Montana NR base hunting license fee increase

Erict

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2020
Messages
762
Location
near Albany, NY
Full credit to someone over on "the fire" for catching this first. The short text of the bill is HERE and, for some interesting reading, look at the amendment HERE, showing the increase went from $15 to $100 to $50 to $100, where it stands. I'd assume the Gov. will sign it. Remember that the base license is non-refundable and required to apply for the Big Game, Elk or Deer combo license.

Yep, I'll still pay it, but the constant "nickel and diming" gets old. Congratulations are in order though, as there is no increase for Residents.:)


Original story below and HERE:

"More than 85,000 out-of-state hunters descend on the Treasure State each year for the chance to take a shot at a Montana elk, antelope, bear or bird.

To pay for that opportunity, they fork over $15 as a base license fee, in addition to buying a tag — ranging from $5.50 for a college student migratory bird license to $1,250 for a moose or bighorn sheep.

But the Montana Legislature has approved a bill that will increase the base license fee for nonresidents to $100 — a 566% increase.

The change is expected to bring in an additional $7.2 million in revenue according to the bill’s fiscal note, of which $6.8 million will be allocated to the state’s block management program.

“The idea of identifying these dollars to go to block management is a concerted effort to try to open up more lands for the public in Montana,” sponsor and Rep. Gary Parry, R-Colstrip, told the House Fish Wildlife and Parks Committee earlier this session.

The state’s block management program was developed 40 years ago as a way to increase access to private land and isolated parcels of public land through voluntary contracts with private landowners. It provides financial incentives for landowners to allow hunters on their property.

Between 2001 and 2011, land owners enrolled more than 8 million acres in the program, earning up to $12,000 from enrollment fees and compensation based on hunter-day counts. Since 2011, the number of acres enrolled has steadily declined, despite efforts by the state to bolster the program by increasing the compensation cap for landowners to $25,000 in 2021 and $50,000 in 2023.

In 2024, 1,314 landowners enrolled fewer than 7 million acres costing Montana FWP more than $12 million.

Boosting payments could be a way for the department to offer more incentives for landowners to participate in the program, according to Quentin Kujala, FWP chief of conservation policy.

Kujala told lawmakers at a House committee hearing that the staff who work on block management say the biggest reason for loss of access in the program is land sales, and while there are many motivations for selling land, money is certainly a factor.

Opposition to Parry’s bill came from the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, where one lobbyist, Scott Boulanger, said the increase was “drastic.” Representatives of the outfitters association told lawmakers that they would support a more modest increase to $50.

But Frank Szollosi, with the Montana Wildlife Federation, told Senate lawmakers that surrounding states already charge much higher rates for nonresident hunters.

In Idaho, nonresident hunting licenses cost $185; in Utah they cost $144, and in Oregon, $160.

“We’ve got better hunting than they do,” Szollosi said.

Wyoming is similar to Montana, charging nonresident hunters a base application fee of $15, and a bill introduced to the legislature earlier this year seeking to increase that to $75 did not advance.

Parry said that $100 fee is “lint in the pocket” for many out-of-state hunters, who come specifically for the state’s big game and often are hiring outfitters and guides, as well as spending money on their travels to the state to begin with.

“These folks do come here to hunt in our places. If it’s too much, they can stay in their own states. We need to look out for the people of Montana, and this bill pushes that forward.”

The bill is headed to Gov. Greg Gianforte’s desk."
 
All for it if it would go towards getting access to more block mgmt. I'd willing to pay more as a resident as well. Sadly, I don't trust them. That cash will end somewhere else, not helping to open up more opportunity.
Just like them trying to get the tax money pulled out of weed tax that went to conservation and habitat that was voted for by the people.
 
100 bucks really isn't bad compared to other states, I think I pay around 160ish for Nevada as a non-resident.
 
Prior Thread on this:

Predictable. The residents who get OTC deer, elk, bear tags +upland game and fishing licenses for less than $100 and scoff at the idea of paying more than the meager $16 deer tag and $20 elk tag fees find a non-refundable application fee of $100 for a $1078 Elk license (that likely had $200 in additional pref point costs) to be nominal pocket lint.
 
Prior Thread on this:

Predictable. The residents who get OTC deer, elk, bear tags +upland game and fishing licenses for less than $100 and scoff at the idea of paying more than the meager $16 deer tag and $20 elk tag fees find a non-refundable application fee of $100 for a $1078 Elk license (that likely had $200 in additional pref point costs) to be nominal pocket lint.
It should say "we need you to pay for our wildlife and access because we don't want to."
 
The 160 is just for the license, I didn't include all the other stuff that's non refundable.
$156 license + $19 for the application fee that earns you a bonus point if i'm not mistaken.

$175 total. So less than what a NR pays to apply with a PP in Montana but obviously the outlook on actually going hunting is much different between the 2.

NV residents also pay $120 for an elk tag. 6x what Montana residents pay for theirs. NV residents pay the same for a general hunting/fishing license (no big game tags) as MT residents do for the same plus elk, deer, and bear tags plus upland game.
 
$156 license + $19 for the application fee that earns you a bonus point if i'm not mistaken.

$175 total. So less than what a NR pays to apply with a PP in Montana but obviously the outlook on actually going hunting is much different between the 2.

NV residents also pay $120 for an elk tag. 6x what Montana residents pay for theirs. NV residents pay the same for a general hunting/fishing license (no big game tags) as MT residents do for the same plus elk, deer, and bear tags plus upland game.
Sounds about right, not a huge difference for the non-resident fee. Tags are 1200 I think if you draw so it will pretty much equal out give or take a few bucks.

I just don't get wound up when I apply in a state as a non-resident about how much they charge, I have the freedom of choice if I want to apply or not, it's not mandatory.

I'll keep applying in Nevada seeing I have 14+ points for sheep and goat. If one day I decide it's not worth it (not likely) than I will just stop. What I won't do though is complain about it not being fair.
 
Sounds about right, not a huge difference for the non-resident fee. Tags are 1200 I think if you draw so it will pretty much equal out give or take a few bucks.

I just don't get wound up when I apply in a state as a non-resident about how much they charge, I have the freedom of choice if I want to apply or not, it's not mandatory.

I'll keep applying in Nevada seeing I have 14+ points for sheep and goat. If one day I decide it's not worth it (not likely) than I will just stop. What I won't do though is complain about it not being fair.

If the hunting in MT was what it was 10+ years ago i'd probably pay the ever increasing prices happily. It's the hunting and management that MT residents have allowed and advocated for that keeps me from coming back lately. It's just that this is another example of MT resident's unwillingness to give up anything themselves for the betterment of the resource.

Good luck chopping down the NR pressure on the resource when you keep cranking up reliance on their money.
 
If the hunting in MT was what it was 10+ years ago i'd probably pay the ever increasing prices happily. It's the hunting and management that MT residents have allowed and advocated for that keeps me from coming back lately. It's just that this is another example of MT resident's unwillingness to give up anything themselves for the betterment of the resource.

Good luck chopping down the NR pressure on the resource when you keep cranking up reliance on their money.
I get what you're saying but what I don't get is this idea of having less non-resident pressure. They give away the same amount on non resident tags for elk no matter how many non-residents apply.

It will be the same pressure every year unless they change the amount of tags allocated, I think people forget that.
 
Different groups in MT have tried for years to increase the cost of resident hunting licenses. You can't even begin to believe the pushback. Given our current legislature I don't know if you'd survive giving positive public comment on a bill, if there was a current legislator courageous enough to introduce one.
 
I get what you're saying but what I don't get is this idea of having less non-resident pressure. They give away the same amount on non resident tags for elk no matter how many non-residents apply.

It will be the same pressure every year unless they change the amount of tags allocated, I think people forget that.
I get that the allotment would have to be changed in law but there’s a bunch of cutouts that currently allow more tags than that statutory minimum. I don’t think there should be all those other work arounds to allow that many additional NR personally. Either someone is a resident or they aren’t. In regards to getting any of that changed, harder when you’re relying on all of those dollars.

There’s been lots of talk about different season structures and ideas for distributing pressure. Along with that there’s been ideas of how season structure could vary based on residency as well. Any idea restricting your very liberal season structure always comes with comments of “Limit NR more first”.

It’s not like ideas of further restricting NRs are never asked for.
 
Back
Top