Big Sky money grab?

[Big Fin]

So if I'm reading the fancy chart correctly everything that is showing before 2014 is surplus and everything on the projected course after 2014 is deficit? I wonder if the projected course include the past land purchases by FWP and project them to be repeated into the future or is the projection showing the percent increase of land purchases and projecting that same increase into the future or the same for studies, or none or what does it consisit of? I bet the legislature will go over this with a fine tooth comb.

Land purchases come from earmarked accounts, either the Habitat Montana or Access Montana, none of which can be used for general operations. Those funds are not part of this chart, as they are "off limits" for operations. And, those purchases are not part of the forecast, as they do not affect operating funds.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Land purchases come from earmarked accounts, either the Habitat Montana or Access Montana, none of which can be used for general operations. Those funds are not part of this chart, as they are "off limits" for operations. And, those purchases are not part of the forecast, as they do not affect operating funds.

Yes. Plus, when we look at some of the larger purchases like Spotted Dog, Fish Creek and the Marhsall Block, there was a variety of sources. SD was purchased using NRD funds, which are administered through the AG's office to mitigate loss of habitat in the Clark Fork Drainage. MB and FC were purchased using a mix of funding that included federal funds.

Fishing access sites are partially funded through Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars, etc.

Add on top of that a $10 million general fund appropriation in 2007 to increase access and you have a variety of funding sources outside of the of the general license account that have been utilized to increase public lands and public hunting.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

My gosh; I had no idea the resident licenses in Montana were so cheap. We pay a $14 application fee alone for each species we apply for in the draws as a nonresident in Wyoming and then $12.50 for a Conservation Stamp if we draw a license before we can even hunt. It looks like the Montana FWP should have been dead and gone a long time ago with those types of resident fees and it's no wonder Fin mentioned that the state is sucking on the teat of NRs. This guy Marbut must be a real winner and it's a shame that people evidently listen to him! It would look like the resident license fees could be doubled and nobody should have a problem with what your state has to offer.

 

[jlmatthew]

Just sell OTC tags like Colorado and Montana's fiscal problems are solved

 

[SWMontana1]

I would be willing be to pay a little bit more than my $100 for fishing, bear, elk, deer, and mountain lion

 

[MTbowhunter84]

I will definitely have no issue with paying an increase for resident licenses. I grew up in South Dakota where there was many year I never drew a buck tag, and we only got 3 weeks to hunt rifle. As a Montana resident we are blessed to have the opportunities we do here. When moving here I was shocked to see the price of licenses over the counter, and for special draws. I'm blessed to be able to have the amount of public land to hunt here as well. There is no reason we can't pay more for the privilege we are given here.

 

[MTGunner]

As a MT resident license fee increases are inevitable. We have so many opportunities to hunt and the increase will only bolster the FWP staff to be able to do a tough job. The majority voted I-161 into law. We have to live with the outcome. An increase in fees goes along with the economy. Our liberal seasons and vast public land make Montana a very attractive oportunity. NR will have to pay $$ to hunt MT. Residents will have to pay a bit more. FWP will have to budget their funds accordingly. MTG