, Goat, Sheep. The NR demand for those is crazy, because of the quality and the low price. We have better sheep and goat than WY and equal moose. Yet, WY can charge $100 per preference point, per species, and people are paying those each year. We could charge half of that and raise over a $1,000,000. We should allow residents to the "point only" option. Most states charge double what we do just for an application fee. Most states charge a non-refundable license just to apply, varying from $65 to $150 for NRs and from $20 to $60 for residents. I could go on and on.

Not only do I want resident fee increases and changes to our licensing system, I want it indexed with a CPI adjuster, EVERY YEAR, as a few other states do. Fees should go up every year, the same as everything else we buy. Best to do it small bits at a time, via a CPI adjustment. That way we only have to fight this battle one more time, then going foward, FWP knows what fees and revenue will be based on annual increases with inflation.

None of this is rocket science. Just some reform to our outdated system would make a big change, would make our licenses more attractive to NRs, and help provide more funding.

Long answer to the comment. The complexity of the problem and the needed solutions require a lot more discussion than what I have provided here.

We have it made in Montana. I wish every resident hunter had the chance to apply for and hunt elk in every other elk state. Then, more would realize just how good we have it and hopefully join in the effort to make it better. Long seasons, mostly general units, great hunting, no choosing of your weapon, with some great quality bulls. I am willing to pay more to keep that intact.

The time is upon us as residents to lead the discussion. Count me in. All in.

 

[Big Fin]

One other thing that should come of this study would be a way to get rid of all these entitlement licenses. Thinking we will soon have a special license for the left handed octogenarians of Luddite lineage.

It is out of hand what we have for these entitlement licenses. They cost us a ton of money, for what? For the sake that a few legislators were mad that their kids left the state to make more money, but wanted them to be able to come home and hunt on the cheap. Look at the who sponsored those bills and who benefited. It will make you shake your head.

The outcome of the study would hopefully result in simplification and elimination of those hand out programs. They are not needed. They further exacerbate the issues I mentioned in the previous post.

 

[BuzzH]

I have to agree with Randy and the others that Montana residents are the cheapest bunch of hunters on the planet.

I guess it wouldnt bother me as much if those that only buy a fishing/hunting license each year, didnt think they were going "all out".

About 99% of the hunters/fishermen think their license fee contribution each year is all thats required of them. They've the attitude that the MTFWP should be managing each specific animal for each sportsmen in Montana...all at the bargain basement price of $36 for an elk and deer tag.

I'd have much less heart-burn listening to the fee increase whiners, if they would actually attend a commission meeting, attend an open house, serve on a citizens board, or maybe even testify at the legislature...

I've routinely found that those that cry the most about fee increases, also do the least for wildlife, hunting, fishing, etc.

I realize that not everyone has the time, money, or resources to do everything. But, I've rarely found someone that cant do more than they do.

The days of expecting others to do your work for you are going to have to end...more people, new people, have got to step up and make a difference.

If you dont...nobody else will and the sport is going to continue to be controlled by the likes of SFW.

The ball is in our court...

 

[RobertR]

Randy I agree with the NR and youth part.I just think if its to much of an increase we will loose up coming hunters and those who are just scraping buy on a minimum wage.
I do think something has to be changed with the big three special draw.

 

[BuzzH]

You're going to never have tag fees low enough, even if you gave them away, to make sure nobody is priced out.

I find it odd that $16 for a deer tag is excluding even someone on minimum wage.

I'd pick cans to be able to afford a hunting license...and at $16 for a deer tag, it wouldnt take long.

 

[MTbowhunter84]

Randy I agree with the NR and youth part.I just think if its to much of an increase we will loose up coming hunters and those who are just scraping buy on a minimum wage.
I do think something has to be changed with the big three special draw.

I can understand where you are coming on this, but if it was me and it came between me hunting and not being able to mentor someone new wanting to hunt, I would make the choice to just get them the tags and not hunt myself. Randy said it very well as I too found ways to pay for my tags and make sure I was out there every fall. I don't think an increase will stop someone who really loves hunting and fishing even on min. wage.

 

[Western_Hunter]

I support Randy's decision. If you care about hunting whatsoever, you won't mind an increase in license, which is benefiting your state!

 

[mtmuley]

Most "up and coming" hunters tags will be paid for by parents, grandparents etc. If it is a struggle, I for one would buy the kids tags first. This isn't about new hunters, it's about funding FWP so new hunters have something to hunt in the first place. mtmuley

 

[Pierre]

We as resident sportsmen have realized for quite some time that we need a resident license fee increase. It also should be tied to consumer price index in the future so we don't have to go through this hassle.
When I fill my pickup up for a trip to Helena to testify on sportsmen legislation, it costs $80.00 per trip in gas, plus meals etc. I can have a whole pocket full of tags for that.
As Randy said, all the special licenses are ridiculous. Old folks, young folks, folks that have a dead relative that lived in Montana, etc. The license is the cheapest part of an outing to use it.
The legislature keeps coming up with bills to give free and reduced licenses to all their friends. That is feel good legislation and often tough to beat. One fine solution would be a bill to make the legislature pay for reduced or give away licenses instead of them being courtesy of resident sportsmen. We now give away approx 5 million $ in licenses. The legislature gives them away and we pay for it.

 

[sweetnectar]

Seems that for some it would be easier to have someone else pick up the tab when it comes to wildlife. Does this mean that those that get the benefit of hunting wildlife bare more of the burden of managing wildlife? Of course.

The most expensive meat you'll ever eat is wild game.

 

[elk_hunter]

Modest price increases for resident MT sportsmen makes total sense to me, especially with slight increases every year or two. Up-and-comer residents should have no problem being able to find a way to afford cheap tags/licenses, in my humble opinion.