Landlocked State Trust Lands

[Forkyfinder]

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.

The simplest economics is that whether or not it's 15, 50, or 100 they will all sell out.

The "goal" would have been putting the cost to apply with the rest of the market in terms of price and better fund FWP. Clearly that goal isnt shared by mcs/moga.

 

[cgasner1]

The simplest economics is that whether or not it's 15, 50, or 100 they will all sell out.

The "goal" would have been putting the cost to apply with the rest of the market in terms of price and better fund FWP. Clearly that goal isnt shared by mcs/moga.

So you think the guy that’s paying over 5k a year just to shoot a 140” mule deer with an outfitter will care if the tag price goes up 5x? I highly doubt moga gives two shits if the prices go up and it would probably actually help them to start pricing people out

 

[Forkyfinder]

So you think the guy that’s paying over 5k a year just to shoot a 140” mule deer with an outfitter will care if the tag price goes up 5x? I highly doubt moga gives two shits if the prices go up and it would probably actually help them to start pricing people out

Seems odd they would pay a guy to go argue against it (a batman?) if they "dont give two shits "

"Opposition to Parry’s bill came from the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, where one lobbyist, Scott Boulanger, said the increase was “drastic.” Representatives of the outfitters association told lawmakers that they would support a more modest increase to $50."

Directly from the article i posted.

 

[cgasner1]

Seems odd they would pay a guy to go argue against it (a batman?) if they "dont give two shits "

"Opposition to Parry’s bill came from the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, where one lobbyist, Scott Boulanger, said the increase was “drastic.” Representatives of the outfitters association told lawmakers that they would support a more modest increase to $50."

Directly from the article i posted.

It must be exhausting being the smartest guy on the internet

 

[cgasner1]

I do see the logic of having enough money to be able to afford to pay a lobbyist a years salary to save 100 dollars in my application fee in Montana

 

[SAJ-99]

Seems odd they would pay a guy to go argue against it (a batman?) if they "dont give two shits "

"Opposition to Parry’s bill came from the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, where one lobbyist, Scott Boulanger, said the increase was “drastic.” Representatives of the outfitters association told lawmakers that they would support a more modest increase to $50."

Directly from the article i posted.

$36 R Deer + Elk, vs $1312 NR Combo. I'm becoming a bigger fan of MOGA every day. I know you are willing to pay more, but most aren't. The formula is simple, pay more and lower the number of NRs. Maybe give away some "hardship" tags for those that just can't squeeze the wallet to find $16 for a deer license?

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing I am saving a MT resident $680.

 

[huntin24/7]

I don’t generally have a problem with the number of NR tags issued and certainly understand the $ value they bring to conservation. I do however think the way they are distributed is a major problem. There shouldn’t be any statewide general tags issued to NR’s and should be species specific in my opinion as well. You can apply those same rules to residents as well.

 

[El Jason]

It must be exhausting being the smartest guy on the internet

This.

Go shoot a turkey. Or a bear. Or catch a fish. Or a buzz. Or herpes.

 

[sclancy27]

I don’t generally have a problem with the number of NR tags issued and certainly understand the $ value they bring to conservation. I do however think the way they are distributed is a major problem. There shouldn’t be any statewide general tags issued to NR’s and should be species specific in my opinion as well. You can apply those same rules to residents as well.

Love it.

As far as the rest of this dumpster fire, I sat down and put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, except in a productive way which is antithetical to this thread). First, let's agree on the tag breakdown. The total NR elk and deer A tags for the last 5 years is 32618, 32483, 32806, 32685 and 32603, median of the 5 yrs was 32618. So not 70K. ***Before someone asks, I did not include B licenses for a simple reason, there is no good way to keep them out of NR hands. Those that are draw are on 10% already, if they go to surplus it is first-come first-serve, whether resident or NR. If residents don't want those tags (which it appears they don't want a lot of them) NR are going to scoop them up***

So, 32618 NR A tags for elk and deer. This includes all the recent set-asides (come home to hunt, relative of resident, ad nauseum) and the original cap. Total outside of the standard elk combo, deer combo and big game combo are 3556. Because they are half priced, they are the easiest (easy being relative here) to eliminate. Cost to the dept based on 2025 license prices is $2,561,244. Running the numbers, raising elk license to $30 and deer to $24 makes up that cost.

Now let's run them for the half-priced licenses plus the 2500 deer combos that were removed last year (?). The funding loss to the dept is $4,461,244. Doubling the cost of resident deer and elk licenses ($32 and $40) would take care of that.

Now, let's get crazy and decrease total NR A tags from the current 32K and change to the number everyone (falsely) quotes, of 17.5K of general combo tags. The funding gap then is $9,306,308. If we raised resident deer and elk licenses to $40 and $60 respectively, this would cover that funding gap. At that level, NR:R funding split would be ~60:40. Total NR funding would likely still be closer to 70:30 with the all the other licenses and costs included (upland bird, fishing, turkey, B tags etc etc etc) if not more.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Love it.

As far as the rest of this dumpster fire, I sat down and put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, except in a productive way which is antithetical to this thread). First, let's agree on the tag breakdown. The total NR elk and deer A tags for the last 5 years is 32618, 32483, 32806, 32685 and 32603, median of the 5 yrs was 32618. So not 70K. ***Before someone asks, I did not include B licenses for a simple reason, there is no good way to keep them out of NR hands. Those that are draw are on 10% already, if they go to surplus it is first-come first-serve, whether resident or NR. If residents don't want those tags (which it appears they don't want a lot of them) NR are going to scoop them up***

So, 32618 NR A tags for elk and deer. This includes all the recent set-asides (come home to hunt, relative of resident, ad nauseum) and the original cap. Total outside of the standard elk combo, deer combo and big game combo are 3556. Because they are half priced, they are the easiest (easy being relative here) to eliminate. Cost to the dept based on 2025 license prices is $2,561,244. Running the numbers, raising elk license to $30 and deer to $24 makes up that cost.

Now let's run them for the half-priced licenses plus the 2500 deer combos that were removed last year (?). The funding loss to the dept is $4,461,244. Doubling the cost of resident deer and elk licenses ($32 and $40) would take care of that.

Now, let's get crazy and decrease total NR A tags from the current 32K and change to the number everyone (falsely) quotes, of 17.5K of general combo tags. The funding gap then is $9,306,308. If we raised resident deer and elk licenses to $40 and $60 respectively, this would cover that funding gap. At that level, NR:R funding split would be ~60:40. Total NR funding would likely still be closer to 70:30 with the all the other licenses and costs included (upland bird, fishing, turkey, B tags etc etc etc) if not more.

This is essentially the starting point of the licensing/funding discussion, but it gets increasingly complex from here, especially when we look at what is paying for what, issues of loss of control/diversion of license and federal dollars, earmarked funds, statutory obligations, etc. That's why it generally takes an agency at least 18 months to do the detailed, complex work to institute a 1 time increase across the board, rather than try and piece meal it like last session.

Similarly, you will see stiff resistance at the legislature from electeds because "we raised rates last session." And they will receive thousands of angry comments from Montanans not wanting to see their tags increase.

And, to bring this back around to landlocked public land - then you see reductions in the programs that actually provide access to public lands, like PAL, Block MGT, Habitat MT, etc. And since the direction of landlocked in MT has been trending towards being opened through those programs, cutting the funding seems to be naive at best.

 

[sclancy27]

This is essentially the starting point of the licensing/funding discussion, but it gets increasingly complex from here, especially when we look at what is paying for what, issues of loss of control/diversion of license and federal dollars, earmarked funds, statutory obligations, etc. That's why it generally takes an agency at least 18 months to do the detailed, complex work to institute a 1 time increase across the board, rather than try and piece meal it like last session.

Similarly, you will see stiff resistance at the legislature from electeds because "we raised rates last session." And they will receive thousands of angry comments from Montanans not wanting to see their tags increase.

And, to bring this back around to landlocked public land - then you see reductions in the programs that actually provide access to public lands, like PAL, Block MGT, Habitat MT, etc. And since the direction of landlocked in MT has been trending towards being opened through those programs, cutting the funding seems to be naive at best.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 405821

 

[cgasner1]

I was thinking about this whole license cost issue the other day for residents and if we ever did get a significant raise I hope they leave the youth at the same prices. I’d hate for some kids to get left out on a family that’s hard up

 

[SAJ-99]

The funding gap then is $9,306,308.

How much weed do residents have to buy and smoke to make up that revenue? Just thinking outside the FWP box.

 

[SAJ-99]

I was thinking about this whole license cost issue the other day for residents and if we ever did get a significant raise I hope they leave the youth at the same prices. I’d hate for some kids to get left out on a family that’s hard up

At $8? I would rather they give them away to those that are that hard up for money.

 

[mtmiller]

How much weed do residents have to buy and smoke to make up that revenue? Just thinking outside the FWP box.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How much weed do residents have to buy and smoke to make up that revenue? Just thinking outside the FWP box.

Currently, the recreational marijuana tax funding goes to very specific programs, not the General License Account. That funding goes towards state parks, trails, nongame, wildlife crossings, expanded WHIP and Habitat MT. The weed $ isn't going to make up the losses because statutorily it cannot.

And that funding is precarious as well. There are already rumors of some folks coming back after that $ so it can go to the general fund.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 405826

FWP gets about 25-30% of that. So ...


...

 

[SAJ-99]

View attachment 405826

Seems doable.

The weed $ isn't going to make up the losses because statutorily it cannot.

You and your adherence to the "laws" is really ruining the vibe.
I sort of remember where that money was supposed to go statutorily, via the will of the voters, and it didn't. Everyone wants a piece of those taxable Montana values.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You and your adherence to the "laws" is really ruining the vibe.
I sort of remember where that money was supposed to go statutorily, via the will of the voters, and it didn't. Everyone wants a piece of those taxable Montana values.

You can't appropriate money via initiative. That is constitutionally protected for the Legislature.

regardless, that source of funding has been under attack since before the initiative passed. I wouldn't pin my hopes on it.