More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana

[Ben Lamb]

Who was the “citizen organization” that collected signatures to get that on the ballot?

I’d love for some folks in Montana to get them on the horn and find out how they got it done.

Prop G was a legislative referendum. This legislature would not pass such a thing. I'm already planning on this, since I'm in MI.

 

[8andcounting]

We are in the first week of the legislative session and the bills to change Montana hunting are already coming out. We knew this bill was on the docket and the final language just came out.

We already have the "Come Home To Hunt," the "Montana Native," and the "College Student" programs that allow selected non-residents to hunt here without having to draw, and they get to do so at a discounted price. This bill will allow a lot more people to hunt Montana, at a reduced price, and add beyond the 17,000 (really double that number) that they say is the non-resident cap. A ton of folks would qualify under this proposal.

This proposal expands the Montana Native program, essentially doubling that program. Anyone who is married to a Montana Native, would now get to buy a discounted non-resident license, the same as under the existing Montana Native program.



The amount of ways that the 17,000 cap is being circumvented grows every legislative session. This has the possibility to add a lot more to that. And, given the other big issues in this session, stuff like this is just more distraction.

Given the bill is currently in draft form, hopefully we can convince the sponsor of the problems resulting from this bill before he actually introduces it for a committee hearing.

If you have some comments on this proposal, please email the sponsor, politely and professionally - [email protected]



Link to the bill here - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC0209.pdf

Quit pointing the finger at NR . Concentrate in house , in state , that’s where your problems are

 

[Straight Arrow]

culture that thinks the resource is inexhaustible.

That has been the most adversely impacting culture for Montana with regard to so many resources.
If not reined in with regard to wildlife ... the future potential is "back to the brink"!

The Last Best Place will just be another worse off place.

 

[Big Fin]

Yup - damn NR’s . The problem in montana has very little (if anything) to do with how many NR’s come there hunting . Very little . Look in the mirror . I didn’t elect any montana officials

Quit pointing the finger at NR . For real . Concentrate in house , in state , that’s where your problems are

I'm not pointing the finger at the NR. For real. I spend a ton of time focusing on plenty of the other issues that create problems in Montana. That doesn't mean we ignore other proposals that contribute to some of the problems we see, the greatest being too much pressure on a finite resource, something LC0209 would increase.

I agree, Montana has a plenty of problems arising from a lot of different causes. Yet for the issues around LC0209, there are some realities that are placing pressure on a resource that FWP, the Commission, or in this case, the Legislature, seem oblivious to.

From 2011-2021, Montana's population increased by 10.7%. During that time, resident license hunting sales increased by 8.7%, which in true numbers is about 13,000 increase.

During that same period, non-resident hunting sales increased by 220%, which in true numbers is an increase of over 47,000. I know of no other state where the rate of increase in non-resident license sales was 20x the rate of increase in resident sale. Or in true numbers, where the increase in numbers of non-resident licenses was 34,000 more, or almost 4x.

That data shows how much these Legislative stunts have been used to work around the 17,000 non-resident cap that existed for a long time. These programs are really workarounds to the 17,000 non-resident cap we are always told exists and that I think most Montana hunters are acceptable to.

Every workaround contributes to the trend shown in the numbers above. We don't need more expansion of these programs at a time when the resource is already struggling to support the current harvest.

There is not a single change that will make a huge difference to any of the problems we might feel exists in Montana. Yet, there are small changes, or rejection of ideas such as LC0209 that continue to incrementally add to the trend above, that can improve things or in this case, reduce the rate at which we put more pressure on the resource. If the resource could withstand the pressure, I have no problem increasing opportunity, whether it be residents or non-residents.

This is not pro-resident or anti-nonresident, nor is it slanted one way for/against outfitted hunters. This bill forces a discussion of the fact that the Montana Legislature continues to ignore the resource and keeps giving away "non-resident" treats to any constituent they deem needs to be pleased that day.

These expanded non-resident programs started when a Gallatin Valley legislator wanted to make sure his non-resident kids could come home and hunt, at a discounted price, without being subject to the non-resident drawing, thus giving his kids the best of both worlds - high paying jobs out of state and preference over other non-residents when it came to Montana hunting tags. It was purely self-serving and that was pointed out. And once it started, just like was predicted by those of us who opposed it back then, non-resident tag "workarounds" has grown to the level we see today and what we see in this proposed bill.

Even though I have a family member that could benefit from these "workaround" programs, I still think they are BS. I opposed all of them at the time and I oppose expanding them at this time. And I will also keep focusing on many other issues that impact hunting in Montana.

 

[Beignet]

Prop G was a legislative referendum. This legislature would not pass such a thing. I'm already planning on this, since I'm in MI.

Derp. I’ve got to pay attention to the fine print, that article also mentioned a Prop D that was citizen driven.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not pointing the finger at the NR. For real. I spend a ton of time focusing on plenty of the other issues that create problems in Montana. That doesn't mean we ignore other proposals that contribute to some of the problems we see, the greatest being too much pressure on a finite resource, something LC0209 would increase.

I agree, Montana has a plenty of problems arising from a lot of different causes. Yet for the issues around LC0209, there are some realities that are placing pressure on a resource that FWP, the Commission, or in this case, the Legislature, seem oblivious to.

From 2011-2021, Montana's population increased by 10.7%. During that time, resident license hunting sales increased by 8.7%, which in true numbers is about 13,000 increase.

During that same period, non-resident hunting sales increased by 220%, which in true numbers is an increase of over 47,000. I know of no other state where the rate of increase in non-resident license sales was 20x the rate of increase in resident sale. Or in true numbers, where the increase in numbers of non-resident licenses was 34,000 more, or almost 4x.

That data shows how much these Legislative stunts have been used to work around the 17,000 non-resident cap that existed for a long time. These programs are really workarounds to the 17,000 non-resident cap we are always told exists and that I think most Montana hunters are acceptable to.

Every workaround contributes to the trend shown in the numbers above. We don't need more expansion of these programs at a time when the resource is already struggling to support the current harvest.

There is not a single change that will make a huge difference to any of the problems we might feel exists in Montana. Yet, there are small changes, or rejection of ideas such as LC0209 that continue to incrementally add to the trend above, that can improve things or in this case, reduce the rate at which we put more pressure on the resource. If the resource could withstand the pressure, I have no problem increasing opportunity, whether it be residents or non-residents.

This is not pro-resident or anti-nonresident, nor is it slanted one way for/against outfitted hunters. This bill forces a discussion of the fact that the Montana Legislature continues to ignore the resource and keeps giving away "non-resident" treats to any constituent they deem needs to be pleased that day.

These expanded non-resident programs started when a Gallatin Valley legislator wanted to make sure his non-resident kids could come home and hunt, at a discounted price, without being subject to the non-resident drawing, thus giving his kids the best of both worlds - high paying jobs out of state and preference over other non-residents when it came to Montana hunting tags. It was purely self-serving and that was pointed out. And once it started, just like was predicted by those of us who opposed it back then, non-resident tag "workarounds" has grown to the level we see today and what we see in this proposed bill.

Even though I have a family member that could benefit from these "workaround" programs, I still think they are BS. I opposed all of them at the time and I oppose expanding them at this time. And I will also keep focusing on many other issues that impact hunting in Montana.

Would like to feel sorry for the plight of these give away tags.

Seems a bunch of Montana hunters, both R and NRs also warned of the shoulder seasons and the expansion of that program.

I was told we should support those seasons from some influential Montanans and the RMEF...for a "trial" to build relations with landowners and control elk.

That program was immediately expanded and Montana's elk took it right on the chin...as predicted by almost everyone.

As per usual though those with the most influence didn't do enough to oppose it, in fact supported that crap.

Then, to ice the cake, nobody held anyone accountable and simply bellied up to the license counter to buy an elk b-tag for their favorite shoulder season.

Who do I see about that?

I was and still am opposed to the work around tags...and will make that known with Montana legislators. I just get tired of having to tell them 5 times, on the same issue, they're destroying the resource.

 

[8andcounting]

From 2011-2021, Montana's population increased by 10.7%. During that time, resident license hunting sales increased by 8.7%, which in true numbers is about 13,000 increase.

During that same period, non-resident hunting sales increased by 220%, which in true numbers is an increase of over 47,000. I know of no other state where the rate of increase in non-resident license sales was 20x the rate of increase in resident sale. Or in true numbers, where the increase in numbers of non-resident licenses was 34,000 more, or almost 4x.

Randy , you do tons of good things I’ll never deny that . We (hunters) need more folks like you . However, in this case for the exact case you stated ^ , you need to look in the mirror . You were one of the biggest advocates and biggest advertisers for getting more NR to montana . It’s just a fact

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yup - damn NR’s . The problem in montana has very little (if anything) to do with how many NR’s come there hunting . Very little . Look in the mirror . I didn’t elect any montana officials

Yes, and as a lifelong Montana hunter I have enjoyed meeting and engaging with NR hunters. I have also hosted some on some fun hunt trips. One of my best hunting days was with my nephew from Richland, Washington, who saved up and ponied up for a NR combo license. We got a double on elk and had a great day getting them out. He also took home a nice mule deer buck. I made sure it didn't cost him to eat and stay in Montana. NR's visits are good for Montana.

However, when my FWP and my legislature continues to tell me that there is a cap on NR licenses of 17k, yet the numbers in the stats and the numbers at public lands trailheads continue to ramp up ... lately it's not just a trickle; it's a downpour of "piss" on my head. But you are right in pointing to Montanans' mirror. We continue to elect and place power and lawmaking influence in the hands of those who don't really care about the resource, whether it be wildlife or whatever. To exacerbate the problems, it seems to me the majority of resident hunters are more concerned about keeping long seasons, shooting anything with antlers, not having to pony up for license increases, and trying to increase the revenue on the backs of nonresidents. It's a frustrating challenge to change that attitude.

 

[rogerthat]

I don’t think time and effort is well spent playing the blame game. The R vs NR crap gets old. We are all Rs in one state and NRs in 49 others. Who cares how we got here. Typing up a message to our legislators takes no longer than typing up a message on this board.

 

[8andcounting]

Yes, and as a lifelong Montana hunter I have enjoyed meeting and engaging with NR hunters. I have also hosted some on some fun hunt trips. One of my best hunting days was with my nephew from Richland, Washington, who saved up and ponied up for a NR combo license. We got a double on elk and had a great day getting them out. He also took home a nice mule deer buck. I made sure it didn't cost him to eat and stay in Montana. NR's visits are good for Montana.

However, when my FWP and my legislature continues to tell me that there is a cap on NR licenses of 17k, yet the numbers in the stats and the numbers at public lands trailheads continue to ramp up ... lately it's not just a trickle; it's a downpour of "piss" on my head. But you are right in pointing to Montanans' mirror. We continue to elect and place power and lawmaking influence in the hands of those who don't really care about the resource, whether it be wildlife or whatever. To exacerbate the problems, it seems to me the majority of resident hunters are more concerned about keeping long seasons, shooting anything with antlers, not having to pony up for license increases, and trying to increase the revenue on the backs of nonresidents. It's a frustrating challenge to change that attitude.

Totally agree

 

[BuzzH]

I was a called a selfish no good for opposing 10 year olds hunting and the youth deer seasons...not because I hate youth hunters, but because of the impact to the resource.

Now those same Montana hunters are wanting opposition to native and come home to hunt carve outs because it impacts the resource.

Strange dynamic that a bunch of dead deer for one doesn't seem to impact anything, the other is crushing the resource.

Like every issue with wildlife in Montana, nobody wants to give up anything and the resource is lucky to make the top 10 of "concerns".

 

[nygc]

I'm not pointing the finger at the NR. ...

This is anti-NR, Resident protectionism. It is very understandable, and something many of us have done in our own states. We want higher quality/quantity in our own states and first instinct is to make sure less of that quality/quantity leaks across the border. It is a Montanans right to do this by way of citizenship and voting rights.

But please don't pretend that is not what this is. Own it.

No amount of word count, data or polish changes what this is. It is simply OK to be the resident who expresses his desires to an elected official to be treated better.

Montana is returning the punch inflicted by the WY task force. Soon, the residents of Colorado might punch. And down the line until tourism dollars or a legislator with NR in-laws gets in the way.

 

[8andcounting]

Like every issue with wildlife in Montana, nobody wants to give up anything and the resource is lucky to make the top 10 of "concerns".

Yup - no one wants to
Give up opportunity when it boils down to it

 

[8andcounting]

This is anti-NR, Resident protectionism. It is very understandable, and something many of us have done in our own states. We want higher quality/quantity in our own states and first instinct is to make sure less of that quality/quantity leaks across the border. It is a Montanans right to do this by way of citizenship and voting rights.

But please don't pretend that is not what this is. Own it.

No amount of word count, data or polish changes what this is. It is simply OK to be the resident who expresses his desires to an elected official to be treated better.

Montana is returning the punch inflicted by the WY task force. Soon, the residents of Colorado might punch. And down the line until tourism dollars or a legislator with NR in-laws gets in the way.

You want to hear bitching from Montana residents just take away some NR opportunities and raise the price of R tags

 

[Treeshark]

Not saying it is right, but Montana protecting the 17,000 NR tags is totally understandable from a financial perspective.

NR tags in Montana are big $$, adding the extras above and beyond rather than cutting into the cap makes the state a lot more money.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy , you do tons of good things I’ll never deny that . We (hunters) need more folks like you . However, in this case for the exact case you stated ^ , you need to look in the mirror . You were one of the biggest advocates and biggest advertisers for getting more NR to montana . It’s just a fact

I might advocate for more non-residents to apply for Montana and other states, but I've not advocated for circumventing the 17,000 non-resident cap. And when people say I'm the cause of increased interest in other states, those states, unlike Montana, stick to their non-resident quotas/limits without legislators doling out non-resident tags as the "spoils of victory."

The biggest problems facing Montana is not the resident v. non-resident issue. The bill in question expands non-resident tags, so that drags the discussion into the Res v. Non-res. realm by adding more tags for non-residents. The bigger point is a legislature that hands out goodies and disregards the resource, expanding on their habit of meddling in topics that should be left to biologists. I think we would agree that is not helpful.

Point being, if we had true caps like we are promised there would not be expansion of so much pressure coming from one of the many directions pressure comes, that being non-residents. And we wouldn't get drawn into these useless discussions about who is more of the problem, resident or non-resident.

As to the points I think we agreed upon in your first post as "bigger issues facing Montana," toward the top would be our season structures. With a growing resident population, huge increases in non-resident tags, combined with our wide open season structures, we have big issues that truly impact the resource. Changing season structures and the related impact on the resource is something I've used these platforms to try improve. But, we all see how hard it is to get anyone to change something once they have benefit of it, whether long seasons they currently enjoy or an expansion of a non-resident tag program as is LC0209.

When everyone who has a connection with a legislator gets a new work around for their situation, the pressure on the resource grows and grows and grows. We know how hard it is take away an opportunity once it is granted/expanded, in this case it is a bill to expand a program that increases non-resident tags beyond what we are always promised, the 17,000. I oppose that proposal.

I am sure there will be some bills in this legislative session to hand out some goodies to residents that will not be in the best interest of the resource. And these platforms will be used to oppose those, also.

 

[SAJ-99]

Hunt talkers every legislative session

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not saying it is right, but Montana protecting the 17,000 NR tags is totally understandable from a financial perspective.

NR tags in Montana are big $$, adding the extras above and beyond rather than cutting into the cap makes the state a lot more money.

There is a delicate balance between cutting tags and funding the agency to be sure. However, when we see a marked increase in NR hunting opportunity stacked up by the Legislature, then the legislature is the appropriate place to try and fix that. The B10 & B11 fund block management and Habitat Montana. Do we want to cut funding for two of the most successful access & conservation programs at the state level? The caps of 17K and quota for the B11 (which is a joke since the turned in B7 can be resold as a B11) are based on what the resourse can bear. We've added over 23,000 Elk B tags (antlerless) to the NR roles and somewhere around the same for antlerless deer. The only way to change that is through the Legislature to limit what NR's can purchase. That's not really taking away from NR hunters so much as it is looking out for the resource and allowing the right-sized opportunity.

NR hunters make up about 73% of the license revenue from FWP. Cut too deep and you lose programs and you make the Resident pay for more, which is always a challenge to get through.

What does that mean for loss of PR/DJ funding and what does that mean for budget shortfalls elsewhere?

Season setting in 2023 starts again, and that's where you work to fix season structure.

The new EMP begins in earnest in 2023 as well. That's where you work on the larger policy issues that plague low hunter success and problematic concentrations.

 

[Treeshark]

NR hunters make up about 73% of the license revenue from FWP.

That number is insane. Montana residents should see that and have a lightbulb come on as to why their voice seems to be diminishing by the year.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That number is insane. Montana residents should see that and have a lightbulb come on as to why their voice seems to be diminishing by the year.

They see a $100 sportsman's license with bear and think it's too much for all of your fishing, upland game bird, elk A and Deer A tags as well as conservation license, base hunting license, state lands fee, etc.

MT resident licenses are the cheapest date out there. $20 for an elk tag to hunt 6 months. But every time there is an effort to raise fees, you'd think that you're taking food out of the mouths of babies by the crying.