It’s Bucky
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 15, 2025
- Messages
- 139
I’m all for increased resident license fees, but can someone explain what my money is going to and how it is benefiting the resource? I’m genuinely curious.
Reduction in number of NR deer licenses
- Thread starter Hobbes
- Start date
2025 FWP Budget: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/aboutfwp/legislature/2025/budget-book_2025_web.pdf
2025 Capital expenditures: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/aboutfwp/legislature/2025/house-book-5_2025_web.pdf
FWP's budget is primarily made up multiple revenue streams, with earmarks occurring on a significant portion (meaning that funding is devoted to a specific program). Those streams are:
1.) Resident hunter license dollars: about 28% of license revenue is generated by resident hunters (Primarily GLA, but some earmarks exist)
2.) NR license dollars: about 72% of all license revenue (Over 40% earmarked to various programs, rest to the GLA)
3.) Federal excise taxes like PR/DJ (earmarked and federally protected)
4.) LWCF funding for acquisitions and stewardship (earmarked & federally protected)
5.) Recreational MJ funding for a bunch of items (earmarked)
6.) License plate funding for state parks
Might be some other funding sources I'm missing but that's the nut of it.
The earmarks are important because those programs then aren't scavenged when other stuff comes up short. We see this in discussions around the federal spending debate where one key program gets cut for something else, rather than have gov't look to actually fund things appropriately. Once you lose those earmarks, you put your funding for key programs on the political chopping block each year rather than protect the funding and the program from the idle hands of appropriators. The earmarks in this instance are primarily for the hunter access enhancement fund (Block mgt, etc) and Habitat MT (access, cons. easements, purchases and leases).
Last edited:
Frequently Banned Troll
Well-known member
Can you share?
Most? Unless you have receipts to prove this then nope! Just an opinion in an echo chamber of all.
Jedediah Hinkle - Montana Legislature
Montana FWP Commission reduces non-resident deer licenses by 2,500. FWP staff states this may lead to a $1.7 Million shortfall in license revenue. What are your thoughts?...
www.facebook.com
Hobbes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2025
- Messages
- 70
Wheatgrass
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2022
- Messages
- 13
I find it interesting that Montana thinks reducing the number of NR hunters will help the deer herd, because the Utah DWR swears up and down that hunting bucks does not affect the deer population.
I think it’s more addressing the flood of nonresidents on accessible lands in eastern Montana in November. 2500 less certainly isn’t going to hurt anything.
yawn.
It’s Bucky
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 15, 2025
- Messages
- 139
Are there BMA’s that aren’t funded, or are told no you can’t be a part of the program, because of a lack of funding? How do they determine which BMAs to cut when there is a funding shortfall?
Yes and no. The funds from the orphaned license go into a few accounts but there is no specific earmark for these funds to go to Block Mgt. If the agency has the cash on hand for the budget, then you'd be looking at cuts for the next budget cycle (2027-2028). So it will be a negative in terms of overall cash, but because these were thoughtful and strategic cuts I don't think it's going to hurt the program.
So, I don't think it hurts the program in the short-term, but there remains long-term issues that need to be dealt with, hopefully from the study bill that passed last session to look exactly at these issues.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Word buzzing around in the Capitol Rotunda in Helena is that Wisconsin NR hunters will pay a steep tariff beginning 2027 in order to offset any potential shortfalls.
