Why are non-resident hunters allowed tags in limited quota areas ?

[MTBirdhunter]

As a resident and taxpayer here in Montana, I have wondered why non residents are given permits ahead of any resident in limited quota areas? I know the FWP sets a side up to 10%, but why should ANY NR get a tag over a resident? I understand a NR hunting in general areas, and the fact that Montana has substantial federal land holdings has led to this 10% NR allotment. But in my opinion, a resident should have first chance at ALL tags that are on a quota system, then, if any remain, NR can apply. There would still be many opportunities left in general areas, but as a resident, we should have propriety over a NR.

 

[BBwheelgunner]

Non Residents pay the bills for the agencies via the MUCH higher tag prices

 

[MThuntr]

Non Residents pay the bills for the agencies via the MUCH higher tag prices

This and I'm not sure of the exact breakdown but last I knew non-resident tags cover the Block Management program also.

 

[WapitiBob]

Maybe show us which part of your taxes goes towards your wildlife.

 

[Wild Bill]

I might be wrong on the exact numbers but in a real quick search I found something around $851 for a nonres general elk tag and $20 for a res elk tag. If my math and license costs are correct, that means that one nonres license equals 42.55 resident licenses, cost wise, not to mention $$ spent during their time in state. The least they can do is give nonres 10% of limited draw tags. That should be enough of an answer.
Also, I apologize if my numbers are incorrect, I only had time for a quick search on my phone. You should understand my point though.

 

[BuzzH]

As a resident and taxpayer here in Montana, I have wondered why non residents are given permits ahead of any resident in limited quota areas? I know the FWP sets a side up to 10%, but why should ANY NR get a tag over a resident? I understand a NR hunting in general areas, and the fact that Montana has substantial federal land holdings has led to this 10% NR allotment. But in my opinion, a resident should have first chance at ALL tags that are on a quota system, then, if any remain, NR can apply. There would still be many opportunities left in general areas, but as a resident, we should have propriety over a NR.

First off, your state does not guarantee a single NR LQ permit for any species, its UP TO 10%.

Secondly federal land holdings have nothing to do with the number of available tags or permits. Its up to the State to decide how many they want for themselves and how many they want for NR's, since they hold the public wildlife assets in trust for the citizens of Montana.

What you're recommending can be done, totally eliminate LQ tags for NR's. It would require legislation more than likely, and at the least you would have get the commission to take action (not sure how your statute's and/or regulations are written). WY tag allocations are not specific to the number that NR's must be allocated(with the exception of elk), only minimum percentages for Resident allocation.

Know that in many States, you would likely experience reciprocal laws to spring up, that Montana residents would not be allowed to apply for LQ tags such as elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, moose, goat and bison in Wyoming. Matter of fact, I would probably be involved in writing such legislation if MT takes the path you're suggesting.

But, it is ultimately up to each individual state how they want to proceed with the distribution of their wildlife resources.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Buzz is correct, there is no 10% allocation. Everyone goes in the same drawing pool regardless of residency status, and IF NR selections were to hit 10% of the total allocation then no more NR could be selected. In reality, the selected pool could consist entirely of residents.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, however much I disagree with it.

 

[nhn2a]

One other point that I would add is what Randy and others have stated on other posts previously regarding non-residents and specifically those from the east coast becoming involved in the transfer of federal lands to states and the eventual selling off of public lands or other topics effecting your state. The more you exclude non-residents from ideal or limited hunting or continue raising fees, the less they will become involved and concerned with a particular states wildlife problems. I'm not saying that is the right mentality to have, only that it is what people will typically do.

 

[jlmatthew]

As a resident and taxpayer here in Montana, I have wondered why non residents are given permits ahead of any resident in limited quota areas? I know the FWP sets a side up to 10%, but why should ANY NR get a tag over a resident? I understand a NR hunting in general areas, and the fact that Montana has substantial federal land holdings has led to this 10% NR allotment. But in my opinion, a resident should have first chance at ALL tags that are on a quota system, then, if any remain, NR can apply. There would still be many opportunities left in general areas, but as a resident, we should have propriety over a NR.

You have no idea how good you have it. Go look at the Colorado Big Game regulations and you'll be very thankful you're in Montana. We have a way too generous NR quota (35%), overly generous transferable landowner voucher program (up to 25%), very short & crowded seasons (choose your method of take too), no big game access program, and very limited State Trust Land access, and a Dept with an out of control budget that exceeds Montana & Wyoming combined, and they say they are still broke and need more!

 

[antlerradar]

This and I'm not sure of the exact breakdown but last I knew non-resident tags cover the Block Management program also.

A few years ago nonresident licence fees amounted to 2/3 of the licence revenue collected by FWP.

 

[MTBirdhunter]

First, in my post, I never said NR was guaranteed 10%, please read more carefully. Second, I pay more in state of Montana taxes then I would guess many on this forum pay in federal taxes, but no, I will not show you. Like I said in OP, a NR could still have opportunities here, but NOT in areas with quotas where a resident apps are greater then quota #'s. As for NR paying the FWP bills, I do not believe that. Yes, they pay a sizeable amount, but they use a lot of Montana's resources while here too. They rely on our infrastructure, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, road maintenance, the list goes on and on. Why a person who only comes for a week or so should have the opportunity to harvest an animal over a resident, in my opinion is totally wrong. One other thing, if a person from back east is only interested in keeping public lands in federal control for the sake of killing something, that's not much of an argument in my book, let that person stay home in NY, Penn, Ga, ect....Montana's are more then capable of managing the lands within our state in my opinion.

 

[Goatshoes]

First, in my post, I never said NR was guaranteed 10%, please read more carefully. Second, I pay more in state of Montana taxes then I would guess many on this forum pay in federal taxes, but no, I will not show you. Like I said in OP, a NR could still have opportunities here, but NOT in areas with quotas where a resident apps are greater then quota #'s. As for NR paying the FWP bills, I do not believe that. Yes, they pay a sizeable amount, but they use a lot of Montana's resources while here too. They rely on our infrastructure, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, road maintenance, the list goes on and on. Why a person who only comes for a week or so should have the opportunity to harvest an animal over a resident, in my opinion is totally wrong. One other thing, if a person from back east is only interested in keeping public lands in federal control for the sake of killing something, that's not much of an argument in my book, let that person stay home in NY, Penn, Ga, ect....Montana's are more then capable of managing the lands within our state in my opinion.

I think the biggest reason is that the rest of Montanans aren't so greedy.

 

[Fire_9]

Maybe we should just build a wall around MT to keep all those rotten bastards out. How dare they drive on our roads, use our hospitals, and call our police!

Get over it dude. Everyone should at least have some kind of chance to draw a tag. Up to 10% is still pretty low. Just because we live in MT doesn't mean we get to keep everything to ourselves.

 

[LopeHunter]

First, in my post, I never said NR was guaranteed 10%, please read more carefully. Second, I pay more in state of Montana taxes then I would guess many on this forum pay in federal taxes, but no, I will not show you. Like I said in OP, a NR could still have opportunities here, but NOT in areas with quotas where a resident apps are greater then quota #'s. As for NR paying the FWP bills, I do not believe that. Yes, they pay a sizeable amount, but they use a lot of Montana's resources while here too. They rely on our infrastructure, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, road maintenance, the list goes on and on. Why a person who only comes for a week or so should have the opportunity to harvest an animal over a resident, in my opinion is totally wrong. One other thing, if a person from back east is only interested in keeping public lands in federal control for the sake of killing something, that's not much of an argument in my book, let that person stay home in NY, Penn, Ga, ect....Montana's are more then capable of managing the lands within our state in my opinion.

Are only true hunters the ones that pay lots of taxes? So, are you saying if I pay more taxes than the disabled war veteran or the retired teacher then that puts me to the front of the tag line? I do not see the point re how much you apparently pay in tax and do not know of a state that allocates tags factoring in the amount of tax paid by the applicant. Is this just a way to kick anyone not as prosperous? To silence the debate?

I am all for every state that feels the inclination to begin kicking out non-resident hunters, hikers, fisherman, bird-watchers, etc. Keep in mind a fair number of non-resident hunters are former residents who moved away to serve in the military or to follow their career. Other non-residents married into resident families and combine a visit with hunting or some other outdoor activity. Kick them out, too, if like.

I have hunted a total of 4 days in Montana so no real skin in the game. Good luck with your campaign and be sure to never apply to any other state for hunts since would not be in good form to do so, correct?

 

[BuzzH]

MTbirdhunter,

I think you need to slow down and do some research, you're about to get a schooling...

 

[Deleted member 20812]

First, in my post, I never said NR was guaranteed 10%, please read more carefully.

You said they set aside, which is false. There is no set aside pool. NR are allowed up to 10% of the total allocation. A set aside allocation is something totally different, in that it would be it's own drawing process independent of the resident one. Please read more carefully

Second, I pay more in state of Montana taxes then I would guess many on this forum pay in federal taxes, but no, I will not show you.

I won't argue that you don't. However, your state taxes do not go to wildlife management or federal land management, so I don't understand how that is germane to the issue of NR limited quota permits. In addition, your state income taxes are a deductible expense on the good old 1040 form, so therefore I could argue I pay more federal taxes than you and you are therefore less deserving to use federal facilities because of this. However, I won't because I don't mind sharing.

Like I said in OP, a NR could still have opportunities here, but NOT in areas with quotas where a resident apps are greater then quota #'s. As for NR paying the FWP bills, I do not believe that.

Then you should do your research. NR hunters provide approximately 2/3 of FWPs license revenues.

Yes, they pay a sizeable amount, but they use a lot of Montana's resources while here too. They rely on our infrastructure, hospitals, law enforcement, roads, road maintenance, the list goes on and on.

They also pay gas taxes, lodging taxes and support your local businesses while they are there. In addition, Montana is one of the highest per capita federal tax recipients in the US, so in essence you are getting pork barrel welfare from the rest of the nation. Last time I checked, I have never used a Montana hospital as a non-resident, don't use the local schools, courthouse, library, and the museums I've been to I paid admission just like everyone else. I have helped local law enforcement by waiting with/detaining a couple of drunks who crashed their pickup on their way home from the bar, so maybe I cost the local court system by helping get them entered into it?

Why a person who only comes for a week or so should have the opportunity to harvest an animal over a resident, in my opinion is totally wrong.

What does time in the field have to do with anything? I'd wager I spend more time in the field in MT than do many residents. Of course, supporting local businesses while I'm there.

One other thing, if a person from back east is only interested in keeping public lands in federal control for the sake of killing something, that's not much of an argument in my book, let that person stay home in NY, Penn, Ga, ect....Montana's are more then capable of managing the lands within our state in my opinion.

With all due respect, you had better learn to appreciate someone from back east helping you in the fight to keep public lands. Who are you to predict how and why someone supports public lands? If you said that my sole reason was so I could kill something, it would be an outright lie. I camp, canoe, run, backpack, mountain bike and fish on federal lands in Montana outside of hunting season. Of course, I am supporting the local economies whenever I can while I'm there. I'd suggest you not worry about their motivation for joining the fight in keeping our public lands, and look past your selfish interests in order to keep an ally. Should you choose not to, you better hope for your own sake that the Montanans who are going to manage the lands within your state have more vision and foresight than you do.

As I said, I won't argue with your opinion if you feel that's what you want. A state has every right to manage for the benefit of its residents first and foremost, and provide opportunity for NR outside of that. However, the arguments you have presented thus far are simply ridiculous and will likely get you absolutely no support in your quest. Let's call a spade a spade, you don't want to share a limited resource. Don't try and sugarcoat and justify it based on all of these other silly reasons, simply admit that you don't want to share.

 

[James Riley]

You have no idea how good you have it. Go look at the Colorado Big Game regulations and you'll be very thankful you're in Montana. We have a way too generous NR quota (35%), overly generous transferable landowner voucher program (up to 25%), very short & crowded seasons (choose your method of take too), no big game access program, and very limited State Trust Land access, and a Dept with an out of control budget that exceeds Montana & Wyoming combined, and they say they are still broke and need more!

I agree with all of that (except maybe the budget stuff which I don't know about). A lot might have to do with the fact that CO is polluted with around five times as many human beings as MT and WY combined, expected to double to 10 mil by 2050.

 

[EBOLAVIRS]

Lol good grief.

 

[JoseCuervo]

OP, how old are you?


Just curious, as if you are a youngster, perhaps you are worth educating.

If you are old enough to buy Keystone Light and Pall Mall by the carton, then you are likely not worth the effort to educate when you have spent a lifetime of avoiding education and knowledge.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Montana's are more then capable of managing the lands within our state in my opinion.

MTBirdhunter, many of those Montanans capably managing lands within our state are federal employees of BLM or USFS and are your neighbors. Montana, as a "welfare state" which receives far more in revenues for managing those lands than it pays in federal taxes, should welcome those from New York, California, and those other states highly populated with the taxpaying citizens who support Montana. But that is but one rationale for allowing NRs the opportunity to enjoy our great state and the fabulous hunting here.

I encourage you to read and learn from those who have engaged you in discussion on this forum. In my opinion, you are missing some critical information and the value of important valid perspectives outside your own.