Montana Proposed bill to raise Non resident base hunting fees over 500%

[The Guide]

According to FWP, the combo license does not include base hunting license or base conservation license. I don’t want to hunt ditch parrots and I probably don’t have time to go fishing.
View attachment 825171

And according to that, the NR elk combination is $1078 and the deer/elk combo is $1278. But any way, yes nonresident hunters do pay a shit load more. I also pay a shit load more as a nonresident fisherman than a resident does in other states. I just suck it up and pay. Those fees don't stop me from fishing.

Jay

 

[wind gypsy]

And according to that, the NR elk combination is $1078 and the deer/elk combo is $1278. But any way, yes nonresident hunters do pay a shit load more. I also pay a shit load more as a nonresident fisherman than a resident does in other states. I just suck it up and pay. Those fees don't stop me from fishing.

Jay

Yes, $1078 and likely $200 worth of preference points.

Find me a state that charges 20x more for a NR to fish there. Hell most are under 5x. It’s 2x in my home state. MT elk is about 64x.

 

[The Guide]

No one is forcing you to read their comments either.

Nothing any of us write on here will have any bearing on the success or failure of this bill. Legislators can and should serve their constituents. Apparently, this bill is satisfying their wishes.

I know nothing of the bill and where the money is going. I also feel that both sides should be supporting the system. I've been in the Montana hunting system 1988 and have watched all the changes and seen the ups and downs of our game management. Nothing will ever be done that everyone will support. In the end I just hope to be able to continue to hunt my home state with and OTC resident tag as long as my body allows. If a Montana resident has to draw to hunt their own state we know that we really mucked up the works.

Jay

 

[wind gypsy]

I’m just sad for MT that this is the type of shit your legislature focuses on when it comes to wildlife management. If you have hunting worth it compared to others I’ll still pay up. Lately there hasn’t been much reason to apply for MT gen tags. It’s sad because I used to look forward to going there annually.

 

[The Guide]

Yes, $1078 and likely $200 worth of preference points.

Find me a state that charges 20x more for a NR to fish there. Hell most are about 5x. MT elk is about 64x.

25% of the tags are for people with 0 points. I think points are stupid. All draws should be a 100% unweighted lottery.

If a resident paid $200 for their tag and a NR paid $1078 for their tag, you would feel that was equitable? If they did that I'm going to bet that they would push the majority of NR tags back to outfitter tags and you would have to hunt with an outfitter to hunt in Montana. It was that way for a LONG time with the change coming in 2010. NR tags were cheaper (around 50% of current rates) when about half of the tags had to go through an outfitter but those days are gone.

Jay

 

[The Guide]

I’m just sad for MT that this is the type of shit your legislature focuses on when it comes to wildlife management. If you have hunting worth it compared to others I’ll still pay up. Lately there hasn’t been much reason to apply for MT gen tags. It’s sad because I used to look forward to going there annually.

I agree. The experiences I enjoyed as a kid are not what I get to share with my children but our landscape has changed. Farming and ranching isn't the same. Access isn't the same. Pressures on game animals are different (wolves are only one aspect) due to changes in societal norms. If you ever come hunt Montana again, I'd share a hunt with you and do my best to show you a good time. Our deer population density is in the shitter and elk are spending more time inaccessible on private land with no access during the general season. I can kill an elk every year to fill my freezer but it is taking more time and being willing to hunt in worse and worse conditions to make it happen. Thank goodness we can hunt elk from 8-15 to 2-15 every year now...

Jay

 

[fatlander]

I think the rub MOST nonresidents have is not massive disparity between resident and nonresident fees. The issue is WHY the increase? What is the government actually going to do with it? Is it going to make anyone’s hunting any better or will it just further perpetuate a bureaucratic machine?

Nonresidents will still be anti christ and most elk in Montana will still live on private.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TWoch]

After reading the comments, it appears the general consensus is it’s only 85 dollars and won’t deter applicants. Whether you’re a resident/NR arguing for or against, shouldn’t we be putting focus and effort in ensuring the money actually benefits the animals we’re applying to hunt? With all the extra revenue we should demand results(specifically residents bc you vote for your legislators.) Or you shouldn’t be flapping your gums about cost increases. “It’s for conservation…” supposedly.

The populations the states “own” keep declining under their supervision, but they feel justified raising prices? And worse yet, we have a contingency of hunters cheerleading for higher costs with worse results. Future looks bleak

 

[rogerdoger]

After reading the comments, it appears the general consensus is it’s only 85 dollars and won’t deter applicants. Whether you’re a resident/NR arguing for or against, shouldn’t we be putting focus and effort in ensuring the money actually benefits the animals we’re applying to hunt? With all the extra revenue we should demand results(specifically residents bc you vote for your legislators.) Or you shouldn’t be flapping your gums about cost increases. “It’s for conservation…” supposedly.

The populations the states “own” keep declining under their supervision, but they feel justified raising prices? And worse yet, we have a contingency of hunters cheerleading for higher costs with worse results. Future looks bleak

I would agree on making sure we know where the money is going. We already know they have no problem trying to change tax revenue allocation that Montana’s clearly voted for.

Stay up to date on the legislation your politicians are proposing. They all want to get your vote and then hope you put your head in the sand and stay dormant until they need to get your vote to get elected again. Stay vigilant and join your local conservation groups.

 

[velvet muley]

Residents voted in the politicians determined to squeeze every penny out of montanas wildlife. Montana resident license fees are priced like it’s 1980 because Montana residents demand it. MT still hunts mule deer OTC with rifles through the rut because residents demand it.

You’re absolutely right. And if MT residents insist on being freeloaders so they can hunt elk for the price of a fast food meal I can point it out on the internet.

You're right, resident do vote in politicians, but we base out votes on much more than just hunting and at the end of the day you have to pick between 2 evils. Vote the other way and we would probably be talking about much worse bills than fee increases.

I won't comment on the freeloader thing because its already been addressed...

Resident fee's probably won't have any major increases anytime soon due to the fact the the agency makes what money they want off non residents, I personally wouldn't have an issue with a logical resident increase in fee's.

The fact is that as long as non residents continue to apply, its probably not going to change, I guess at the end of the day the ball is in the nonresidents court. Boycott Montana, starve out the agency and you might get what you want.

 

[Wrench]

...Yeah, also enjoying the hell out of all our white privledge

You can cash that in and stay in browning. They love white privilege.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Our inability to raise resident tag prices is getting out of whack with NR pricing for sure. It should cost more so they have more resources at FWP, but people do not want to pay more. I’ll say the only argument that holds any water now is general OTC tags shouldn’t be “priced out” so hunting becomes inaccessible for lower income segments of society. But we’re still < $100 doubling a resident general elk tag, and absolutely should be raising them. I agree with the sentiment it should be somewhat more even, but as a Resident who does live here, pay taxes etc, I should have reasonable access to hunting opportunity as well.

NR pricing seems to be a play for even more money, but the commission was also looking at the number of hunters in the field when they changed permits and special draw unit restrictions……so I wonder if they are trying to raise prices to curtail overcrowding as well? Seems like a dumb approach. We have so many exceptions around a NR cap anyways - that’s an area needing a bit of reform if we’re going to address overcrowding further.

The politics around this State when it comes to wildlife management are border line insane. Wildlife management shouldn’t be legislature driven, and party lines for every single wildlife issue is very difficult to watch. I will say the sporting coalitions trying to put together reasonable discussions and compromise with the ranching and guiding/outfitting elements of stakeholders is about the only thing keeping things from really going off the deep end.

 

[Weldor]

I think Arizona charges a $100 for a “general hunting license” which is non refundable when applying as a non resident, but required if you want to apply for a big game license.

Personally I thought that was a bit high applying for a Coues deer license ($315 which I didn’t think was too bad).

Looks like AZ is making nr buy a combination for $160 plus 15 app fee than $315 for deer. I think Elk is $668 . Seems like a good deal if Elk for nr is $1200 plus in Montana? I believe that fees will drive some hunters away, I know it has out here. But there is always someone else in line to pick up the slack.

 

[dirtytough]

I know you think you're correct, but your not. Even though there is no state sales tax, many area (mostly tourist areas which happen to be high traffic hunting areas) have "local sales tax" and "resort fees" which are a sales tax no matter how you look at it. We do have property tax and income tax and pay vehicle tax with our registration.

Jay

I tried to search city’s with sales tax and didn’t get much. None came up. I was curious if it’s 1% or 50%. I’ve bought multiple new guns when driving through Montana because of the lack of sales tax. In fact I’m always surprised when I grab a snack or drink at a convenience store it’s exactly the same as the listed price.

How many city’s have sales tax in Montana?

Resort fees aren’t sales tax imo. In yours they obviously are.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

The way one needs to look at this is, if you live in Ohio and want to hunt in Montana you would want to calculate the cost of all your expensive less the cost of your license. If you come up with a cost of $1200 for gas, hotels, if not camping, food and drink, plus the cost of all the new gear you will purchase prior to the trip, processing $ if not doing your own processing. Now add the additional $85. Will that be enough to keep you from going? Not me.

 

[mtwarden]

AZ NR hunting license is 160.

Worse than I thought- ouch!

 

[Weldor]

I have no idea why the combo thing? I know there are some resonable hunts down Old Mexico way. Texas hits you for $325 for their hunting probably the best price for all the tags, if you can find resonable access.

 

[Wrench]

Our inability to raise resident tag prices is getting out of whack with NR pricing for sure. It should cost more so they have more resources at FWP, but people do not want to pay more. I’ll say the only argument that holds any water now is general OTC tags shouldn’t be “priced out” so hunting becomes inaccessible for lower income segments of society. But we’re still < $100 doubling a resident general elk tag, and absolutely should be raising them. I agree with the sentiment it should be somewhat more even, but as a Resident who does live here, pay taxes etc, I should have reasonable access to hunting opportunity as well.

NR pricing seems to be a play for even more money, but the commission was also looking at the number of hunters in the field when they changed permits and special draw unit restrictions……so I wonder if they are trying to raise prices to curtail overcrowding as well? Seems like a dumb approach. We have so many exceptions around a NR cap anyways - that’s an area needing a bit of reform if we’re going to address overcrowding further.

The politics around this State when it comes to wildlife management are border line insane. Wildlife management shouldn’t be legislature driven, and party lines for every single wildlife issue is very difficult to watch. I will say the sporting coalitions trying to put together reasonable discussions and compromise with the ranching and guiding/outfitting elements of stakeholders is about the only thing keeping things from really going off the deep end.

Much like Washington, most states don't need more income in wildlife departments, they need more intelligence.

In Montana the block mgt program benefits everyone. In Washington the farmers plant edge to edge and there's zero cover......then cut checks for animal damage from travel and grazing.

If we could use some funds to pay for some crp strips the critters end up with cover to travel and the birds have a chance.

.....but the commonality between the two states is the desire to hold those appointed positions and throw sound science out the window in favor of farmed outcome studies to support bs initiatives, which always require more cash.

Both Washington and Montana have lost massive amounts of elk to piss poor management and asked for more money to fix problems they made, when if the ignorant fools could just open a history book they could read the outcomes before they arrived.

 

[bowkill]

Our inability to raise resident tag prices is getting out of whack with NR pricing for sure. It should cost more so they have more resources at FWP, but people do not want to pay more. I’ll say the only argument that holds any water now is general OTC tags shouldn’t be “priced out” so hunting becomes inaccessible for lower income segments of society. But we’re still < $100 doubling a resident general elk tag, and absolutely should be raising them. I agree with the sentiment it should be somewhat more even, but as a Resident who does live here, pay taxes etc, I should have reasonable access to hunting opportunity as well.

I think a big part of what some non residents have a problem with is that the residents of some of the western states don't seem to really appreciate what they have. We pay more for an opportunity to sit on a corn field and wait for a white tail than you do to go roam the beautiful mountains for elk and mulies. Meanwhile, it seems like a lot of the residents that respond to threads like these act like they have some sort of right to do this and only have to pay what it costs to get a meal out for one person. If you kept in mind what value you are getting for that small price tag that you pay as residents, I think it would be a little easier pill for some of the non residents to swallow.
And the response that, "If you don't like it move out here" isn't really practical a lot of the time.

 

[fatlander]

Much like Washington, most states don't need more income in wildlife departments, they need more intelligence.

In Montana the block mgt program benefits everyone. In Washington the farmers plant edge to edge and there's zero cover......then cut checks for animal damage from travel and grazing.

If we could use some funds to pay for some crp strips the critters end up with cover to travel and the birds have a chance.

.....but the commonality between the two states is the desire to hold those appointed positions and throw sound science out the window in favor of farmed outcome studies to support bs initiatives, which always require more cash.

Both Washington and Montana have lost massive amounts of elk to piss poor management and asked for more money to fix problems they made, when if the ignorant fools could just open a history book they could read the outcomes before they arrived.

This is happening everywhere. The people that actually know what’s going on and the people making the decisions are on different wavelengths.

Turkeys are spiraling damn near on their way to free fall. What are biologists doing the research seeing? Less recruitment with increased hunting pressure and harvest. What’s NWTF and Turkeys for Tomorrow answer? MORE HUNTERS. What are the states’ official answers? MORE HUNTERS.

It’s all about money, resource be damned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk