Which MT legislator(s) should I contact? Student license problem
- Thread starter PFUNK
- Start date
It's funny you keep saying it isn't about you...It's worse than that! It's about your girlfriend who chooses to not change residency! Take the 6 months of all but free fishing and quit complaining (or better yet, tell your girlfriend to become a resident and then you really won't have anything to complain about). Fact is, you wouldn't even bring this up if there wasn't a cost savings in it for you or someone you know that you want to go fishing with. Indirectly...it's all about money and it's all about you! Sometimes you would be much better off to not kick a bees nest (especially when you/ your girlfriend are currently getting free honey).
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
I simply became aware of this because my girlfriend purchased the license. She and I may both be gone in a matter of years but I brought it up because I thought it would be nice for all nonresident students in the future. Sure it affects her now, but soon it won't. I'm not gonna go through the trouble of changing it to save her $70 on a one time occasion... I was thinking further into the future for others. I would have never been aware of how it worked if it wasn't for my experience with her.
I will gladly let it go, and I don't have any problem with any of you being opposed to the thing in the first place. Wasn't my intent to piss anybody off, though it appears I did a much better job that I had hoped for. I don't know how many students utilize the license, but it is something I am curious about. If such an insignificant number of people utilize the student license, I don't see how it costs the state so much money. Sure the big game may have been the reason for the thing in the first place. Lumping the fishing in might not have been the smartest way of doing it.
You can disagree with student licenses, and If these student licenses really are where the $3 million lost is coming from, I suppose I don't blame you. I just don't see how on one hand you can say these NR students represent a drop in the bucket not worthy of any legislative attention, yet that drop somehow costs $3 million. Suddenly the students become a big problem when that number is thrown out there, but an insignificant population not worthy of attention otherwise.
Others have stated the legislature has bigger fish to fry right now, and I said that's fine I won't bring something before them that is obviously not of priority to the residents of the state. I didn't realize the legislature was already swamped with a full plate. I won't waste my time getting the opinion of nonresident students if their opinion will simply be shot down by the state because they represent such a small fraction of the sportsmen. I would hope that such a thing wouldn't happen, but it appears likely, and wouldn't be worth the time or effort.
I will gladly let it go, and I don't have any problem with any of you being opposed to the thing in the first place. Wasn't my intent to piss anybody off, though it appears I did a much better job that I had hoped for. I don't know how many students utilize the license, but it is something I am curious about. If such an insignificant number of people utilize the student license, I don't see how it costs the state so much money. Sure the big game may have been the reason for the thing in the first place. Lumping the fishing in might not have been the smartest way of doing it.
You can disagree with student licenses, and If these student licenses really are where the $3 million lost is coming from, I suppose I don't blame you. I just don't see how on one hand you can say these NR students represent a drop in the bucket not worthy of any legislative attention, yet that drop somehow costs $3 million. Suddenly the students become a big problem when that number is thrown out there, but an insignificant population not worthy of attention otherwise.
Others have stated the legislature has bigger fish to fry right now, and I said that's fine I won't bring something before them that is obviously not of priority to the residents of the state. I didn't realize the legislature was already swamped with a full plate. I won't waste my time getting the opinion of nonresident students if their opinion will simply be shot down by the state because they represent such a small fraction of the sportsmen. I would hope that such a thing wouldn't happen, but it appears likely, and wouldn't be worth the time or effort.
You guys just really chomp at the bit to throw attacks out there don't you? Like I said, would I waste my time to go to the legislature to save my girlfriend $70 as a one time deal? I'd suggest you think a little bit before you start throwing such outlandish remarks around. Advocating for change at the legislative branch is about saving me a buck? Please.
smarandr
Well-known member
I think we'll get PFUNK up to senior member status on this one thread 
I think we'll get PFUNK up to senior member status on this one thread
Shhhhh... don't tell them my true intent. It'll ruin it all for me.
spook12
New member
Pfunk, You have spine young man! You had a question ,you asked it and you got an answer .Good for you. You received good counsel ,now is the time to show that you are smart enough to move on .
mdunc8
Well-known member
Jon Boy
Member
Fact of the matter is we do have a great deal going, im glad for the discounts, and the deal with the fishing license isnt going to change. And yes it does suck (I for one hate it) because the best dates to fish you wont have a fishing license. Some things in life just just suck and thats the way it is. Not sure how you got all of these MT natives panties sucked up there crack as far as you did over such a simple matter :hump:
:hump:
Give me that stick for a minute mdunc.
Calling student tags welfare tags is quite a stretch... They live there, shop there, pay tuition, and it seems to me that a NR student hunter and fisherman today is probably a NR hunter and fisherman tomorrow. So financially speaking, I would think that is a winner for MT FWP. Also, it encourages younger folks to get out to hunt and fish, which is a good thing in my opinion.
That said, the law may be poorly written, but I'm not sure $70 is worth the fight considering what a good deal the licenses already are and how much dust your post stirred up... :W:
Calling student tags welfare tags is quite a stretch... They live there, shop there, pay tuition, and it seems to me that a NR student hunter and fisherman today is probably a NR hunter and fisherman tomorrow. So financially speaking, I would think that is a winner for MT FWP. Also, it encourages younger folks to get out to hunt and fish, which is a good thing in my opinion.
That said, the law may be poorly written, but I'm not sure $70 is worth the fight considering what a good deal the licenses already are and how much dust your post stirred up... :W:
sweetnectar
New member
Pfunk-You own this thread. You own it. You make perfect sense. Go find someone who will carry a bill that simply changes the date so the true intent of the law will be met. Like I've eluded to before that those that are so worked up in opposition to your suggestion are pissed off at a different problem....that being what they perceive as a funding issue. I don't buy the BS that the 3 million "shortage" is from students getting reduced priced fishing tags. I mean really?? What will it cost to change a date? If I had it my way the fishing licence would cost half as much. I'd like to see more student fishing and less students at the bar.
Thanks for coming to Montana to go to school. I hope you enjoy the streams, lakes, the outdoors, the standard of living and everything else Montana has to offer. I hope you decide to set roots here as well. It is a great place to raise a family.
Thanks for coming to Montana to go to school. I hope you enjoy the streams, lakes, the outdoors, the standard of living and everything else Montana has to offer. I hope you decide to set roots here as well. It is a great place to raise a family.
mtlion
Active member
The true intent of the law is to provide proven nonresident students an opportunity to hunt and fish in the fall while they are students. Period. Not when they say they will be students. Not when they promise they will be students, but any time after Sept 21 when they show up in person at an fwp office with proof of being enrolled. Why not in the spring? So people who are attending in the spring but aren't attending in the fall can't go buy an $827 discounted deer and elk tag that is good for the fall. Why that specific date? I'm guessing so those who sign up for fall classes and then immediately drop can't just get a license. Why not just let them show up at the beginning of the summer and promise to go to school? I don't see why it's that hard...you get a savings of $827 for your troubles...
BTW I consider anything less than a full price tag a welfare tag. If it wasn't it would be full price. This right here just shows give them an inch they'll take a mile.
BTW I consider anything less than a full price tag a welfare tag. If it wasn't it would be full price. This right here just shows give them an inch they'll take a mile.
Well I appreciate all the support from you... at least I make sense to someone! I have no doubt fallen in love with Montana and all it has to offer. I was raised in the outdoors and will carry a passion for enjoying it until the day I die. I think it is the job of every sportsman to promote the outdoors to everyone who may be interested, and as I student I would love to see more of my peers out fishing or hunting (as opposed to the bar like you said). I think student licenses are an awesome step towards ensuring that is exactly what happens. I felt there was a real wrinkle in something that had a wonderful intent. Get the wrinkle out and you got yourself a real winner. I too question that a $3 million shortage comes from a seemingly small crowd of students utilizing the license, but obviously that is speculation and I won't make claims based on speculation. I certainly don't want to continue on with this if the reaction of the public mimics the reaction of the members here. I figured there would be several members here that are active in seeking change on the behalf of sportsmen and who may be able to make recommendations. There were a few who did, and their input was helpful and appreciated. But at the end of the day, if the residents won't support something I feel is a simple change that doesn't seem to pose a threat to them, then whats the sense in wasting my time or anyone else's time. All too often I think sportsmen hinder their own sport and their own kind... and I think this is a case in point. Such strong opposition to something like this really has me worried and scratching my head. But what do I know.... I'm just the product of a "University of Montana" on the decline" according to some.
If you think it makes "perfect sense" you do not understand the intent of the law. lion does and he explained it well.
$70 is beer money for most students per week. Write and run a bill that costs the state $6000 to save a few NR students $70 does not make "perfect sense." There were plenty of silly bills like the silencer bill and the spear bill last session. We sure don't need anymore.
$70 is beer money for most students per week. Write and run a bill that costs the state $6000 to save a few NR students $70 does not make "perfect sense." There were plenty of silly bills like the silencer bill and the spear bill last session. We sure don't need anymore.
Last edited:
Except for the part where the "proven student" in the spring doesn't get to use the student fishing license in the spring. They could also allow the student to use the refund option allowed for all other nonresidents. For nonresidents who purchase a full price fishing license, if they later purchase a combination license (which includes fishing) they can get a refund on their original fishing license purchase. If students purchase a nonresident fishing license in the spring, and then end up purchasing the combination license in September that includes the fishing license, they can't get a refund on the original purchase. It is totally permissible for regular nonresidents, yet they don't let the students utilize the same option. Why is that? If they can provide proof of enrollment each term, why should this not be an option for them?
mtlion
Active member
OK pointing out one last thing than I'm done beating the horse. Nobody said that 3 mil is being lost to student licenses but reduced licenses overall. Should've studied harder for the quiz.
OK pointing out one last thing than I'm done beating the horse. Nobody said that 3 mil is being lost to student licenses but reduced licenses overall. Should've studied harder for the quiz.
Don't mean to keep dragging it out either, but the previous post was to point out Montana actually has legislation in place to provide a refund for the students, so technically they could just give refunds under that law and not need to pass another one. That would save the $6,000 it costs to run a bill through I suppose. Another member here made me aware of that refund program. Seems like it would work just fine.
BuzzH
Well-known member
tjones,
Couldnt agree more...
No good deed goes unpunished.
Couldnt agree more...
No good deed goes unpunished.
Similar threads
