Interesting read – Hunting license revenue falls short

From = http://helenair.com/news/local/hunting-license-revenue-falls-short/article_1d0d8ca6-268c-11e4-93d4-001a4bcf887a.html

August 18, 2014 6:00 am • By TOM KUGLIN Independent Record
(14) Comments

Nonresident hunting licenses failed to sell out before the application deadline for the fourth consecutive year, leading the state to offer the remaining licenses up on a first-come, first-served basis.

In 2010, a ballot initiative significantly raised prices for nonresident big game licenses. Before 2010, FWP instituted a lottery system as many more nonresident hunters applied than the state had licenses available
Under the new prices in 2011, licenses undersold during the application period for the first time, although all the licenses were eventually sold, said Ron Aasheim, FWP administrator.

In 2012 and 2013, FWP did not sell all of the surplus licenses, and it remains to be seen if the state can sell the surplus this year.

Montana offers about 17,000 big game combination licenses and 6,600 deer combination licenses to nonresident hunters. As of Friday afternoon, more than 1,700 big game combos, nearly 1,700 elk combos and more than 550 deer combos remained.

The total undersold licenses amount to more than $3.3 million in potential revenue for FWP. Montana sells the big game combination license for $971, the elk combination license for $821 and the deer combo for $575.

FWP is considering asking the Legislature for the first fee increase to several hunting and fishing licenses since 2005, citing a nearly $7 million budget shortfall.

Although several factors contributed to the shortfall, underselling licenses was “part of the issue,” Aasheim said.

Montana is below an 11 state average for resident fishing licenses and all resident hunting licenses except wolf. Nonresident hunting licenses are above the average for black bear, deer, elk, mountain lion and upland game bird, but below average for moose, mountain goat, antelope, bighorn sheep, turkey, wolf and most fishing licenses.

Montana’s big game archery season runs Sept. 6–Oct. 19; and the general rifle big game season runs Oct. 25–Nov. 30.

This story has been edited to reflect FWP’s budget shortfall. The agency has made permanent cuts of $1.24 million, and faces an additional $5.75 million without additonal revenue

A rich man’s sport…. The liberals love this.

I’ve never understood the fleecing of non-resident hunters for additional fees. And please don’t try and explain it to me, I’ve had the conversation round and round with people for decades.

There should be a way for the residents to get their tags at an affordable price and then find a way for the non-residents to split up what’s left, again at an affordable price that creates a win-win for all.

This is just the market telling them their prices are too high or their product does not support the high prices.

cougareye wrote:

I’ve never understood the fleecing of non-resident hunters for additional fees. And please don’t try and explain it to me, I’ve had the conversation round and round with people for decades.

There should be a way for the residents to get their tags at an affordable price and then find a way for the non-residents to split up what’s left, again at an affordable price that creates a win-win for all.

This is just the market telling them their prices are too high or their product does not support the high prices.

In complete agreement. 3-4 years of not selling all of the non-res licenses are telling them that. It looks like most of the increases will be on resident licenses, though it’s troubling to see part of the strategy is removing certain youth, senior, and disabled hunter discounts. Looked like their last increase was in 2005.

More importantly, Montana seems different in that there is no dedicated funding like we have in MN, no general fund (like we used to have) monies available, and that almost all of the Fish and Game activities they have are funded through license sales. In my humble and mostly un-informed opinion, it sounds like everyone from bird-watchers to buggy-drivers are getting free benefits of hunting/fishing programs that hunters and fishermen only are paying for.

Joel

it sounds like everyone from bird-watchers to buggy-drivers are getting free benefits of hunting/fishing programs that hunters and fishermen only are paying for.
BINGO!

Once again, we the sportsmen will pay above our fair share for the benefit of all. Yet a liberal government can continue to rape the funds and try to manage a system with no boundaries or direction of common sense.

I’ve only hunted MT on a couple of occasions, but, one thing I do hear from friends and such is the lack of big game. In years past you’ve had to put in for points for a number a years and then when you finally get drawn, all you get is a beautiful landscape photo shoot. Between management, disease and wolves, many former prime areas have been decimated. Why spend all that money to MT G&F (or most other western states) just to go shoot a two year old cause you don’t want to come back empty handed. Then add in the costs of paying the land owner (if private land) buying hotel rooms, food, gas. It’s a minimum of a $1,500.00 – $2,000.00 date at best.

I love hunting the western states, but no matter what state it is, it only seems to be for the fellowship anymore. Sure there is always the anticipation and the adventure, that’s why we go. But is $25.00 a pound of venison worth it?? We used to hunt north east WY for years, the most it would cost us is $400 – $500 each and that was all expenses.

One last thing, the outfitters and guides have also had their effect on many of these areas with regard to pricing. But, as long as people pay their rates, why shouldn’t they keep on raising the price. It’s simple business

Mn & Mt aren’t the only states that that like to get in the non-res’ pockets. SD gets me $61 to fish over there and will nick me $7.50/nite extra to reserve a campsite while I’m there. By the time I buy a park permit and pay the camping fees, I’m almost to the cost of a cheap motel room. Being familiar with the system and how to get around it, I can get by on the cheap but for somebody that doesn’t know, they’ll get a pretty fair chunk of your vacation money. jerr

I don’t believe in the jacked up costs for Non-residents, but there is one factor that I do accept. Residents of a paticular state pay taxes within their state all year long. Of those taxes, some filter to parks, managed lands, and so on. So if a resident has paid X amount of money throughout the year from his/her purchases, a non resident should contribute as well. The difference is the STEEP price tags that make me NOT spend additional funds with local businesses. If the state taps me for all they can, its the local businesses that suffer.

Several years ago Colorado raised big game licenses a bunch and didn’t sell out. The next year they spent about $300,000. on advertising trying to sell all the licenses. They still didn’t sell them all. Spent DNR funds on advertising. If they would have raised them just a little they would have probably sold them all. Western states got greedy and now are paying the piper for it. Just my 2cents.

Randy Wieland wrote:

I don’t believe in the jacked up costs for Non-residents, but there is one factor that I do accept. Residents of a paticular state pay taxes within their state all year long. Of those taxes, some filter to parks, managed lands, and so on. So if a resident has paid X amount of money throughout the year from his/her purchases, a non resident should contribute as well. The difference is the STEEP price tags that make me NOT spend additional funds with local businesses. If the state taps me for all they can, its the local businesses that suffer.

The argument here, and I told you not to get me going, is that every hunter pays taxes in their home state and those taxes get filtered to parks, lakes, hunting land, etc.

Take the three states I frequent. ND, MN, WI. WI is known for big deer, MN for its lakes, ND for waterfowl. Why gouge me for extra money to hunt waterfowl in ND and why gouge ND residents if they want to hunt deer in WI? And we can all fish in MN?

Outdoorsmen and women need to band together and not watch their sports decline in popularity because they become too expensive. If a guy who grew up duck hunting in ND and now lives in WI, wants to introduce his family and friends to duck hunting but the cost prevents them from making the trip, what has that accomplished?

I hunt deer on private land in WI and the landowner does NOT hunt with us because he is a MN resident and won’t pay $250 for a deer when I pay only $30.

Reciprocity agreements exist in many other areas of our society, why not hunting/fishing? That would be a good start.

Eric, I agree. Maybe our fine government can impose a national control of Obama-hunt and eliminate the need of local management. Then the funds can be equally shared amongst all states and we eliminate the issue OK, i set the crack pipe down