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

[wyogoat]

 

[OldPete]

Now before all non residents get too worked up. $100 for a base hunting license vs $15 when you're paying over $1000 for combination deer and elk, just really isn't that crazy. Honestly hopef it would be something more dramatic to reduce competition/congestion out there a little bit. No offense...

 

[dirtytough]

“you guys shouldn’t care about a measly $85 increase. You already pay over 50x more for your tag than we pay. That’s a drop in the bucket.”

Next week. “Please help delist grizzlies. We all need to come together on this.” “Please contribute to HOWL. We need all the help we can to fight XYZ.”

“Don’t let them transfer federal lands to the state! Then you non res wouldn’t be subsidizing them for us!”

 

[Archer86]

“you guys shouldn’t care about a measly $85 increase. You already pay over 50x more for your tag than we pay. That’s a drop in the bucket.”

Next week. “Please help delist grizzlies. We all need to come together on this.” “Please contribute to HOWL. We need all the help we can to fight XYZ.”

“Don’t let them transfer federal lands to the state! Then you non res wouldn’t be subsidizing them for us!”

Nr hunters supply virtually nothing for federal tax dollars to support public lands.

Its the non hunting tax payers that actually fund the public land and they can use them as much as they want

 

[WRO]

Nr hunters supply virtually nothing for federal tax dollars to support public lands.

Its the non hunting tax payers that actually fund the public land and they can use them as much as they want

They support fish and game and keep liscenses cheap for residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Erict]

.... Now add the additional $85. Will that be enough to keep you from going? Not me.

Thing is, most NR will only draw every other year, but pay the app fee every year, so it's more like $85 x 2.

Maybe they can make us feel better by sending us a nice embroidered patch if we don't draw.

 

[InkedElkSlayer]

Maybe MTFWP will use the increased revenue to finally implement that “expensive” mandatory hunter (harvest or kill?) reporting system that has incredible support from hunters… I’m being a smart ass. MTFWP loves their algorithm from the 60s that they swear is “statistically valid”.

Bottom line is that they aren’t going to do anything with the increased revenue. What does $85 per Non Res really add up to? It’s not a huge landslide of $. It will just go into the wash. I think it’s more about principle, keeping up with the Jones’s, and “why not” if they keep selling out.

2 givens…
MT will keep raising Non Res prices until they see a negative return.
Idiot politicians in MT will propose dozens of bills over the next few months that degrade youth and family hunting and continue to further their agenda to monetize and privatize our hunting culture.

 

[AHayes111]

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

The end of resident OTC is coming and likely sooner than you think. Just look at all the units that have gone to LE since 2000. LE is working its way across the state from west to east and it is not going to stop as long as we continue with the current five week season. While LE fixes the issues in the units where it is applied, every time a unit goes from OTC to LE more pressure is applied to the remaining OTC units increasing the need for them to be fixed with LE. We can not afford any more LE units because at some point we will reach a tipping point and all remaining OTC units will need to be LE. We may be at that point now.

 

[The Guide]

The end of resident OTC is coming and likely sooner than you think. Just look at all the units that have gone to LE since 2000. LE is working its way across the state from west to east and it is not going to stop as long as we continue with the current five week season. While LE fixes the issues in the units where it is applied, every time a unit goes from OTC to LE more pressure is applied to the remaining OTC units increasing the need for them to be fixed with LE. We can not afford any more LE units because at some point we will reach a tipping point and all remaining OTC units will need to be LE. We may be at that point now.

What LE districts are you referring to? The mule deer units in the Bitterroot that have been in trouble for 20+ years? The wilderness and trophy units that have been LE for 20+ years? Or is it the units near our largest population centers that have been hammered for longer than I've been alive that been LE since mule deer crashed in the late 2000's. Do you mean the LE elk permits for trophy areas and wildlife management areas? All of these areas have OTC hunting of some sort. Mule deer LE areas have general tag whitetail hunting. Trophy elk areas have spike bull and cow elk general tag options. I'm not seeing any areas where you are 100% locked out except for specific areas that are wilderness only areas like 455 where you can still hunt whitetails during archery season. There were a bunch of changes in the elk hunting for Region 7 but those areas have never been high elk harvest areas due to the terrain and limited public land in the higher density elk areas.

What areas are you referring to where general tag hunters are locked out of because of the being LE only that are recent additions? I'm not familiar with them.

Jay

 

[AHayes111]

What LE districts are you referring to? The mule deer units in the Bitterroot that have been in trouble for 20+ years? The wilderness and trophy units that have been LE for 20+ years? Or is it the units near our largest population centers that have been hammered for longer than I've been alive that been LE since mule deer crashed in the late 2000's. Do you mean the LE elk permits for trophy areas and wildlife management areas? All of these areas have OTC hunting of some sort. Mule deer LE areas have general tag whitetail hunting. Trophy elk areas have spike bull and cow elk general tag options. I'm not seeing any areas where you are 100% locked out except for specific areas that are wilderness only areas like 455 where you can still hunt whitetails during archery season. There were a bunch of changes in the elk hunting for Region 7 but those areas have never been high elk harvest areas due to the terrain and limited public land in the higher density elk areas.

What areas are you referring to where general tag hunters are locked out of because of the being LE only that are recent additions? I'm not familiar with them.

Jay

I was no referring to whitetail and elk. Just mule deer. However if mule deer goes LE in most of the state, whitetail will not be able to absorb the increase in pressure and will soon follow. Just look at the hunting map from the 90's and compare it with today. In the 90's all districts were OTC, now close to 30 are LE or first choice only. Most recently districts in region 4 went from OTC to LE. There are likely plenty of other districts where the deer numbers would justify LE. I live in 704, deer numbers on the Custer are absolutely rock bottom and have been for the last decade. I can remember the winter of 78 and the low deer numbers that fallowed. If I could go back in time, I would gladly go back to hunt 79 or 80 over the best years of the last 10.
If it wasn't for the large ranches both north and south of the Custer, district 704 would need to be LE. I am not one of them but I hear more and more average Joe hunters asking for it every year. This is a frog in the pot situation. A district that you don't hunt goes to LE and you don't feel the slight rise in water temperature, The water is getting hot now and some people feel it, others do not.

 

[wind gypsy]

“you guys shouldn’t care about a measly $85 increase. You already pay over 50x more for your tag than we pay. That’s a drop in the bucket.”

Next week. “Please help delist grizzlies. We all need to come together on this.” “Please contribute to HOWL. We need all the help we can to fight XYZ.”

“Don’t let them transfer federal lands to the state! Then you non res wouldn’t be subsidizing them for us!”

"people are willing to pay it, we should capitalize on it"... "The Outfitters lobby is selling out our wildlife to people willing to pay big $ for it"

Nr hunters supply virtually nothing for federal tax dollars to support public lands.

Its the non hunting tax payers that actually fund the public land and they can use them as much as they want

Are you creating a distinction because a very small % of the US population happens to be NR hunters in any given western state? If you don't think NR hunting and fishing folks aren't one of the biggest players as in keeping land accessible to the public (via lobbying and conservation orgs) regardless of the taxes they pay, I disagree.

 

[Weldor]

Good thing about AZ. is you can buy license just for the number of days you will be hunting. I'm sure they limit it to X number of days, but I don't know for sure. $20 a day is what I do if I know I will only be hunting eight days or less. I should add this is for general license only.

Those are not good for big game. fishing , furbearers non game and upland only.

 

[wind gypsy]

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?

In reality, i don't much care what the R pay or what the disparity is. The bill gets my hackles up because it's just another reflection of current wildlife politics in MT. The group wanting to charge NR more is the same group that is quick to try to pilfer $ away from the FWP or access projects. They hold Resident fees at 1980 level prices but they are quick to make up for that by selling out the wildlife in other ways. Any data about actual wildlife conditions or management that conflicts with their predetermined outcome is to be shunned.

 

[ThunderJack49]

Most Montana residents that I know would happily pay way more for a tag, if they were promised in return, less NR tags and pressure. Most hunters I know would be happy to pay that bill. Roksliders tend to disagree with me on here about that, but that’s what I’ve seen.
I think a sliding scale would be a decent solution, that way if you’re broke you can still hunt and the usual kids/military/college stuff all be discounted, especially kid prices. Everyone else can pony up. I think this would also reduce the amount of guys who hit it hard for a couple of hours on opening and last weekend but inadvertently kill a lot of stuff, just by sheer volume.
I’d be happy to pay 100$ for an elk tag to reduce hunting pressure and keep the state OTC.

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Yep.
And It costs $15 to apply for elk on top of that and you get a preference point. Plus you can apply for antelope, deer, sheep for much less $. MT charges $100 for a preference point and then wipes em out if you go 2 years without applying. Add another $50 for a bonus point. Pretend you want to hunt a limited entry unit in MT, you get to pay all that money applying and if you draw a general tag but not your LE tag, you can donate $300 ish to FWP in addition to your $200 in preference poitns if you return your tag to get some of the $ back.

AZ residents pay $148 for an elk tag. Over 7x what a MT resident does. AZ also actually manages their game rather than just letting anyone and everyone at em from Sept-November.

 

[Marshfly]

Most Montana residents that I know would happily pay way more for a tag, if they were promised in return, less NR tags and pressure. Most hunters I know would be happy to pay that bill. Roksliders tend to disagree with me on here about that, but that’s what I’ve seen.
I think a sliding scale would be a decent solution, that way if you’re broke you can still hunt and the usual kids/military/college stuff all be discounted, especially kid prices. Everyone else can pony up. I think this would also reduce the amount of guys who hit it hard for a couple of hours on opening and last weekend but inadvertently kill a lot of stuff, just by sheer volume.
I’d be happy to pay 100$ for an elk tag to reduce hunting pressure and keep the state OTC.

Everyone I know that lives here feels the exact same way. Personally I think this whole idea that residents are tightwads that don't want to pay more is ridiculous propaganda.

And I have 4 hunters in my household to pay for. So any increase is 4x.

 

[ThunderJack49]

Everyone I know that lives here feels the exact same way. Personally I think this whole idea that residents are tightwads that don't want to pay more is ridiculous propaganda.

And I have 4 hunters in my household to pay for. So any increase is 4x.

And you shouldn’t be penalized for taking your kids hunting.
I have the same issues as everyone else about mismanagement and my concerns for our deer and elk herds as well as which pollutions are bought and sold by wealthy interest groups and the NPS but, if it’s just money we are talking about, I’ll take that deal.

 

[wind gypsy]

Everyone I know that lives here feels the exact same way. Personally I think this whole idea that residents are tightwads that don't want to pay more is ridiculous propaganda.

I've heard Newberg reference some vitriol for it being suggested in the past so ive taken that and others who are active in MT wildlife issues at face value when they suggested MT residents haven't supported it.

Curious when the last time it was proposed? MT residents on forums seem almost universally on board but we know that isn't a good representation of the hunting population.

 

[The Guide]

Everyone I know that lives here feels the exact same way. Personally I think this whole idea that residents are tightwads that don't want to pay more is ridiculous propaganda.

And I have 4 hunters in my household to pay for. So any increase is 4x.

Same here. I'm 4x on whatever we have for licenses, permits, and drawings. If they start charging more to residents, you will see residents killing more game. If it costs them $100 for the tag, they will kill every 2 point, raghorn, doe, and cow that is legal. Nothing will get a pass. If you think resident hunters are dicks to nonresident hunters now, just wait until those tags go up. When residents quit traveling in-state to hunt and you nonresident hunters have to float the entire tourism bill for some of these small towns, just wait to see the prices of your lodging and food. Your desire for "equity" will cost everyone.

Jay

 

[Jason Snyder]