I think this might be a step in the right direction. It looks like the guides don't mind the fees..

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/20...75-land-use.txt

My problem with this plan (and other's like it in other states) is that it's always the same people who have to pay for everyone. This boils down to the fact that the State of MT wants more money so they are going to charge outfitters to use the land. Thats fine with me, as long as they charge everyone else too. Day hikers use state parks, as do river kayakers, and recreational brid watchers, and a whole host of others, None of them need to pay a fee to use PUBLIC land. Instead of charging the people already paying (I have to pay money to the state of MT to guide every year already) why dont we charge some of these other groups who are using the land.

The same thing happened in CO last year. Angler's licenses went up becuase the DOW needed more money. One of the reasons they needed more money was to help manage/maintain the State Wildlife Areas they are in charege of. Now, the sole funding for those areas came from hunting/fishing licnenses even though hikers, bikers, campers, rafter, birdwatchers, and climbers uses those areas too. Why dont they have to pay any money?

This is a particularly sore subject for me because I HATE having to pay money to use PUBLIC land (double taxation anyone?) On top of that, I just hate that they always want to pick on the same groups and just make them pay more instead of making everyone pay equally.

My rant is over now.

With all due respect, your arguement against the increased fees for commercial users is off base. It is the commercial/private users who are now taking advantage of public land to make a personal monetary gain which is inequitable to John Q. Public. What benefit does the public gain from having commercial interests utilize public lands or natural resources without equitable compensation going back to the government entity? Maybe a minute tax benefit from guiding revenue generated? The trickle down effect?

I was a commercial fisherman for many years, and in addition to an annual permit fee of $10,000 for the fisheries I participated in, a royalty was paid to the state based on the kg caught. This type of fee structure is a common practice with regards to natural resources management (commercial fisheries, timber, oil and gas, whitewater guides, etc).

Sure I agree that the other non-comsupmtive users i.e. hikers, birdwatchers. etc) get off easy but some of the excise taxes related to the sales of binoculars, back packs, GPS units, does make its way back to State Fish and Wildlife agencies. Sportsmen do shoulder much of the burden, but I believe this is a good burden to have. I would like to believe that my voice is louder on wildlife related management issues than that of the gnarly chick with hairy pits occasionally birdwatching in the hopes of spying the elusive Tufted Titmouse.

Juke-

I am not complaining that I have to pay a fee to make money off the use of public land. I am complaining because I ALREADY pay money to guide.....why do I have to pay more when there are other groups out there that use the same land I do but do not get charged for it? I don't mind paying my share one bit, I just want to make sure everyone else is paying theirs as well.

Also: Dont forget that some tax money from fishing related gear goes to the same place as what you mentioned above, so I guess I just dont see how that is making them pay thier share.

And I agree that I want anglers to have more of a say on how this stuff is managed than some hippy chick, but there are TONS of properties the state manages that dont even have angling opportunities on them. Why should I have to pay more money when I cant even use it?

Just to be clear, MT FWP doesn't have a set of rules to govern how state land can be used commercially. First and foremost, they want to be able to address policy and administrative issues, then look at how to pay for things. For example, if you called and asked them if it was OK to use state land to train folks to throw buffalo chips and charge for it, they couldn't/wouldn't answer. There are simply no rules, and no policy to enforce the rules. Right now, they're trying to determine, what, if anything, is needed. Case and point: To use state land, one must purchase a state land use permit OR a conservation license, the latter having been implemented last year. I discovered recently that no citations have been issued for using state land without a permit, which tells me its not really being monitored or enforced, except in a few isolated cases. At this point, other than managing grazing leases and a few other high profile cases, state land doesn't get much attention in terms of commercial or public use management and administration.

You can't discuss this issue without thinking about who pays for things like fishing access sites versus who actually uses them. In Montana, fishings access sites are funded solely and exclusively by fishing licenses, yet outfitters, campers, hikers, boaters, rafters, kayakers, tubers, bird-watchers, hunters, and others use them regularly. I am on the FWP Region 5 Citizen Advisory Council, and one of the topics we're discussing is how to get these other parties to help share the expense.

In summary, anyone who uses state lands in MT is required to hold a conservation license, or a state land use permit. Legally, you can't use state land for free, commercially or non-commercially. So technically, yes, you are getting dinged twice. Its clear everyone who is using state land doesn't isn't paying, and the number of freeloaders is unknown. I doubt there will ever be enough funding to ever find out. We also know fishing access sites are paid for EXCLUSIVELY by anglers, and hopefully, this will change in the near future, as we have a pretty good idea of who (other than anglers) are using the FAS.

CT- The money you pay to be a guide is similar to a doctor, engineer or plumber getting their annual license to practice their trade. These professionals still have to pay for the rental/lease/purchase of their office or place of conducting their commercial business. A guide's office may on occasion be on State of Montana administered land. You are not getting dinged twice, because guiding is commercial venture. A hunting guide, fishing guide or birding guide should be fairly subjected to these fees for commercial use of State Land. It would not be fair to compare the recreational angler or hunter to the commercial guide. Apples v. oranges.

OB- You stated "anyone who uses state lands in MT is required to hold a conservation license, or a state land use permit. Legally, you can't use state land for free, commercially or non-commercially." What does "uses" mean? Are these license or permits available over the counter? If I wade into a river from private property and start to fish in the "public access" portion of the river in this example, would I need the license/permit you have mentioned?

Juke:
Good questions! The conservation license is available over the counter (and is required when you purchase a hunting or fishing license) and includes a state land use permit as of 2005. The state land use permit is available from the MT Dept of Natural Resources or most FWP offices for those who don't buy either a hunting or fishing license. I don't believe a permit is required while wading (under the stream access law), but if you step out on to state land, theoretically, you do. "Uses" means accessing state land, whether it be by foot, wheelchair, vehicle, boat, plane, or extra-terrestrial vehicle.

OB- I see, thanks. Makes sense, a creative way for FWP to increase income without a specific license increase, while also sharing the burden with non consumptive users.

Actually, the new Colorado program provides that everyone who uses a state wildlife area has to have a "Habitat Stamp". When you buy it with your fishing license it cost $5.00. If a person wanted to use a state wildlife area (for hiking or birdwatching or whatever) and didn't huy a fishing license, they would have to buy a separate Habitat Stamp for $10.25.

Remains to be seen how the DOW enforces this, but it sounds like they are making the right kind of effort to ensure that everyone who benefits pays part of the cost. Even witht he increase this year, Colorado fishing licenses are such a bargain it's hard to complain.

Trigg
~~~~

it was great to see the habitat stamp required for ALL users. I fish some SWAs with heavy mountain bike, hiking, and dog walking traffic. It makes me happy they require it of everyone now.

And yes, even with the increase in the CO license this year it is still a BARGAIN... the CO non resident is magnitudes less than what nonres in WY have to pay.

Yeah, but, Sam, values are relative...

CO has GREAT fishing, but lots of people...
WY has pretty poor fishing, but no people...
...probably come out about even if most of the people in CO weren't Coloradans...

Oh, as a resident ... I dont think of it as a BAD thing at all

If those in CO took the time to explore some more of their state I think they would be surprised with what is available right in their own backyard. I am not referring to people on this board or the other.... they are pretty knowledgable... but Joe Fisherman in general.

I don't really like where this is going: limiting outfitter's days on particular rivers. It has already gone in that direction on some rivers. A day will come when it's just not profitable to run an outfitting business because # of days granted to an outfitter will be etched away at over the years. There are some issues that need to be resolved with crowded rivers. I work on a regulated streatch of river where outfitters pay 3% of their gross to FWP. I still see the same problems, and no regulation. It is the non-commercial users leaving the trash and crowding the boat launches. Beurocracy will soak up all the money and outfitters will lose in time. I don't see much benefit coming from giving FWP more money.

I'd like to see less FWP surveys in the mail, more enforcement in the field, and improvements to fishing access proportional to the obscene amount of money generated by license sales.

Actually their input has been incredibly helpful ( if not the most helpful) to those who appreciate coldwater fisheries....

Also one has to understand that the reason hunters and fishermen pay more to use the resource is because they require more of the resource . Managing fisheries and big game for hunting purposes takes tremendous resources, where as the guy walking up the trail to view a few birds requires very little resource management accomodation. And when you talk about federal lands, we all pay our taxes on those. Personally, I feel good about buying a Montana license even though it's pricey for an out of stater like myself. I know that money will be put to good use, and I know Montana FWP need to do more work to accomodate my activity than they do for the birdwatcher. As for hikers, there are solid groups who volunteer time to maintain trails, do litter clean up, etc. I think every group pitches in the some way or another(except for illegal ORV'ers).