montana lawsuit

[nailer]

i,m just tired of having to fund there departments. we pay upwards of 80% of there budget. same in wy.,co. but only not for much longer.hornseeker must enjoy hunting on genral season tags.if you had any idea how crooked idaho draws are you would be stunned. i had dealings with them last year. they took a tag out of the genral tag pool and gave it to a guy who had drawn an outfitter tag.he didnt want to pay 4500.the the top two guys admitted this over telephone to me.they said they knew it was illegal but did it anyway.i record all my calls on hunting matters , but so far am told it is inadmissible in court.

 

[4x4muley]

Where do you get your statistics from? Who is "we" and how are we/you funding 80% of MT's Department 0f Fish and Game budget? Do the residents not help fund the department? If it is from applying for permits, you receive a refund if you are unsuccessful, so I can't imagine the little drawing fee that is retained even from several thousand NR applicants funding 80% of the budget. Why do you think you should have the same rights as the residence of these states? I know, because 80% of our departements funding is coming from you, but shouldn't the residence that live and pay taxes in their state be entitled to the majority of the licenses?

I've been trying to draw a special elk permit as a resident for over a decade now, and believe it or not, my taxes and permit fee's also help fund the MT Dept of Fish & Game. However, I don't think I should sue them. I realize it is a draw or "lottery" if you will, and that I am not guaranteed a permit, nor am I guaranteed an animal if I ever do draw a special permit.

 

[gleninaz]

Heard the same stuff about Arizona and if you can figure out how to use your computer you will be able to access the G&F budget in each state and NR fees are a drop in the bucket. They are important but around only 10% not 80%. Nice try.

 

[sneakem]

I would imagine lottery funds are probably the majority of it?

 

[foxtrot4elk]

nailer, hey I'm just curious,who are "the top two guys admitted this..... they knew it was illegal..." are you refering to hunters? fish&game employees? Now I'll be the 1st to say the non-resident issue will never be resolved to everyones liking. Idaho has gone yrs w/out selling all their non-res tags after the last price increase. This makes no economic sense.They made more money when the price was lower & they sold all their tags.
Now please don't take offense but I find it hard to believe that any f&g employee told u on the phone that they did anything illegal. That is of course why I asked the question above ? I also submit that if a hunter does some research he can buy a "standard" ( not a price jacked super tag) non-resident elk tag & harvest a decent bull. Now maybe my opinion doesn't mean squat because I live here in Idaho, but I hunt public lands here. I scout hard & I hunt hard & I have started to find regular success here.
I do agree that the best chance for a monster bull is going to be limited entry & probably way above budget.So don't feel that I am in disagreement w/you on that point. My answer for me was to move back to Idaho &stay w/the general hunts. This I know is not even an option for most non residents. As for lawsuits the latest I've read is you have an uphill battle going that route. 1 more item, I do know that if tags are sold out in Id you can put in for a left over outfitter tag..(outfitter didn't have a client for all his tags) is this possibly what happened? This isn't illegal however no one knows about this option. They don't put it in the regs. You have to know someone. So there for sure is some "good ol boy " stuff going on. But this particular option probably only happens w/one or two tags per year. The outfitters do a pretty good job of selling there alloted tags. Anyway thanks for lettin me chew on this bone.foxtrot4elk

 

[crextin]

nailer,
I have no idea where you are coming up with your figures of NR hunters supporting 80% of the FWP budget. I assure you that the fees you pay fund far less than that. It is the taxes paid by state residents than fund the majority of the budget.

My opinion is if you don't want to pay the fees to enjoy the PRIVILEGE of hunting in MT STAY HOME!!! That way there will be one less person out there to worry about.

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-05 AT 11:58AM (MST)[p]Obviously, nailers figures are not correct. However, nonresidents do acount for nearly 70% of LICENSE REVENUE. License revenue makes up 57% of the game dept total budget. 29% comes from the Federal Government and 12% from state sources. When you take the license revenue combined with Federal sources (that include nonresident moneys) I suspect that nonresidents provide around 50% or more of the total budget, but no anywhere close to 80%. Still quite a big percentage when you consider that hunter numbers for nonresident FAR exceed nonresidents.

I hate to see this continuing upward trend of nonresidents fees that is making hunting a western state only for the rich. I am ok with you limiting our numbers, but not price us out of the market. Unfortunately USO lawsuits are making my preference not possible and the only way states have to limit our numbers is raise prices. Pretty lousy if you ask me.

Here are the links to prove my figures:

http://fwp.state.mt.us/budget/general.html

AND

http://fwp.state.mt.us/insidefwp/goals/03AnnualReport.html



txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[NeMont]

still quite a big percentage when you consider that hunter numbers for nonresident FAR exceed nonresidents

????

Nemont

 

[mtmuley]

I also support limiting NR numbers, be it in Montana or elsewhere. That is the only way to control the influx of hunters to any said state. I also believe NR fees should be substantionaly more than a residents. Living in a state blessed with great hunting opportunities should have its rewards.(And if you are talking MT, making great money ain't a reward) Obviously, everyone cannot be happy regardless of what the states do. But let me ask any NR hunters this. If the state you would like to hunt was totally open to residents an nonresidents alike, what kind of hunting experience would you expect to have? mtmuley

 

[txhunter58]

OK Nemont, so I was in a hurry at lunch! RESIDENT hunters FAR exceed nonresidents.

To be more precise, there were aprox. 24,000 nonresident hunters in Montana, and aprox. 254,000 resident hunters. Even though residents outnumber nonresidents over 10 to 1, nonresidents pay nearly 70 % of the licese fees.

And Mtmuley: I agree with pretty much everything you say. I believe Montana should have the right to limit nonresident numbers without interference from the courts. And yes, I think that nonresidents should pay more.

However: Presently nonresidents pay $640 to come hunt elk and deer in your great state. residents pay $13 for deer/ $16 for elk. I don't think it has to be that much more.

I have had the great privelege to hunt Montana 3 times and each time is a great memory. I just hate to see future generations of nonresidents priced out of the same great experiences I had.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[4x4muley]

I'm glad we have some numbers to work with now and that it is obvious that nonresidents are not paying 80% of MT budget. Nonresidents do pay 70% of MT license revenue, which from the link mentioned roughly equals $28,069,338, MT residents pay 12,029,717 for a toal licensing revenue of $40,099,055. Of MT's total budget of $70,438,867 NR's contribute 39.8% thruogh license fee's. I think trying to break the numbers down into anything beyond license fee's contibuted by NR hunters is futile as the extra fee's are generated through taxes paid by both the hunting and nonhunting public. Maybe NR's could come close to 50%, but that is open to debate.

What total percent of the Fish & Game budget do nonresidents contribute in other states, or all states? Obviuosly the numbers will be skewed as some states don't provide the opprtunities or quality of hunting and are undesirable to hunt.

Personally the cost of a Combination License of 640?, which I believe includes an upland game bird and fishing license is very cheap. Especially considering that in Montana, there is really no need to hire an outfitter as we still have decent landowners that will allow access and huge amounts of public land. I guess the way I see it is that if it cost me 500 dollars to hunt as a resident, I wouldn't bat an eye at the cost. I am not rich by any means, but it is what I love to do. If I tryed to hunt several states a year, yes, the prices for the licenses would get very steep, but that is my and your porogative. The prices are what they are and if I couldn't afford to hunt several states I wouldn't whine about it.

I agree hunting is heading in the direction that caters only to the rich, but that is not because of license fee's charged by the state. It seem's that when you pay several thousands of dollars in trespass and outfitting fee's or when you can only get a high quality tag through and auction, is the real culprit to blame.

 

[txhunter58]

I hope you are not referring to me as far as whining. That is certainly not my intent. I try and lay out facts and figures and present a logical argument as to why I am against the continuing increase in nonresident fees. After all, I have NO say in the matter. Only residents of the state get to make that call, so I try and persuade rather than whine. If I come off that way, I apologize.

Maybe $640 is reasonable for what we get but when is it going to stop? Plus you add in travel expenses, and it is pretty expensive for anyone. I could afford the tag if it were $1000, but that is beside the point. There are many who really can't. I believe that I am as passionate about hunting as you are. I need it as much as breathing! I also feel it to be a responsibilty to try and maintain the hunting tradition for as many people as possible, and especially for young people.

Lets say for the sake of argument that I am an average Joe that has known you since high school and have been coming to hunt with you every chance I get. I also have a son that is now old enough to come with me. Pretty expensive now.

Let me repeat, I respect the right of western states to restrict our numbers and charge considerably more for the tags, but please consider that you ARE pricing people out as the prices continue to go up. If Montana simply doubled its resident fees (still a great bargain for you) residents would then come close to providing 50% of the license revenue (again with 10 times the number of hunters). Doen't that see more fair than to continue to price people out of your great state?

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[mtmuley]

txhunter58, As much of a bargain MT resident tags and permits are now, the fact is they will be going up. I have heard some figures, and it will still be low cost for residents. The increase for moose, sheep, and goat will probably double. 156 bucks isn't much to a lot of people, but the twofold increase will price a lot of locals out of the draw.(156 dollars per species) Even the proposed increase in the over the counter deer and elk tags will take a toll on some folks here. Scenery and such we got, a great economy not so much. I'm not saying NRs should be priced out of the game, but our residents ought not have to worry about it. We live here and deal with "poverty with a view". As far as being passionate about the hunt, so am I. But there are a bunch of people in Montana passionate about filling their freezer. mtmuley

 

[4x4muley]

I should have used a better choice of words, my intention was not to say "you" were whining. You actually took a civil approch to your arguement, which is appreciated.

Anyway, I agree with you on some points, particualrily your portayal of hunting with your son or daughter and eventually not being able to afford it. As I mentioned in my previuos post, there is no need for an outfitter in MT, luckily we still have decent hunting on public land and some compassioate landowners, so even 1280 dollars and travel is still fairly cheap. Several of my friends and relatives from out of state do come and hunt with us year after year, they think the prices are great. They hunt with my family or we send them to a likely spots, they see more game than in there home states and genrally take better quality animals. My worst fear is that some day hunting in my home state will be as how I understand Texas primarily is now, hunting on a trepass fee basis. I usually hunt every weekend of our season and rarely shoot an animal, because I am picky. However, if it ever changes so I have to pay a couple hundred dollars per day, I could't afford it and my children would miss out on all the experiences I shared with my father.

I have a very close friend that lives in TX, he and his friends pay approximately $1500 per person to hunt a few days. They do this on several different properties as well. What would it cost me to hunt in Texas and is there a place worth hunting where I could shoot the same quality of animal as I could in MT without hiring an outfitter or paying a trepass fee.? I envision the price being way more than 640 dollars, and that would be for just one species. This has nothing to do with state fee's, but my friends in TX pay several hundred dollars just to go and shoot someones pet goats, or that is how it seemed portrayed when they told me the story of the hunt.

I guess I consider an out of state hunt a luxury that is probably something one doesn't get to do every year. If the price is truly the issue and people couldn't afford it, the states could lower the cost, ultimately making it more affordable for people to apply. However then the chance of ever drawing a tag would be so astronomical that we would be here debating that MT doesnt offer enough nonresident tags to be fair. Actually isn't that kind of how this thread originated?
As far as being fair and not pricing people out of hunting our state, I like not seeing people all over when I am hunting. If fewer people were out it would only improve the quality of the hunt, not only in the quality of animals but in the experience as well.

 

[txhunter58]

4x4 said: "As far as being fair and not pricing people out of hunting our state, I like not seeing people all over when I am hunting. If fewer people were out it would only improve the quality of the hunt, not only in the quality of animals but in the experience as well. "

I feel the same way, but I suspect that you will always have around 24,000 nonresident hunters regardless of price, so raising the price will not affect those numbers. After all there are 10 residents for every nonresidents, and you have a hard cap on nonresidents, so those numbers are not going to increase even if the price dropped to what you pay.


I have been to Montana on 2 elk hunts that were swap hunts. Swapped with a guy living in Dell. Great hunts and made agreat friend. He came down here and hunted on my place in Texas, so no money changed hands.

My family does own a ranch down here. I get to enjoy it, but don't see a dollar from it. My mom gets all the income. We do "lease" a couple of spots for hunting. They are charged $950 for a years lease. For this, they get to hunt the entire month of October (bow season), and the first weekend in November til the first weekend in January (gun season). They can also hunt the Spring turkey season (month of April) They can go anytime they like and get to stay in a cabin with all the comforts of home except a TV or phone. They have always taken their entire quota of game which includes 4 deer (2 bucks and 2 does) and 2 turkeys. They also get one axis doe and any rabbits, hogs or other varmits they want to shoot. I understand that this is a different world than Montana, but I feel like they get a good deal for what they get. They also don't have to worry if other people will be hunting the same area.

I spend more money than that on a 1 week hunt in Montana. Yes, I could hunt archery and a long gun season, but that is not realizstic for a nonresident.

Anyway, I guess we have looked at this thing from about every side. Enjoyed the exchange. Thanks for listening. I suspect that all of us would get along pretty well around the campfire. Hunting is in our blood!

Good hunting

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[4x4muley]

I enjoyed the non-hostile exchange as well. You never did answer my question though, what would it cost me as a nonresident to come to Texas and shoot all the game you mentioned. I too could not come every weekend or every season.

Also, I believe here in Montana you can shoot rabbits, coyotes, non furbearers and other varmits for free as a non resident. Don't hold me too that statement, but I'm pretty sure about it.

Does your family sell the tag's or how does that work? What are the cost of the tag's for residents if you don'sell them?

 

[txhunter58]

Sorry, I missed that question. Texas recently raised its general non-resident hunting license from $250 to $300. That allows you to shoot everything I mentioned.

Most of my swap guys come in April and shoot an exotic deer (blackbuck antelope, axis, etc) and a couple of turkeys. License for that hunt is $135. FYI, we don't have a "game ranch". It is a ranch that has been in our family since 1906, has standard low fencing, and all game is free ranging from ranch to ranch and is truly wild.

Texas residents pay $23 for a general hunting license. They buy one over the counter at any Walmart or convienence store in hunting areas. There are no draws or "doe permits". There are so many deer in our area, they allow us to kill as many deer as we want.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[NeMont]

 

[mtmuley]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-05 AT 07:14PM (MST)[p]NeMont, Do you think the increases will be in effect when we can buy a sportsmans license? It is approaching fast. mtmuley P.S. I hate to say this, but all of the bitching by NRs just makes me want to protect MT from all NRs that much more.

 

[txhunter58]

Guess I will tell my son that you would rather he not come. Good hunting

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[NeMont]

MTMuley,

I went to the hearing in Helena regarding this and from what I can tell, it appears Schweitzer is adamantly opposed to this fee increase and is working on reducing or even killing the increase all together.

I think he feels that he has taken too much heat from the hunters of this state already over the bison hunt and he is not willing to spend any more political capital on this issue.

I think that there is no doubt the resident license fees need to be increased but I didn't get the feeling that there was a lot of momentum to get them pushed throug. Everyone in Helena is focused on the funding of education and nearly all other business is taking a back seat to that issue.

so in a long winded answer to your simple question: No, I don't think they will be in effect by then.


Nemont

 

[soupcreek]

Hi Guys,
I just wanted to put in my two bits.
I grew up in MT and am stuck in Utah right now. I hate having to pay so much for resident tags in Utah, and also hate to pay so much for NR tags in MT. That being said, I still have a loyalty to my homeland. The laws of supply and demand show that MT could jack up their NR prices even higher, and still have more than enough applicants. MT residents have the right to preserve the integrity of their hunts and their land for the residents. NR hunters are invited into the state, to increase revenue and add to the struggling economy. The numbers of tags are limited to preserve the integrity of the hunt. Making the residents spend more money on hunting tags does not bring in as much money from outside the state.
It does not help my personal business to have my employees soliciting services from each other. However, it does help to have my employees bringing in business from OUTSIDE sources and clients (non residents).
An increase in resident tag fees does bring money into the budget, but if we can get the same money from Non resident hunters, why wouldn't we?
Look at it from the MT perspective. 'Let's make things more expensive for us, and cheaper for them, all the while decreasing resident hunting opportunities, and increasing NR hunting opportunities. Let's be fair to their kids, but inconsiderate of our own'. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, or make anyone feel unwanted.
Many people in MT place hunting high on their priority list. That is why they are there. If it is high enough on your priority list, then pack up your family and move up. They are great people and will welcome you with open arms.
Soup

 

[mtmuley]

NeMont, Thanks for the answer. I also believe an increase in tag and license fees may be beneficial. It is also encouraging our state government is paying attention to the education issue. Things die hard in Montana, and even though we are blessed with great hunting and low cost, something has got to give. mtmuley