Montana Elk Management Plan Citizens Advisory Committee

[Eric Albus]

Oddly enough I happen to agree with Buzz. That said, nobody should get their hopes of for Montana to manage for anything except opportunity, CWD plays right into the opportunity management strategy.

 

[antlerradar]

Never under estimate the number of cheap bastards out there!

There was a few of the "cheap bastards" show up when I was on the funding committee. They usually went real quiet when they were informed that nonresidents are paying 2/3's of licence revenue.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I spent some time thinking about this very thing today. Seems to me that in terms of opportunity to actually shoot a bull elk for the average N.R. Montana’s elk license is borderline fraud.
If I offered my customers this little product at this much cost, there is no way I would stay in business.

Blue collar joes who save and scrimp for the cost of a tag to hunt on public land are paying a majority of the FWP budget and getting kicked in the teeth by the lobby of resident landowners and ag interests.

 

[SAJ-99]

I spent some time thinking about this very thing today. Seems to me that in terms of opportunity to actually shoot a bull elk for the average N.R. Montana’s elk license is borderline fraud.
If I offered my customers this little product at this much cost, there is no way I would stay in business.

Blue collar joes who save and scrimp for the cost of a tag to hunt on public land are paying a majority of the FWP budget and getting kicked in the teeth by the lobby of resident landowners and ag interests.

But demand for those NR tags doesn’t seem to be impacted. Maybe the characteristics of the average applicant do? Many might hire an outfitter in addition to the cost of the tag.

 

[Irrelevant]

I spent some time thinking about this very thing today. Seems to me that in terms of opportunity to actually shoot a bull elk for the average N.R. Montana’s elk license is borderline fraud.
If I offered my customers this little product at this much cost, there is no way I would stay in business.

Blue collar joes who save and scrimp for the cost of a tag to hunt on public land are paying a majority of the FWP budget and getting kicked in the teeth by the lobby of resident landowners and ag interests.

I have a couple of buddies that I got hooked on out-of-state elk hunting quite a few year back, since then they'd been going to MT, and while they talked about it being "crowded" at least there were elk and you could hunt bulls (two advantages over WA) and they usually managed at least one small bull a year, the last three years it just got worse and worse, less elk and more hunters. Last year they tried a new spot in the Pintlers. 10 days and two hunters saw 1 elk on public land. They bought ID tags this year. Thankfully you guys have always scared me away from MT for elk. ID and WY have yet to disappoint.

 

[Gerald Martin]

But demand for those NR tags doesn’t seem to be impacted. Maybe the characteristics of the average applicant do? Many might hire an outfitter in addition to the cost of the tag.

Demand for a limited supply of tags is not necessarily an indicator of value.
I am a contractor who has a good reputation and demand for my services requires that I turn some work away or ask a customer to wait until I can get to their project.
If I flake out, or stretch myself too thin because I got greedy and deliver a shoddy product while still charging full price that’s an issue with my character and not my customer. They have a right to expect a product reflective of what they pay for.

MT’s value for the price to be allowed the “opportunity” to hunt has been greatly diminished because the priority of goals has been shifted away from what’s best for elk. The hunters who foot the bill and benefit from good elk management are expecting a good experience based on past reputation and hope. Unfortunately their expectation is way down the list of FWP’s priorities.

There’s always gonna be a sucker at any price. That doesn’t mean the person or department perpetuating the fraud is honest .

 

[Jwill]

Good luck on the new plan, please don't screw up this opportunity!

 

[BWALKER77]

There was a few of the "cheap bastards" show up when I was on the funding committee. They usually went real quiet when they were informed that nonresidents are paying 2/3's of licence revenue.

I honestly think both NR and R tags are too cheap. I also believe the MT FWP is chronically underfunded. Hell, they cant even afford new tag printers, which is obscene.
How about a 50% increase in tag costs across the board?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Demand for a limited supply of tags is not necessarily an indicator of value.
I am a contractor who has a good reputation and demand for my services requires that I turn some work away or ask a customer to wait until I can get to their project.
If I flake out, or stretch myself too thin because I got greedy and deliver a shoddy product while still charging full price that’s an issue with my character and not my customer. They have a right to expect a product reflective of what they pay for.

MT’s value for the price to be allowed the “opportunity” to hunt has been greatly diminished because the priority of goals has been shifted away from what’s best for elk. The hunters who foot the bill and benefit from good elk management are expecting a good experience based on past reputation and hope. Unfortunately their expectation is way down the list of FWP’s priorities.

There’s always gonna be a sucker at any price. That doesn’t mean the person or department perpetuating the fraud is honest .

Every state offers the opportunity to harvest an animal. They do not guarantee that you will kill a bull or a cow. They simply provide the license that allows you put an arrow or a bullet in one. That is the product that FWP offers, not the quality of herd or dispersal thereof.

Outfitters that offer a percentage of clients who harvest in their offers are skirting this by saying simply "you're more than likely to shoot something, just like 90% of our clients."

Landowners who charge access are selling access, not a guarantee to kill something.

It's important we keep those distinctions clear when we compare to other services.

If we want FWP to offer a percentage guarantee for harvest, then we should look at bringing back high fences.

If we want better herd management to ensure a more equitable allocation of the resource in the form of higher harvest percentages on public land, then we need to be very specific in what we ask for.

It's nice to see Eric & Buzz on the same page. Gives a guy hope for the future of elk mgt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I honestly think both NR and R tags are too cheap. I also believe the MT FWP is chronically underfunded. Hell, they cant even afford new tag printers, which is obscene.
How about a 50% increase in tag costs across the board?

To be fair, FWP is sitting on a substantial ending fund balance that has to carry them through the next few years as our financial cycle ebbs & flows based on an uptick in funding from the first bump in price, followed by declining revenues.

Also, it is the legislature that appropriates funding. DFWP's budget requests this last year were largely granted, for the first time in the 12 years I've been working the legislature. They didn't get everything they wanted, but an upgrade to the printers, licensing software, etc were finally granted. I agree that FWP is way behind the technological times, but it's not necessarily their fault, so much the fault of the budget appropriators during the session.

 

[BWALKER77]

To be fair, FWP is sitting on a substantial ending fund balance that has to carry them through the next few years as our financial cycle ebbs & flows based on an uptick in funding from the first bump in price, followed by declining revenues.

Also, it is the legislature that appropriates funding. DFWP's budget requests this last year were largely granted, for the first time in the 12 years I've been working the legislature. They didn't get everything they wanted, but an upgrade to the printers, licensing software, etc were finally granted. I agree that FWP is way behind the technological times, but it's not necessarily their fault, so much the fault of the budget appropriators during the session.

Ben, given the funding was approved do you have any idea why we are printing licenses this year on printer paper?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, given the funding was approved do you have any idea why we are printing licenses this year on printer paper?

I don't, but it's state gov't so there is a procurement protocol to follow. I know the new website is still being sourced through bids & contractors - 1 year after the funding was allocated. Gov't moves at a snails pace, even when the left lane is open.

 

[timmy]

I suspect the committee will come up with some ideas and the fwp will say no we are going to do what we want but thanks for the input.

 

[bigsky2]

I honestly think both NR and R tags are too cheap. I also believe the MT FWP is chronically underfunded. Hell, they cant even afford new tag printers, which is obscene.
How about a 50% increase in tag costs across the board?

I don't think NR tags are too cheap. R tags definitely are.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I suspect the committee will come up with some ideas and the fwp will say no we are going to do what we want but thanks for the input.

Which is why we need to organize and be involved in every aspect of this as a community.

 

[Birddog916]

This seems like BHA should be involved, and they probably are. It would be nice to hear their platform. The departments to hear voices from BHA, RMEF, TRCP and others when it comes to these plans. It is always good to have a voice for the hunter, otherwise the landowners and cattlemen control the whole process.

 

[BWALKER77]

I don't think NR tags are too cheap. R tags definitely are.

Given the resource is finite, I disagree. We would be farther ahead with half the number of NR hunters at twice the cost from a resource standpoint and revenue neutral. That's a win win.

 

[Carnage2011]

This seems like BHA should be involved, and they probably are. It would be nice to hear their platform. The departments to hear voices from BHA, RMEF, TRCP and others when it comes to these plans. It is always good to have a voice for the hunter, otherwise the landowners and cattlemen control the whole process.

Why should BHA be involved in the EMP?

 

[SAJ-99]

Demand for a limited supply of tags is not necessarily an indicator of value.
I am a contractor who has a good reputation and demand for my services requires that I turn some work away or ask a customer to wait until I can get to their project.
If I flake out, or stretch myself too thin because I got greedy and deliver a shoddy product while still charging full price that’s an issue with my character and not my customer. They have a right to expect a product reflective of what they pay for.

MT’s value for the price to be allowed the “opportunity” to hunt has been greatly diminished because the priority of goals has been shifted away from what’s best for elk. The hunters who foot the bill and benefit from good elk management are expecting a good experience based on past reputation and hope. Unfortunately their expectation is way down the list of FWP’s priorities.

There’s always gonna be a sucker at any price. That doesn’t mean the person or department perpetuating the fraud is honest .

I don't want to confuse 'price' and 'value'. Price is the intersection of demand and supply. Value is the usefulness for the price paid. The latter is very subjective. As long as the state of MT has more applicants than permits given out, the price should be increased. That doesn't mean FWP is committing fraud. The "quality of the hunt" may be diminished, but it isn't uniform for all hunters - probably just public-land hunters. The NR who can afford it can get an outfitter whose success rate is probably substantially higher than the 20% state average (or whatever it is). The problem with all of this is it is changing hunting to the detriment of the public land hunter. FWP needs to understand that actions have unintended consequences.

I want to say that I agree with you on a lot. I am simply pointing out the complexity of the situation someone is walking into in this position. Hunters can't even agree on how to manage the resource because each comes from a different perspective. I also agree it isn't going to be solved in 2 meetings. And I think the elk are doing just fine across most of the state, but they have certainly changed their habits.

 

[bigsky2]

Given the resource is finite, I disagree. We would be farther ahead with half the number of NR hunters at twice the cost from a resource standpoint and revenue neutral. That's a win win.

The resource is finite in all states, and Montana has one of the most expensive elk tags of all the western states. I actually think it might be the most expensive of all, and some of those states with cheaper tags have better quality of hunting.