Landlocked State Trust Lands

[8andcounting]

Legislature passes bill increasing nonresident hunting fees to bolster hunter access • Daily Montanan

Out of state hunters would pay $100 for base hunting licenses, funneling more than $7 million to block management program

dailymontanan.com

I know it.

Wouldnt it be helpful if some people stop lobbying against fee increases?

I’m actually totally fine with what I pay as a NR as long as I can draw a tag most years . I do think resident tags need a hike up . Doesn’t need to be a huge jump but an increase is over due

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m actually totally fine with what I pay as a NR as long as I can draw a tag most years . I do think resident tags need a hike up . Doesn’t need to be a huge jump but an increase is over due

Nonresident licenses were increased last session, including the Big Game and Deer Combos'

Some people are still upset that it was only a 200% increase to the base license instead of a 700% increase.

 

[8andcounting]

Nonresident licenses were increased last session, including the Big Game and Deer Combos'

Some people are still upset that it was only a 200% increase to the base license instead of a 700% increase.

It was plenty . Not complaining but it was enough

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nonresident licenses were increased last session, including the Big Game and Deer Combos'

Some people are still upset that it was only a 200% increase to the base license instead of a 700% increase.

Using percentages to make your point - clever trick to manipulate the data to speak for you. Youre a very good "batman."

The 35 dollar increase isnt squat - but anyone whos watching sees through the selective outrage you have about bma funding. Im far from the only one who has noticed it was missing this time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Using percentages to make your point - clever trick to manipulate the data to speak for you. Youre a very good "batman."

The 35 dollar increase isnt squat - but anyone whos watching sees through the selective outrage you have about bma funding. Im far from the only one who has noticed it was missing this time.

Jim,

you need a hug. I hope you find someone who will give you one.

 

[DFS]

Jim,

you need a hug. I hope you find someone who will give you one.

You do yammer an awful lot about funding. Selective funding maybe.

 

[Treeshark]

Montana should double NR fees- increase BMA funding by a lot, and they’d still sell out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You do yammer an awful lot about funding. Selective funding maybe.

I do, because most folks don't seem to understand (or don't care) how it works and the ideas and bills being introduced show that in their fiscal impacts, which would put not only the funding for critical programs like Block, Habitat, etc at risk, but also the PR/DJ funding that MT gets as well.

There's a significant difference in talking about what percentage the increase should be versus protecting funding from political opportunists. Those are two separate issues.

 

[Forkyfinder]

only the funding for critical programs like Block, Habitat, etc at risk, but also the PR/DJ funding that MT gets as well.

Unless your clients dont like how it affects their consumer base of non-constituents of course. Then we are fine with no increase and at the very least argue for a smaller one for political optics.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Montana double NR fees- increase BMA funding by a lot, and they’d still sell out.

It would also hasten the leasing and creation of hunt clubs, so you may end up with some cash, but no place to spend it. The faster you kick blue collar people to the curb with over-priced NR licenses, the faster residents will have to choose between paying for those services, or losing them.

There's a long-standing economic principle in licensing around the tipping point: When those licenses are viewed as overpriced, the purchaser will stop buying them. So while it may feel good to hammer on NR's, it will have the opposite effect of what those who are trying to do so want.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There's a long-standing economic principle in licensing around the tipping point:

Yeah - history certainly says its been way easier for NR to get a tag as they have increased in price.

What are you gonna do - dig something out from 2009 and pretend thats relevant?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Depends on what your goals are.

It was $15 - $50 or $15 - $100 was it really enough to accomplish what you likely assume my "goals" are?

I guess should have put it in percentages for showmanship and an exaggeration for the audience like a proper trained puppet.

Whats funny - moving it to that would almost pay for the entirety of those 5000 orphaned (now 2500, thanks to a good commissioner) nr tags that some were selectively outraged about.

 

[Treeshark]

There's a long-standing economic principle in licensing around the tipping point: When those licenses are viewed as overpriced, the purchaser will stop buying them.

Has that really happened anywhere though?

 

[SAJ-99]

Has that really happened anywhere though?

WY special, Utah? The problem with point systems is that participants have trouble accepting that they are a sunk cost. Do you think there would be a drop in ID or NM apps if they increased the tag cost to $2000?

 

[Treeshark]

WY special, Utah?

These are not selling out and going to leftover status?

*I said fees, which was overly-broad. I meant the actual tag fee- I get your point about points/application fees.

 

[cgasner1]

These are not selling out and going to leftover status?

I think the Utah experiment is too soon to tell yet. A lot of people are probably like me an will ride it out a few years to see what actually happens with the odds.

 

[Treeshark]

I think the Utah experiment is too soon to tell yet.

Yes, I think you’re correct. The email they sent out last year just before the deadline basically begging people not to skip out revealed they were a bit nervous imo.

 

[cgasner1]

Yes, I think you’re correct. The email they sent out last year just before the deadline basically begging people not to skip out revealed they were a bit nervous imo.

The odds will stick suck so I’ll be curious to see if Utah makes more or less money from it with people dropping out. The nice thing is you always have a chance I go a buddy that pulled a desert sheep tag as a nr on 3 points so you never know

 

[SAJ-99]

These are not selling out and going to leftover status?

*I said fees, which was overly-broad. I meant the actual tag fee- I get your point about points/application fees.

The price increase for WY special is probably the best example yet. There was a drop in demand, but many could have went to Regular. Hard to say where it stops, but states will keep going because they have to. MT is testing the waters and applications for some of licenses is declining, and maybe getting to the point of people questioning if it is worth it? My point was that point systems lock you in. As Cgasner1 pointed out, you have 10 or 20 points and you feel like you have to stay in the game until it becomes obvious. The best measure is how many people after drawing a tag don’t go back into the points system? The change in demand doesn’t drop immediately it just slowly declines.

To your point, I agree, total demand still exceeds supply. That's a good thing because the interest in the sport is what keeps it alive in this day.

 

[antlerradar]

It was $15 - $50 or $15 - $100 was it really enough to accomplish what you likely assume my "goals" are?

I guess should have put it in percentages for showmanship and an exaggeration for the audience like a proper trained puppet.

Whats funny - moving it to that would almost pay for the entirety of those 5000 orphaned (now 2500, thanks to a good commissioner) nr tags that some were selectively outraged about.

Not sure what your goal is. If your goal is fewer NR hunting public and are willing to accept more NR paying to hunt, keep increasing NR prices. If you want less pay to play NR above all, you want to keep NR prices as low as possible. Ben is right, it is fairly simple economics.