Which MT legislator(s) should I contact? Student license problem

PFUNK

New member
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
202
I have a quick question for all of you who may have gone to a Montana legislator in the past with a concern about a rule or regulation. Some of you may not consider this to be a big deal, but I had an experience the other day while going with my girlfriend to purchase her fishing license that really bothered me. Here is the situation: We are both from out of state originally but are here attending pharmacy school at the University of Montana. I went through the process of becoming a resident after being here for 6 months, but my girlfriend chose instead to purchase the combination (deer,elk,fishing) license that is offered to nonresident full time students. We had plans to go ice fishing the other day, and since our licenses expired 2/29/12, we had to head to get our new ones. We headed to FWP headquarters in Missoula because students are required to purchase that license at FWP... no problem. However, we were told there that she would be unable to purchase that license until September, and that if she wanted to be fishing between now and then, that she would have to purchase the nonresident fishing and conservation licenses ($70) now, even though she would get those same licenses included when purchasing her student license in September. Then, when she gets her student license in September, it will read that it was valid 3/1/12 - 2/28/13, even though she was not even allowed to buy it until September. On top of this, when she purchases the student license in September, she will NOT be able to get a refund OR have the $70 she already spent applied towards her license purchase at that time. I found this to be absolutely RIDICULOUS! Why should she be required to purchase a $70 nonresident fishing license and then come september purchase a combination license that includes the fishing that she simply was not able to buy because the state says you can't buy it yet?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the state has to have protections in place to prevent people from abusing the system. I understand how they may be concerned that come next September, she may no longer be a full time student and would therefore not be eligible for the license. That will not be the case, but I do understand they have to have a way to regulate that. However, I do NOT agree with the fact that they will not offer her a refund at that time (september 2012) or apply the $70 she already spent towards the $87 or whatever the total cost of the student combo license is. It is really not fair that she can't fish the entire Summer due to this technicality unless she wants to drop an extra $70. In addition, due to the wording of the law, she can't purchase the license until the 2nd Monday in September, which also prevents her from bow hunting the first week or two of the archery elk season. Also very silly in my opinion.

Anyway, the point is that this bothered me enough that I want to get in touch with a legislator or legislators who care about outdoorsman and their concerns. I want someone who will hear me out on this and it is my hope that I can bring about a change to the law that will prevent this from happening to people in the future. I think this really deters from getting people out into the outdoors to enjoy the resources we should all be able to enjoy. I am just getting her into fishing, and something like this can't leave her with the best impression, as it certainly did not leave me with a good one. I would love to hear suggestions from any of you on who I should contact and how I should go about this. Also, I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Am I way off for feeling the way I feel about this? Personally, I don't understand why Montana doesn't simply give full time students resident status for the purposes of obtaining hunting/fishing licenses. I know for fact that my home state of Minnesota and most of its neighbors (Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota) allow nonresidents who are full time students to purchase resident licenses. It is so much easier than offering a single license type (Combo) and making them jump through hoops to get it. That would be my ultimate goal, but for now I would be happy with getting the ball rolling to at least change the wording on the current law to prevent silly things like this. Your thoughts/suggestions? Thanks!
 
Just feel lucky that NR students get reduced priced tags at all...shell out the $70 for a fishing license and be glad you arent paying 1k like all the rest of the Non-residents.

Really? Whining about a total of $150 to fish, hunt elk, deer, and upland birds in Montana as a NR?

Ever heard of choosing your battles? I'd rethink this one before I pursued it any further.
 
PFUNK,

The hunting tags are an exception to the NR price rule. As you stated, you went through the resident process, she elected not to. Because she is not a resident, she still has to pay NR fees for fishing licenses. Only by the gracious acts of MT does she get discounted big game tags; as a NR she is not entitled to them. She should be greatful.
 
PFUNK,

The hunting tags are an exception to the NR price rule. As you stated, you went through the resident process, she elected not to. Because she is not a resident, she still has to pay NR fees for fishing licenses. Only by the gracious acts of MT does she get discounted big game tags; as a NR she is not entitled to them. She should be greatful.

Don't get me wrong guys, I think it is a great opportunity for students. I just think it could be fine tuned to make it better. I don't see the harm in that, and don't see that I'm "whining". The intent is to offer it at a discounted rate for the student, yet the way it is written prevents exactly that from happening. I just don't get why it can't be tweaked and reworded so that you don't pay twice for the same exact license. Would I/you want to buy two fishing licenses every year just because the law is worded that way? No... but I likely would... and so did she. Do I think that is the best way of doing it? No, I think it could be better, so why should I sit on my heels? If I offend you for wanting to go to the lawmakers to say "Hey, I think this is kind of silly... what do you think?" well then I'm sorry. I think the law has a great intent and is a great opportunity for students, but isn't quite right in the way it is laid out. Seems like an easy fix, so why should I not pursue it? Why is this not the right battle to fight? Just because it's already only $150 I should just be happy with that and keep my mouth shut? Guess I just feel like it would be such a simple fix there is no reason not to at least try talking with a legislator to see what they think.
 
Don't get me wrong guys, I think it is a great opportunity for students. I just think it could be fine tuned to make it better. I don't see the harm in that, and don't see that I'm "whining". I think the law has a great intent and is a great opportunity for students, but isn't quite right in the way it is laid out. Seems like an easy fix, so why should I not pursue it? Why is this not the right battle to fight? Just because it's already only $150 I should just be happy with that and keep my mouth shut? Guess I just feel like it would be such a simple fix there is no reason not to at least try talking with a legislator to see what they think.

Really?

Lets see...a NR combo tag is $994...most of them never use the fishing license or the upland bird license. Even if they do, its probably only while they're in Montana hunting big-game.

Students are getting the same thing for $155...having to buy the $70 NR fishing license. Thats a savings of over $800 bones.

The reason that its not the right battle to fight is that every single NR student would get a discounted license the year they graduate. Another reason is that at any time the Residents of Montana and legislature can decide that the whining and complaining isnt worth it and repeal the law.

I cant get over the fact that, even in light of the best deal in town, some will still have a reason to bitch and complain. Do some math partner...$155/365 days a year...42 cents a day for the right to fish and/or hunt in Montana.... AS A NON-RESIDENT.

Go find another state that will allow a NR student to have the same opportunities for 42 cents a day.

Good luck with the battle...a worthy endeavor I'm sure.
 
The reality is that the NR fulltime college student discount is a good deal. It is difficult enough to manage annually without month-to-month or seasonal provisions. 'Pretty sure that's why they designed it to fit with the school year (Sept) beginning.

I agree, it is not something worth spinning before the legislature ... that process has already become a nightmare for FWP. 'Seems like every wingnut has their own little gripe about an already very reasonably priced hunting and fishing license system.

Another option is to spend $60 for a NR seasonal fishing license and she can fish all summer for a reasonable fee.
 
Really?

Lets see...a NR combo tag is $994...most of them never use the fishing license or the upland bird license. Even if they do, its probably only while they're in Montana hunting big-game.

Students are getting the same thing for $155...having to buy the $70 NR fishing license. Thats a savings of over $800 bones.

The reason that its not the right battle to fight is that every single NR student would get a discounted license the year they graduate. Another reason is that at any time the Residents of Montana and legislature can decide that the whining and complaining isnt worth it and repeal the law.

I cant get over the fact that, even in light of the best deal in town, some will still have a reason to bitch and complain. Do some math partner...$155/365 days a year...42 cents a day for the right to fish and/or hunt in Montana.... AS A NON-RESIDENT.

Go find another state that will allow a NR student to have the same opportunities for 42 cents a day.

Good luck with the battle...a worthy endeavor I'm sure.

You are making some assumptions here. First, you are assuming I propose every student get a license the year they graduate? Not so. Can be much simpler than that. A couple possibilities.... buy the nonresident fishing in March like she did... come September prove you will still be a full-time student the coming year and that $70 you spent in March goes towards the $85 student combo. Another, even more simple option... fishing license with student combo is good september XX - september XX instead of the same dates as the resident license. If you can't buy it until september, why not make it good for 1 year from then? Pretty simple solution to me.

Now maybe you should do some math.... Are the regular nonresidents who come over spending money in the state of Montana the entire year or are they just spending it the few weeks they are here? Students stick a lot more money into the state of Montana than someone who spends a couple weeks here. We fill our cars every week with Montana gas, fill our cupboards with food from a Montana grocery store, and it just so happens that if we are hunting or fishing here, our money goes into Montana sporting goods shops. So to say we are just the same as some run of the mill nonresident coming over here is a stretch. If I live here 365 days a year, I am spending more in Montana than someone who spends a couple weeks here... seems you may be forgetting that in your math calculations.

Also, I just named off several states that make it far more simple for students.... if you are a full time student you purchase resident hunting/fishing licenses once you provide proof of enrollment. That seems a lot easier to me, but that's just my opinion. You seem to be under the assumption Montana is the only ones giving students such a lucky break.

In any case, like I said. I am happy they do offer such a license. It could just be laid out a whole lot simpler than it is now. But boy should I be ashamed to think such a thing apparently.
 
Last edited:
The reality is that the NR fulltime college student discount is a good deal. It is difficult enough to manage annually without month-to-month or seasonal provisions. 'Pretty sure that's why they designed it to fit with the school year (Sept) beginning.

I agree, it is not something worth spinning before the legislature ... that process has already become a nightmare for FWP. 'Seems like every wingnut has their own little gripe about an already very reasonably priced hunting and fishing license system.

Another option is to spend $60 for a NR seasonal fishing license and she can fish all summer for a reasonable fee.

She did spend the $60 for the season fishing license (+$10 for conservation), but the point is that she will get that same exact season fishing license in september when she buys the student combo. Why not just make that license purchased in september good for 1 year from the purchase date? Instead that license will be eligible for use from 3/1/XX - 2/28/XX, even though it isn't able to be purchased until september. It is just a very complicated way of doing things in my opinion. But, considering the opinions every one else is expressing... I am off base. I never said it is a bad deal, it is a great deal. But it is so silly how it is all laid out and I think it could be set up to work so much better and far more simple. Other states offer the same thing and do it a lot easier.
 
Obviously you have thought it through and done some research. If your passion persists, I suggest you go through your university student body government organization and propose it. It would get much more traction if a significant number of NR student hunters / anglers are really involved, concerned, and if that organization proposes the revisions to the appropriate district legislator or through the University Board of Regents.

On the other hand ... if it is like the "atlatl bill" proposed in the interest of a small handful of interested parties, then it is not worthy of the valuable legislative time and process.
 
Don't get me wrong guys, I think it is a great opportunity for students. I just think it could be fine tuned to make it better. I don't see the harm in that, and don't see that I'm "whining". The intent is to offer it at a discounted rate for the student, yet the way it is written prevents exactly that from happening. I just don't get why it can't be tweaked and reworded so that you don't pay twice for the same exact license. Would I/you want to buy two fishing licenses every year just because the law is worded that way? No... but I likely would... and so did she. Do I think that is the best way of doing it? No, I think it could be better, so why should I sit on my heels? If I offend you for wanting to go to the lawmakers to say "Hey, I think this is kind of silly... what do you think?" well then I'm sorry. I think the law has a great intent and is a great opportunity for students, but isn't quite right in the way it is laid out. Seems like an easy fix, so why should I not pursue it? Why is this not the right battle to fight? Just because it's already only $150 I should just be happy with that and keep my mouth shut? Guess I just feel like it would be such a simple fix there is no reason not to at least try talking with a legislator to see what they think.


Up until a few short years ago (like 2?) NR students had to pay FULL PRICE for big game tags. My NR res friends in undergrad didn't get any kind of shot at discounted tags.

Now you get them for a greatly discounted rate.

Cry me a fuggin river...
 
Hi PFunk,

Rather than tread the ground that's been laid out in terms of appropriateness of refunds, etc and the overall value you get from a license, there is one other item to consider:

FWP currently loses about $3 million per year in free and reduced cost licenses. Those are all due to legislators carrying special bills such as you are talking about. $3 million is 30% of the projected shortfall that FWP would have in FY 2015 if no license fee increases come forward in 2013.

That $3 million means fewer surveys on fisheries, flight counts for big game, and much needed salary increases. All of these free and reduced cost licenses have helped create a volitile funding environment for our wildlife managers.

If you are set on moving forward with something like this, I would suggest contacting Hellgate Hunters and Anglers in Missoula, and join up with them, ask their support, and if you find a legislator willing to do this, reach out to state wide hook and bullet organizations to garner their support. You'd be surprised when you come into a hearing and there's 30 people lined up to oppose your bill.

I'd also suggest including a component in the bill directing the legislature to make the bill revenue neutral and try to get a statutory appropriation for all free and reduced cost licenses so that upon receipt of the negative balance, that money is sent from the General Fund to the FWP General License account.
 
I think a better solution (so it will be the same for all NR students) is to simply get rid of the fishing license from the NR combo license. That way, you won't get "two fishing licenses" to complain about. Better yet, all NON-RESIDENTs should be treated equally...that would simplify the system a lot more.
 
I think a better solution (so it will be the same for all NR students) is to simply get rid of the fishing license from the NR combo license. That way, you won't get "two fishing licenses" to complain about. Better yet, all NON-RESIDENTs should be treated equally...that would simplify the system a lot more.
Yes it would!! Nice throwing your brother under the bus (come home to hunt rule)... ;) :D

To the OP it would be easier and less of a fight to just get her to get residency in MT...
 
1 pointer- He doesn't use the "come home to hunt rule". He gets an even better deal this year. :D Up until a couple years ago, he paid full price and thought that was a steal compared to other states. He never complained those years...pretty sure if he had to pay full price, he still wouldn't complain this year.
 
Another, even more simple option... fishing license with student combo is good september XX - september XX instead of the same dates as the resident license. If you can't buy it until september, why not make it good for 1 year from then? Pretty simple solution to me

Students stick a lot more money into the state of Montana than someone who spends a couple weeks here. We fill our cars every week with Montana gas, fill our cupboards with food from a Montana grocery store, and it just so happens that if we are hunting or fishing here, our money goes into Montana sporting goods shops. So to say we are just the same as some run of the mill nonresident coming over here is a stretch. If I live here 365 days a year, I am spending more in Montana than someone who spends a couple weeks here... seems you may be forgetting that in your math calculations.

Also, I just named off several states that make it far more simple for students.... if you are a full time student you purchase resident hunting/fishing licenses once you provide proof of enrollment. That seems a lot easier to me, but that's just my opinion. You seem to be under the assumption Montana is the only ones giving students such a lucky break.

In any case, like I said. I am happy they do offer such a license. It could just be laid out a whole lot simpler than it is now. But boy should I be ashamed to think such a thing apparently.

A couple sayings seem prudent here:

1. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

2. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.

As to your license date arguement...what if a NR student enrolls in the fall semester then doesnt go in the spring? They get 6 more months out of their student license when they are not entitled to. The experiation dates dont make any difference.

As to all the greatness that students bring to the Montana economy...we'll call that a wash as most dont pay taxes for streets, tax support of the College you attend, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention that Montana Colleges offer some of the best bargains in college tuition in the Country.

As to other states...you're free to go to college anywhere you want. If you like the hunting/fishing privileges granted to MN, WI, etc. students...theres a freeway system running North/South and East/West out of Montana.

Show me a state that allows NR students to hunt elk, 2 species of deer, pheasants, huns, sharpies, sage grouse, 3 species of mountain grouse...and so many species of fish it would take all day to list them...all for $155 per year.

If nothing else, you've provided Montana Residents with a good reason to contact the State Legislature and ask them to repeal the NR student license that is costing the MTFWP and Residents a pile of money.

Congratulations?
 
Last edited:
Lay down the medical mary jane pipe....... The 3 B's nailed it (No not Beer, Butts, Boobs :hump:...but Buzz, Ben, Belly). I would be whistling dixie if that is all I had to pay when I was a NR student. Be better off focusing on your studies than this wasteful fight over pennies.
 
1 pointer- He doesn't use the "come home to hunt rule". He gets an even better deal this year. :D Up until a couple years ago, he paid full price and thought that was a steal compared to other states. He never complained those years...pretty sure if he had to pay full price, he still wouldn't complain this year.
Yeah, yeah. Guess you missed the smiley faces. ;) 'Course being the mean, cheap bastich he is I'd make him sleep in the yard! The Mrs. and Bella would be allowed in the house though... :D
 
Well I never imagined I'd evoke such opposition for feeling that this law is worded a bit goofy and could be improved upon. Seems like everyone wants to take it as me complaining about the price of the student license, which is certainly not my intent. As I said, I went through the process of gaining residency and believe me, I encouraged her to do the same (but women do as they please ;)) I guess it just seems incredibly odd to offer a season fishing license in the student combo if they need to purchase a full price nonresident fishing license to fish year round anyhow. Apparently no one else finds this a weird practice? Seems to me there are a lot of simple, reasonable ways to change the wording so that this isn't the case. I was hoping to learn of a representative whom I could speak with and bounce ideas off, but obviously no one here has worked with such a representative or is just not willing to recommend. I get the point though.... you think it's cheap enough already, suck it up and just pay the extra money. I would have...she did.... but the fact remains that this is just an odd way of doing it... at least in my opinion. Buzz I would love to argue some of your points, but it seems like a waste of time to continue on with it. I get where you stand.... you get where I stand... we don't agree simple as that. My intent was to clear up what I feel is a poorly worded statute so that future students don't get as confused as my girlfriend and I were, and they could save some money on top of it. None of this was about saving ME money, though many seem to believe it was. I find it funny how people always say the only way to get changes made is to go to your legislator and propose it... well first time I consider it I get blasted for whining and told how it's perfect now... don't mess with it. Well, maybe to you it is perfect, but put yourself in the other shoes once and ask how much sense it makes. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense at all, and I know other states make it far less complicated. Failing to see how it takes so much skin off your backs that I should just shut up and leave it alone. Maybe I should, but when you feel passionate about something that you think doesn't make a whole heap of sense you can't help it. Is this something that is insignificant for most, and probably not worth the time or effort? Probably. But could it make a difference to some? Yup... sure could. Is it any skin off your backs? Don't see how it would be, but apparently it is?
 
It makes perfect sense...

If you're a NR student, you dont get a break on tags until after September. If you want to fish between March 1 and Sept. 1st...you do so as a regular NR and purchase the appropriate NR license.

Simple.

The reasons for it are justified as well, "put yourself in the other shoes"...

Its embarrassing what the U of M has become...
 
Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Forum statistics

Threads
110,815
Messages
1,935,404
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top