More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[cgasner1]

The really smart people from other states will start having “anchor babies” here to accrue lifetime resident benefits. I see a blossoming economic sector.

I dated a couple girls that tried something similar to this

 

[sacountry]

Continuing on @Ben Lamb math....

Moving the 3439 under the 17000 would reduce revenue of the 17000 by $1M but Ben, it would also mean only 17000 licenses are sold....that erodes the revenue of the discounted tags completely. We need to know what dollar amount that is.....then look at what it would look like to put that lost revenue on to the resident licenses.

This is all math stuff which is pretty easy to do but I don't think there is anyway to make it happen. We almost have to develop a new mechanism that ebbs and flows with the resource.

Raw numbers here for example
Statewide elk population 175000
Total licenses issues not to exceed 20%
Total license available 35,000
Total resident allocation = 60%
Total resident licenses = 21000
Total NR allocation = 40%
Total NR licenses = 14000

Again don't look at the numbers, rather explore the model where tags are based on the resource solely.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I am completely willing to pay more for resident licenses if that accomplishes gaining me better quality for that price increase.

However, subsidizing cheaper NR tags for a privileged few that won’t benefit me by paying more to experience less is a nonstarter for me. I am not going to pay more because more hunters are are now hunting.

If we are going to give preference to MT born NR and take it out of the cap, then I demand a preference for anyone I want to sponsor out of that same cap…

The only thing that actually makes sense is to eliminate any preference for any NR, native born, outfitted, sponsored, polka dotted, pin striped, or (insert any other adjective here).

I agree with you 100%! Actually, my nonresident family members and now nonresident friends would agree with you also. As stated in my post above, they all used to apply in the "CAPPED" nonresident drawing and some years they were unsuccessful in that drawing. No harm, no fowl as EVERYONE was on an even playing field in the "CAPPED" nonresident drawing. So what happened??? Who pushed for these guaranteed discounted tags? Who pushed for the landowner sponsored tags? Who was whispering these GOOD IDEAS into our elected representative's ears? Who is constantly pushing for MORE, MORE, MORE? Just follow the money and the answer is right there in front of all of us.

 

[Dinkshooter]

#frumpychubbyMTgirlslookingtogetmarried.com

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Continuing on @Ben Lamb math....

Moving the 3439 under the 17000 would reduce revenue of the 17000 by $1M but Ben, it would also mean only 17000 licenses are sold....that erodes the revenue of the discounted tags completely. We need to know what dollar amount that is.....then look at what it would look like to put that lost revenue on to the resident licenses.

This is all math stuff which is pretty easy to do but I don't think there is anyway to make it happen. We almost have to develop a new mechanism that ebbs and flows with the resource.

Raw numbers here for example
Statewide elk population 175000
Total licenses issues not to exceed 20%
Total license available 35,000
Total resident allocation = 60%
Total resident licenses = 21000
Total NR allocation = 40%
Total NR licenses = 14000

Again don't look at the numbers, rather explore the model where tags are based on the resource solely.

I see! 40% for NR won't get our MTFWP to implement true game management on our public lands but 30% of that 40% should have a grand hunt on the private!

As I stated previously, if the resident public land hunters want to see better management of our wildlife, we need to take over the responsibility of funding that management. We, also need to except the changes needed to bring back HEALTHY herds on our public lands.

Adding revenue for the Block Management program, conservation easements or getting corner crossing legalized are all good things, BUT, if the whole wildlife management system is geared to the small entity that lines the pockets, there will not be any change and our public land wildlife will continue to diminish.

The Montana sportsmen and women have been competing in a boxing match with weighted gloves while the opponent is bare fisted clutching a roll of quarters and stuffing $100 bills into the ref's pockets.

 

[sacountry]

Funding can work much the same way. just apply the desired % of NR to R against the annual budget. If R needs to pick up more of the tab, then NR costs drop.

And I don't disagree with you that R hunters need to increase our contribution. Not sure where the tipping point is in Helena, but one would think that we'd need to be on the upper side of 50%.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Continuing on @Ben Lamb math....

Moving the 3439 under the 17000 would reduce revenue of the 17000 by $1M but Ben, it would also mean only 17000 licenses are sold....that erodes the revenue of the discounted tags completely. We need to know what dollar amount that is.....then look at what it would look like to put that lost revenue on to the resident licenses.

This is all math stuff which is pretty easy to do but I don't think there is anyway to make it happen. We almost have to develop a new mechanism that ebbs and flows with the resource.

Raw numbers here for example
Statewide elk population 175000
Total licenses issues not to exceed 20%
Total license available 35,000
Total resident allocation = 60%
Total resident licenses = 21000
Total NR allocation = 40%
Total NR licenses = 14000

Again don't look at the numbers, rather explore the model where tags are based on the resource solely.

Politics is the art of the possible. Restructuring the entire licensing system likely wouldn't fit within that.

 

[sacountry]

Politics is the art of the possible. Restructuring the entire licensing system likely wouldn't fit within that.

Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube so we kinda have to change the container. There are other plusses to the model as well. As the human resident population grows in MT, you'd see increased demand for tags applied against a finite resource. The intersection of those two lines would be almost predictable because of the science and math. As residents, we could better accept and understand a transition from guaranteed tags to limited draw and/or limited seasons in part because we could see it coming.

 

[MTGomer]

If there’s a funding problem, we could make resident hunting license no longer be almost free.

Could charge more than $10 to apply to hunt the largest bighorn sheep in the world.

All these extra giveaways to certain classes of NR could be done away with in a revenue neutral way, but it will require residents to pay more than I just paid for a coffee, pancake, hash browns and a single biscuit with gravy, in order to hunt elk for months.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube so we kinda have to change the container. There are other plusses to the model as well. As the human resident population grows in MT, you'd see increased demand for tags applied against a finite resource. The intersection of those two lines would be almost predictable because of the science and math. As residents, we could better accept and understand a transition from guaranteed tags to limited draw and/or limited seasons in part because we could see it coming.

Run the numbers & show me the math.

I see! 40% for NR won't get our MTFWP to implement true game management on our public lands but 30% of that 40% should have a grand hunt on the private!

As I stated previously, if the resident public land hunters want to see better management of our wildlife, we need to take over the responsibility of funding that management. We, also need to except the changes needed to bring back HEALTHY herds on our public lands.

Adding revenue for the Block Management program, conservation easements or getting corner crossing legalized are all good things, BUT, if the whole wildlife management system is geared to the small entity that lines the pockets, there will not be any change and our public land wildlife will continue to diminish.

The Montana sportsmen and women have been competing in a boxing match with weighted gloves while the opponent is bare fisted clutching a roll of quarters and stuffing $100 bills into the ref's pockets.

"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded."
Major Dick Winters, 101st, E Company.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I haven't read all of the eleven pages on this thread so unsure if this proposal is still alive. I take advantage of Come Home to Hunt and usually spend the extra money for the elk/deer combo. I have yet to see an elk that wasn't standing in some farmer/rancher's posted field and not many of those. Mostly that's because my brother, who I must hunt with as a condition of the license, hasn't always been available. In fact, three years ago I was only able to hunt big game the last afternoon of the season. The deer only combo is significantly cheaper and I accept that getting a shot at an elk is remote, but the state can use the money. Those dual combos have been sold out in the past so applying for it has been risky. Oh well. I can always hunt birds.

Yes, something has to give. The state should consider restricting accessibility. USFS has done its part and taken the heat for it. I say get rid of hunting from SxS or quad. No drones. Also one license for one style of hunting per year. No more of this hunting archery and rifle and black powder seasons. Pick one.

Returning to the topic (well, that's a first), even though I use Come Home to Hunt, I am NOT in favor of expanding it to wives, kids, etc. Way over the line that's already treading water. Sounds to me like someone is trying to torpedo that package from within. Make it look worse than it already does so the whole shebang can be killed down the road.

 

[Beignet]

Sounds to me like someone is trying to torpedo that package from within. Make it look worse than it already does so the whole shebang can be killed down the road.

I was curious about the same. Particularly Sen. McGillvray’s response to Straight Arrow. It didn’t seem particularly defensive of the bill and encouraged him to air his views to other committee members.

Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I read that almost as “I’m going to propose this to placate the constituent that requested it, but the rest of the committee could/would kill it.”

 

[sacountry]

Run the numbers & show me the math.

Here's my thought...

According to FWP's website, the 10 year average elk population in Montana is 130,000 (2011-2021). Lets assume 130,000 is a healthy number and the tools used to measure were consistent over that time. The 2021 elk population is estimated at 141,785, so roughly 8% above the 10 year average and we've been at or above that average for the last 7 years. Estimate 17000 NR quota, plus 3000 NR exceptions for a total of 20,000 NR tags sold/year over those 10 years (the number of exception tags isn't consistent, so its assumptive). Here's the staggering number, MT resident purchases of sportsman licenses (both with and without bear), arguably the license every resident elk hunter buys, has jumped from 39,647 in 2011 to 76,079 in 2021. In that same 10 year time frame, the population of Montana grew by just 11.5%. This tells us that we are attracting a disproportionate number of resident hunters to Montana.

Based on the above numbers, in 2021 we have an elk population to license ratio of 141,786 to 96,079 (20k NR licenses plus 76,079 R sportsman licenses) or 1.5:1. If the trend continues we'll be at a 1:1 ratio in another 5ish years, assuming the elk population continues on its nominal rise. Proving that trend, in 2011 we had an elk population of 112,490 with 59,647 NR + R licenses sold which was closer to a 2:1 ratio.

So the question is how to maintain a herd of 130,000 elk? Given we're 8% over that assumptive target, the solution can't be to issue more licenses because we have done, and are doing, that. Arguments are vast that these elk are migrating to private elk sanctuaries in part due to the significant increase in public pressure. ACCESS could be, and should be, the #1 tool to control the population. Corner crossing should formally become legal. The block management program needs more funding to make it more lucrative or at least as lucrative as leasing (which in turn requires more policing, see $$$).

At $959 for a NR combo vs $77 roughly for a resident sportsman combo tag (avg between with and without bear), Resident hunters are adding a ton of hunting pressure for just a fraction of the revenue. Translation...we need more funding from the resident hunters we have, not more hunters. It's for this reason that McGillvray's initiative is a non-starter for me. Adding more hunters at a discount, even in a small quantity, isn't solving anything for anyone. To @Mtnhunter1 's point, if we as residents want to be an integral part of the solution we need to contribute more $/license...and to my point have that money go directly to improving access.

IF we can get to a healthy distribution of 130,000 elk across the landscape, it might make sense to keep the # of tags issued to a 2:1 ratio so 65,000 tags/year. I know that's a big IF, but it's within that framework that we then take a hard look at revenue/per hunter and NR:R ratios to determine license distribution. Until then, we should agree upon a working ratio, say no more than the current ratio of 1.5:1, otherwise things are going to get much, much worse and quickly. Even at a 1.5:1 ratio, with the current trends as they are, we'd be looking at implementing drawings for resident elk tags coupled with a reduction in NR tags in 2023-2024....and a reduction in NR tags would have a huge negative effect on the revenue.

All of this also points to how short sighted Cebull and Tabor are regarding HD313. These public land elk are not the elk we need to be hunting. We have way more people hunting today than we did 10 years ago. Cebull and Tabor's pro-opportunity bent needs to be focused on getting the access issue solved, not killing more elk on public land which only generates less hunter opportunity in the long run.

Ok choir, sing.

 

[Bambistew]

Here's my thought...

According to FWP's website, the 10 year average elk population in Montana is 130,000 (2011-2021). Lets assume 130,000 is a healthy number and the tools used to measure were consistent over that time. The 2021 elk population is estimated at 141,785, so roughly 8% above the 10 year average and we've been at or above that average for the last 7 years. Estimate 17000 NR quota, plus 3000 NR exceptions for a total of 20,000 NR tags sold/year over those 10 years (the number of exception tags isn't consistent, so its assumptive). Here's the staggering number, MT resident purchases of sportsman licenses (both with and without bear), arguably the license every resident elk hunter buys, has jumped from 39,647 in 2011 to 76,079 in 2021. In that same 10 year time frame, the population of Montana grew by just 11.5%. This tells us that we are attracting a disproportionate number of resident hunters to Montana.

Based on the above numbers, in 2021 we have an elk population to license ratio of 141,786 to 96,079 (20k NR licenses plus 76,079 R sportsman licenses) or 1.5:1. If the trend continues we'll be at a 1:1 ratio in another 5ish years, assuming the elk population continues on its nominal rise. Proving that trend, in 2011 we had an elk population of 112,490 with 59,647 NR + R licenses sold which was closer to a 2:1 ratio.

So the question is how to maintain a herd of 130,000 elk? Given we're 8% over that assumptive target, the solution can't be to issue more licenses because we have done, and are doing, that. Arguments are vast that these elk are migrating to private elk sanctuaries in part due to the significant increase in public pressure. ACCESS could be, and should be, the #1 tool to control the population. Corner crossing should formally become legal. The block management program needs more funding to make it more lucrative or at least as lucrative as leasing (which in turn requires more policing, see $$$).

At $959 for a NR combo vs $77 roughly for a resident sportsman combo tag (avg between with and without bear), Resident hunters are adding a ton of hunting pressure for just a fraction of the revenue. Translation...we need more funding from the resident hunters we have, not more hunters. It's for this reason that McGillvray's initiative is a non-starter for me. Adding more hunters at a discount, even in a small quantity, isn't solving anything for anyone. To @Mtnhunter1 's point, if we as residents want to be an integral part of the solution we need to contribute more $/license...and to my point have that money go directly to improving access.

IF we can get to a healthy distribution of 130,000 elk across the landscape, it might make sense to keep the # of tags issued to a 2:1 ratio so 65,000 tags/year. I know that's a big IF, but it's within that framework that we then take a hard look at revenue/per hunter and NR:R ratios to determine license distribution. Until then, we should agree upon a working ratio, say no more than the current ratio of 1.5:1, otherwise things are going to get much, much worse and quickly. Even at a 1.5:1 ratio, with the current trends as they are, we'd be looking at implementing drawings for resident elk tags coupled with a reduction in NR tags in 2023-2024....and a reduction in NR tags would have a huge negative effect on the revenue.

All of this also points to how short sighted Cebull and Tabor are regarding HD313. These public land elk are not the elk we need to be hunting. We have way more people hunting today than we did 10 years ago. Cebull and Tabor's pro-opportunity bent needs to be focused on getting the access issue solved, not killing more elk on public land which only generates less hunter opportunity in the long run.

Ok choir, sing.

Lots of fun math there. What about the part where the elk are over "objective" by 40,000? Pretty hard to argue you need to cut tags, when there are too many elk.

Also is there really a funding shortfall for MT FWP? Just curious.

 

[sacountry]

Lots of fun math there. What about the part where the elk are over "objective" by 40,000? Pretty hard to argue you need to cut tags, when there are too many elk.

Also is there really a funding shortfall for MT FWP? Just curious.

When managing with ratios, the discussion quickly draws focus on more precisely determining the population. Right now there is a ton of gray....are we counting all elk or just elk that's on public land? Depending on your perspective you can twist the number 6 ways to Sunday. We need to stop that and settle on an agreement.

As for a funding shortfall. No there isn't, but if we want to ensure our hunting heritage then it's going to take more money than the system is currently generating. Capping the number of licenses issued appears to be where we need to go so the only way to get more money on a fixed number of licenses is by paying more/license.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Here's my thought...

According to FWP's website, the 10 year average elk population in Montana is 130,000 (2011-2021). Lets assume 130,000 is a healthy number and the tools used to measure were consistent over that time. The 2021 elk population is estimated at 141,785, so roughly 8% above the 10 year average and we've been at or above that average for the last 7 years. Estimate 17000 NR quota, plus 3000 NR exceptions for a total of 20,000 NR tags sold/year over those 10 years (the number of exception tags isn't consistent, so its assumptive). Here's the staggering number, MT resident purchases of sportsman licenses (both with and without bear), arguably the license every resident elk hunter buys, has jumped from 39,647 in 2011 to 76,079 in 2021. In that same 10 year time frame, the population of Montana grew by just 11.5%. This tells us that we are attracting a disproportionate number of resident hunters to Montana.

Based on the above numbers, in 2021 we have an elk population to license ratio of 141,786 to 96,079 (20k NR licenses plus 76,079 R sportsman licenses) or 1.5:1. If the trend continues we'll be at a 1:1 ratio in another 5ish years, assuming the elk population continues on its nominal rise. Proving that trend, in 2011 we had an elk population of 112,490 with 59,647 NR + R licenses sold which was closer to a 2:1 ratio.

So the question is how to maintain a herd of 130,000 elk? Given we're 8% over that assumptive target, the solution can't be to issue more licenses because we have done, and are doing, that. Arguments are vast that these elk are migrating to private elk sanctuaries in part due to the significant increase in public pressure. ACCESS could be, and should be, the #1 tool to control the population. Corner crossing should formally become legal. The block management program needs more funding to make it more lucrative or at least as lucrative as leasing (which in turn requires more policing, see $$$).

At $959 for a NR combo vs $77 roughly for a resident sportsman combo tag (avg between with and without bear), Resident hunters are adding a ton of hunting pressure for just a fraction of the revenue. Translation...we need more funding from the resident hunters we have, not more hunters. It's for this reason that McGillvray's initiative is a non-starter for me. Adding more hunters at a discount, even in a small quantity, isn't solving anything for anyone. To @Mtnhunter1 's point, if we as residents want to be an integral part of the solution we need to contribute more $/license...and to my point have that money go directly to improving access.

IF we can get to a healthy distribution of 130,000 elk across the landscape, it might make sense to keep the # of tags issued to a 2:1 ratio so 65,000 tags/year. I know that's a big IF, but it's within that framework that we then take a hard look at revenue/per hunter and NR:R ratios to determine license distribution. Until then, we should agree upon a working ratio, say no more than the current ratio of 1.5:1, otherwise things are going to get much, much worse and quickly. Even at a 1.5:1 ratio, with the current trends as they are, we'd be looking at implementing drawings for resident elk tags coupled with a reduction in NR tags in 2023-2024....and a reduction in NR tags would have a huge negative effect on the revenue.

All of this also points to how short sighted Cebull and Tabor are regarding HD313. These public land elk are not the elk we need to be hunting. We have way more people hunting today than we did 10 years ago. Cebull and Tabor's pro-opportunity bent needs to be focused on getting the access issue solved, not killing more elk on public land which only generates less hunter opportunity in the long run.

Ok choir, sing.

Aren’t you forgetting to include the folks that bought stand alone elk or deer tags into your equations?

My 2021 numbers showed a total of 186,000 combined NR and R elk licenses sold.
In 2021 there were a total of 186, 329 elk licenses sold.

There were 136,780 resident either sex licenses and 26,633 antlerless licenses.

Nonresident license sales increased in 2021 to 19,351 either sex licenses and 3,565 antlerless licenses for a total of 22,916 nonresident elk licenses.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The really smart people from other states will start having “anchor babies” here to accrue lifetime resident benefits. I see a blossoming economic sector.

Guess I need to start looking at AirBnBs...

 

[sacountry]

Aren’t you forgetting to include the folks that bought stand alone elk or deer tags into your equations?

My 2021 numbers showed a total of 186,000 combined NR and R elk licenses sold.
In 2021 there were a total of 186, 329 elk licenses sold.

There were 136,780 resident either sex licenses and 26,633 antlerless licenses.

Nonresident license sales increased in 2021 to 19,351 either sex licenses and 3,565 antlerless licenses for a total of 22,916 nonresident elk licenses.

I think you could expand the searchable data and likely come close to the same conclusions....that we need better access while shifting the licensing model to ratios of game to licenses. To me that model puts the emphasis on the game and everything else feeds off of that.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Aren’t you forgetting to include the folks that bought stand alone elk or deer tags into your equations?

My 2021 numbers showed a total of 186,000 combined NR and R elk licenses sold.

Numbers don't lie....the system needs a complete overhaul.

 

[BuzzH]

Are elk really over objective in Montana?

Who believes the MTFWP's estimates on population?

What about the areas in Montana that used to have lots of good elk hunting, great elk populations, and now have very few elk?

Macro management stopped working in Montana, like 20 years ago.