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.
