Environmental Quality Council to review Montana hunting, fishing license fees

2013-06-09T23:30:00Z 2013-06-10T06:05:59Z Environmental Quality Council to review Montana hunting, fishing license feesBy BRETT FRENCH Billings Gazette missoulian.com
June 09, 2013 11:30 pm  • 

Even though the 2013 Legislature has adjourned, hunters and anglers should be keeping an eye on the Environmental Quality Council’s meetings this summer, the first of which will be June 19 and 20 in Helena.

On the group’s agenda are consideration of Fish, Wildlife and Parks license structure — including fees charged and reduced fees offered to certain groups — as well as a study of the management of federal lands within Montana.

Both topics were dictated by the Legislature and kicked over to the EQC for further study — the license structure study was outlined in House Bill 609, and the federal lands study came in a joint resolution, SJ15.

License question

FWP has estimated that about $4 million in potential revenue is lost to licenses sold at reduced rates to a variety of hunters and anglers, including senior citizens, youths, veterans and former residents who come home to hunt. The department is also seeing a decline in hunting license sales, particularly for antelope, whose populations have declined from winter kill, drought and disease. Fishing license sales have trended up, whereas resident and nonresident deer B tag sales have declined, as has the demand for nonresident hunter combination licenses.

Nonresident licenses generate the most for FWP coffers. As of last week, the agency still had 1,692 nonresident big game combination licenses, 2,291 nonresident elk licenses and 1,039 nonresident deer licenses available.

Overall, though, license revenue to the department has remained relatively flat between fiscal years 2007 and 2012, with the exception of a sharp drop in fiscal year 2010 for licenses whose fees are earmarked for certain funds.

The EQC won’t make any decision on what to do, but will make a recommendation to the Legislature, possibly in the form of a draft bill. The recommendations could include simplifying the licensing structure and/or reducing or eliminating some of the free or reduced licenses offered. FWP staff has already indicated a need to raise all license fees as the agency’s savings account is becoming depleted.

Federal lands

Legislators’ goals for the EQC study of federal lands seem a bit more unclear. SJ15 directs the EQC to analyze federal lands and “identify significant concerns or risks associated with these lands relative to: environmental quality; economic productivity and sustainability; public health, safety and welfare; consistency with state and local objectives; and ownership and jurisdictional responsibilities.”

The resolution also states that “federal funding and the capacity for responsible management of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands are in serious jeopardy while critical threats such as beetle kills, invasive species, watershed degradation, access restrictions, and catastrophic wildfires continue to escalate.”

Critics have said the resolution is nothing more than a renewal of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980s, when Western states sought greater control over the use and management of federal lands.

There’s no doubt federal lands play a huge role in the state. Montana counts more than 33.3 million acres of public land, or about 35 percent of the state’s 94 million acres. The federal government annually pays the state a fee, called payment in lieu of taxes (PILT), for the 27.2 million acres it manages, the majority of which, 17 million acres, is U.S. Forest Service property. Last year, those funds totaled more than $26 million, with two counties — Lewis and Clark and Flathead — each receiving more than $2.1 million.

In addition to these topics, the EQC will also receive reports on wolf management, including the new laws meant to reduce wolf numbers; get an update on the Governor’s Sage Grouse Advisory Council, and receive an overview of the coming fire season.

The meetings can be live-streamed on the Internet. A complete agenda for the meeting can also be found online.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(7) Comments

  1. nonreshunter
    Report Abuse
    nonreshunter - June 21, 2013 11:25 am
    I do understand that part of the equasion. Although I do have problems with individual states making it inhospitable for residents and nonresidents to recreate on federal land by charguiong one a nominal fee and the other 10 - 15 times more. I know wildlife departments build their budgets on nonresidents paying the lions share of the fees, I just don't think it's fair and long term sustainable. If you like the way this is set up maybe you wouldn't mind paying $40 dollars a gallon for gas when you drive out of state or paying $600 a night for a hotel room beacuse you are not a resident of that particular state. Sounds silly doesn't it?
  2. Roger
    Report Abuse
    Roger - June 10, 2013 8:30 am
    Wildlife belongs to the state within which the wildlife resides, according to the U.S.Constitution - that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.
  3. Roger
    Report Abuse
    Roger - June 10, 2013 8:01 am
    Wildlife falls under the control of the individual states - that's not too difficult to understand.
  4. frenchy
    Report Abuse
    frenchy - June 10, 2013 7:58 am
    What most of you do not understand is the land is only managed by the federal government, it is state land and should be managed by the states. I would say that the reason for all of the non-resident licenses not being sold are 1. the high price and 2. there are very few animals left to hunt now that the wolves have destroyed the game herds.
  5. Corvallisjohn
    Report Abuse
    Corvallisjohn - June 10, 2013 7:50 am
    Hey nonreshunter. Why should nonresidents, who do not pay state taxes, be allowed to hunt our game or fish for our fish? When the Federal Government starts offering a hunting and fishing license that is good in all states then we will start talking about hunting in Montana.
    We just can't allow all the hunters and fisherman from states that have little game to hunt and fish in Montana and not pay for the privilege .
  6. NewMontanaMan
    Report Abuse
    NewMontanaMan - June 10, 2013 6:53 am
    Beware of any group with the term Environmental appearing anywhere in their name reviewing or having any input in the activities of our lives. These hypocrites always think they know what is best for us and for the world when in fact usually know nothing factual and deal only with emotion. And more taxes is usually the results of anything they recommend as taxpayers who pay the bills for their insanity is an endless pit of money to them.
  7. nonreshunter
    Report Abuse
    nonreshunter - June 09, 2013 12:48 pm
    I've never really understood why a person who lives across a state border and is a United States citizen should pay 10+ times the amount a person who resides in the state pays to hunt Federal land. We as hunters have already lost most of out bargaining power when we are being broken into ever shrinking groups by the agencies that regulate us. It's clear that our beloved sport of hunting has lost most of its allure through ever increasing rules and regulations and shrinking game herds. It is time we looked at having one price for everyone who wants to visit Federal lands and partake in the sport of hunting.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick