Montana General Season Structure Proposal

[sclancy27]

Oh - from those surveys? I'm plenty skeptical of the data there to say the least.

To add - im skeptical of even the honest answers ive tried to provide them - especially on the short notice of a phone call. I could go through my google timeline, pictures, or anything else to have figured out days in the field if i was filling an online survey out. Do you remember all the bear hunting you did 9 months ago? Does camping with your in laws, having a bear tag, and rifle count?

We're all skeptical of the validity of their data. But, we are using their data to show where problems are. Then we can call bullshit when they question the validity of their own data. 4-D checkers

 

[cgasner1]

Isn’t what is happening now creating the two smaller cans? I understand it is about the $$$, which is why they can’t stop the resell, but if you want to stop the return madness, just flip the drawing sequence.

I can’t remember the reason but there was actually a pretty good one for why the drawing seems so backwards. It made sense even

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben could likely explain this better than me. but here goes. MT sells 17,000 combo licenses, Off the top of my head I can't remember all that is included, but the biggys are Elk A tag, Deer A tag and upland bird. Mt also sells Deer combo licenses that do not include the elk A tag. It all worked fairly well back thirty years ago when there wasn't any limited entry and when an eastern deer hunt was not the only place people wanted to hunt deer. Now people that want to hunt just deer or just elk game the system by putting in for a difficult to draw tag of the spices that they are not targeting and then when they do not draw they return that portion and FWP sells the unwanted part as a Deer or Elk combo.

That's solid, Art.

the B10 is usually oversubscribed (meaning more people put in for it than there are available licenses). Oversubscription leads to a draw. Undersubscription means no draw is needed, and the leftovers go on sale. During the great recession, those numbers fluctuated until there were surplus licenses in 2012-2014 (IIRC?). That surplus coincided with implementing I-161 as well, leading to more outfitter concern over loss of stability.

The issue of regional caps becomes more difficult. The current statute states that if an area is capped (limited entry) then no more than 10% of the licenses can go to NR's. Creating a strict NR cap may bring about litigation from those who seek to undermine state agency allocation altogether in this vein. Additive is that you send the outfitting industry the message that their viability is unimportant to you, which is viewed as a direct attack on someone's livelihood and way of life. Which means the path to getting NR caps becomes even more difficult to implement since there will be significant opposition to that approach.

 

[rogerthat]

That's solid, Art.

the B10 is usually oversubscribed (meaning more people put in for it than there are available licenses). Oversubscription leads to a draw. Undersubscription means no draw is needed, and the leftovers go on sale. During the great recession, those numbers fluctuated until there were surplus licenses in 2012-2014 (IIRC?). That surplus coincided with implementing I-161 as well, leading to more outfitter concern over loss of stability.

The issue of regional caps becomes more difficult. The current statute states that if an area is capped (limited entry) then no more than 10% of the licenses can go to NR's. Creating a strict NR cap may bring about litigation from those who seek to undermine state agency allocation altogether in this vein. Additive is that you send the outfitting industry the message that their viability is unimportant to you, which is viewed as a direct attack on someone's livelihood and way of life. Which means the path to getting NR caps becomes even more difficult to implement since there will be significant opposition to that approach.

I have proposed nr caps that don’t apply on private land. That would get rid of that outfitter concern right? Passage of I-161 was overall a bad deal imo for this reason. I’m sure I’m on an island with that opinion. But we have a hunter distribution problem now that is way worse because of it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I have proposed nr caps that don’t apply on private land. That would get rid of that outfitter concern right? Passage of I-161 was overall a bad deal imo for this reason. I’m sure I’m on an island with that opinion. But we have a hunter distribution problem now that is way worse because of it.

I mean, I'm on that island as well. Losing the outfitter set-aside was a big part of the increase of pressure on public lands, regardless of the ethical issues.

Resident hunters would be less than enthusiastic about private land versus public land systems designed to reward one class over another (landowner/outfitter over hunter). It's the other side of the coin to LE.

 

[rogerthat]

I mean, I'm on that island as well. Losing the outfitter set-aside was a big part of the increase of pressure on public lands, regardless of the ethical issues.

Resident hunters would be less than enthusiastic about private land versus public land systems designed to reward one class over another (landowner/outfitter over hunter). It's the other side of the coin to LE.

I’m not necessarily proposing rewards for any classes. Just business stability for long time established montana businesses and distributing hunters on the landscape more commensurate with game populations. And you won’t find a bigger public land diy resident with tighter boots than me. To me it just seems common sense rather than the doggy pile system we currently are hunting on public lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m not necessarily proposing rewards for any classes. Just business stability for long time established montana businesses and distributing hunters on the landscape more commensurate with game populations. And you won’t find a bigger public land diy resident with tighter boots than me. To me it just seems common sense rather than the doggy pile system we currently are hunting on public lands.

First and foremost, positive intent on your part is assumed by me. I'm simply laying out the arguments that would be brought for or against a position.

In any hunting situation, you have to assess the odds of success versus the expending of energy in a futile effort. For R6 & 7, that means look to the issue of reduction of antlerless (90% reduction already) and the restriction of applicability on land ownership (no does on public). That kind of hunter pressure reduction should be noticed this season and next.

For regional caps to pass, you have to overcome a large and politically connected opposition in terms of landowners and outfitters who would not support the push. What is the path to securing the commission votes to enact this plan, and how do you answer the issue of reduced NR hunter opportunity that has been put in place already?

 

[Forkyfinder]

First and foremost, positive intent on your part is assumed by me. I'm simply laying out the arguments that would be brought for or against a position.

In any hunting situation, you have to assess the odds of success versus the expending of energy in a futile effort. For R6 & 7, that means look to the issue of reduction of antlerless (90% reduction already) and the restriction of applicability on land ownership (no does on public). That kind of hunter pressure reduction should be noticed this season and next.

For regional caps to pass, you have to overcome a large and politically connected opposition in terms of landowners and outfitters who would not support the push. What is the path to securing the commission votes to enact this plan, and how do you answer the issue of reduced NR hunter opportunity that has been put in place already?

Private land only tags for an allocation of all of the NR mule deer tags that go directly to outfitters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Private land only tags for an allocation of all of the NR mule deer tags that go directly to outfitters.

I can think of no fewer than 794 organizations that would oppose this.

 

[SAJ-99]

Doin' it for the resource. Yeah. Sure.

Nothing will change in MT. The only thing residents have ever agreed on is screwing NRs. The debate now is on the complexity of the grift.

 

[rogerthat]

Doin' it for the resource. Yeah. Sure.

Nothing will change in MT. The only thing residents have ever agreed on is screwing NRs. The debate now is on the complexity of the grift.

You’re a numbers guy SAJ. What are you seeing in the stats that make you think NR are getting screwed? Seems like nr tag allocations are pretty damn liberal. If you want to compare us to other states, check out ND and SD too.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I can think of no fewer than 794 organizations that would oppose this.

How would a 22 % increase in both NR and R fees to deal with the last 4 years of inflation and attaching the tag prices to the cpi (like CO)

 

[SAJ-99]

You’re a numbers guy SAJ. What are you seeing in the stats that make you think NR are getting screwed? Seems like nr tag allocations are pretty damn liberal. If you want to compare us to other states, check out ND and SD too.

It's not about the tag numbers. The cost ratio of NR to R is practically criminal, but I'm not even complaining about that. It is about the complexity of the process and the fact that meaningful changes can't be made because the state is scraping a little bit of cash from every step (pref points, bonus points, 80% refund and resell of returned tags) and Residents are just cheapskates. Most NRs here are encouraging MT to make changes. I have practically begged the state to cut NR tags, but they can't because of the $$$.

Every R should adopt a NR and help them through the NR draw process to get an idea of how convoluted it is. This is why the B tags get sold to NRs. They aren't bought by Rs so the NR can just go on the site and buy them and avoid all the confusion. Then Rs complain that NRs are shooting does. WTF! FIX IT! But you can't because everyone defends their little piece of the pie- public-land-hunting Rs want opportunity, other Rs want a guaranteed draw for the area they lease, landowners want the revenues from the leases, outfitters want it to be easy for their clients to draw tags, etc. Any changes seem impossible. But "do it for the resource" is at the bottom of the list from most of the Rs.

 

[SAJ-99]

You’re a numbers guy SAJ. What are you seeing in the stats that make you think NR are getting screwed? Seems like nr tag allocations are pretty damn liberal. If you want to compare us to other states, check out ND and SD too.

I should add that the real answer is a larger part of FWP budget should come from the general fund so Ben can officially retire from trying to explain how the money moves and the impacts along the chain.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How would a 22 % increase in both NR and R fees to deal with the last 4 years of inflation and attaching the tag prices to the cpi (like CO)

I doubt the votes exist to get this passed. Also, NR prices are already tied to the CPI.

2027 sounds like it will be a revenue discussion based on the agency's budget outlook, so if that's your play, I'd wait until '27 for it when the legislators will be thinking about this rather than 25, when they're looking to cut property taxes & kill Medicaid expansion.

 

[Covenant01]

This is great

 

[Forkyfinder]

It's not about the tag numbers. The cost ratio of NR to R is practically criminal, but I'm not even complaining about that. It is about the complexity of the process and the fact that meaningful changes can't be made because the state is scraping a little bit of cash from every step (pref points, bonus points, 80% refund and resell of returned tags) and Residents are just cheapskates. Most NRs here are encouraging MT to make changes. I have practically begged the state to cut NR tags, but they can't because of the $$$.

Every R should adopt a NR and help them through the NR draw process to get an idea of how convoluted it is. This is why the B tags get sold to NRs. They aren't bought by Rs so the NR can just go on the site and buy them and avoid all the confusion. Then Rs complain that NRs are shooting does. WTF! FIX IT! But you can't because everyone defends their little piece of the pie- public-land-hunting Rs want opportunity, other Rs want a guaranteed draw for the area they lease, landowners want the revenues from the leases, outfitters want it to be easy for their clients to draw tags, etc. Any changes seem impossible. But "do it for the resource" is at the bottom of the list from most of the Rs.

What do you think is the primary driver of hunt quality in wy/az in lieu of mt/wa/co?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I doubt the votes exist to get this passed. Also, NR prices are already tied to the CPI.

2027 sounds like it will be a revenue discussion based on the agency's budget outlook, so if that's your play, I'd wait until '27 for it when the legislators will be thinking about this rather than 25, when they're looking to cut property taxes & kill Medicaid expansion.

Oof thats pretty criminal. Idk how R avoided the cpi increase.

 

[rogerthat]

It's not about the tag numbers. The cost ratio of NR to R is practically criminal, but I'm not even complaining about that. It is about the complexity of the process and the fact that meaningful changes can't be made because the state is scraping a little bit of cash from every step (pref points, bonus points, 80% refund and resell of returned tags) and Residents are just cheapskates. Most NRs here are encouraging MT to make changes. I have practically begged the state to cut NR tags, but they can't because of the $$$.

Every R should adopt a NR and help them through the NR draw process to get an idea of how convoluted it is. This is why the B tags get sold to NRs. They aren't bought by Rs so the NR can just go on the site and buy them and avoid all the confusion. Then Rs complain that NRs are shooting does. WTF! FIX IT! But you can't because everyone defends their little piece of the pie- public-land-hunting Rs want opportunity, other Rs want a guaranteed draw for the area they lease, landowners want the revenues from the leases, outfitters want it to be easy for their clients to draw tags, etc. Any changes seem impossible. But "do it for the resource" is at the bottom of the list from most of the Rs.

Stereotype much? I think most Rs that post on here, have a great respect for the resource. I mean look at the group that put this proposal together, I don’t think they have gotten anything but grief. They did it trying to effect some change for the resource. I truly believe that. The R and NR thing gets so tired and worn out. I’m a NR in 49 other states too. And I love to hunt out of state too. At the end of the day it only makes sense for a state to prioritize its residents.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's not about the tag numbers. The cost ratio of NR to R is practically criminal, but I'm not even complaining about that. It is about the complexity of the process and the fact that meaningful changes can't be made because the state is scraping a little bit of cash from every step (pref points, bonus points, 80% refund and resell of returned tags) and Residents are just cheapskates. Most NRs here are encouraging MT to make changes. I have practically begged the state to cut NR tags, but they can't because of the $$$.

If you compare the cost of a deer & elk license that comes with your base hunting license, fishing, upland, conservation license and sometimes a bear or wolf license, along with the kind of season length that MT offers, MT remains a top tier draw for NRs because of the ease of hunting, even if success is low. When you compare other states with all of that, then MT starts to shine even more from the NR perspective.

NR antlered licenses have not increased substantially outside of the free & reduced programs within the last 10 years. The 17K & 6600K caps have existed since the 1970's, while populations have grown overall.

The idea that we can sacrifice funding for fewer tags is not borne out in reality because you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face. As I asked everyone else who advocates for less funding for the agency, show me where you'd cut their budget to match your ideal outcome.