Fish and Game Wardens: California vs Montana pay

Percentile	Published wages	California	Montana
10th	California$69,710Montana$56,030	$69,710	$56,030
25th	California$74,790Montana$57,300	$74,790	$57,300
Median	California

Place	Employment	Jobs per 1,000	Location quotient	Employment RSE
California	330Jobs per 1,000: 0.02 Location quotient: 0.49	0.02	0.49	0.2%
Montana	70Jobs per 1,000: 0.14 Location quotient: 3.79	0.14	3.79	0%

75th	California$110,780Montana$61,470	$110,780	$61,470

90th	California$116,330Montana$73,550	$116,330	$73,550

Start with the answer

Fish and Game Wardens pay in California and Montana

The May 2025 BLS OEWS median for Fish and Game Wardens is $100,090 per year in California. It is $59,490 per year in Montana. California is 68.2% above Montana on the published median.

Both rows use SOC 33-3031 and the same annual wage metric. Median means the middle of each area's published wage spread. It is not one worker's pay. The larger median is not proof that one place gives a better job or a better result. It is one wage fact from one source period.

BLS lists 330 wage and salary jobs in California and 70 in Montana. Those are survey job counts, not open posts. Read pay, job scale, local share, and price level as separate facts before you make a choice.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: same-soc-same-metric-pair · nominal-median-gap · employment-not-openings

Pay range

Compare the full Fish and Game Wardens wage ladder

A median can hide a wide range. The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile points show more of each area's spread. A percentile is a rank point. It is not a career stage. The 10th point does not mean new-worker pay. The 90th point does not mean a wage that comes after a set number of years.

The lower half can differ from the upper half. One area can lead at the median and trail at another point. Read each field against the same field in the other area. Do not compare one area's 75th percentile with the other area's median. That would answer a different question.

A posted job range can sit below, across, or above these marks. That does not make the post wrong. A listing can differ by employer, level, hours, field, or work rules. Keep the listing tied to that employer. Keep the BLS range tied to the whole role-place row.

10th percentile: California is $69,710 per year; Montana is $56,030 per year. California is 24.4% above Montana at this point.
25th percentile: California is $74,790 per year; Montana is $57,300 per year. California is 30.5% above Montana at this point.
Median: California is $100,090 per year; Montana is $59,490 per year. California is 68.2% above Montana at this point.
75th percentile: California is $110,780 per year; Montana is $61,470 per year. California is 80.2% above Montana at this point.
90th percentile: California is $116,330 per year; Montana is $73,550 per year. California is 58.2% above Montana at this point.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-percentile-fields · same-field-comparison · posted-pay-separation

Shape of pay

Mean and median tell two parts of the Fish and Game Wardens story

California has a mean of $96,130 per year and a median of $100,090. Montana has a mean of $61,670 per year and a median of $59,490. Mean adds all wage values and splits the total by the number of jobs behind the estimate.

California's mean is 4.0% below its median on the same published median. Montana's mean is 3.7% above its median on the same published median. The gaps show that each wage spread has a shape. They do not explain why the shape differs.

Use median for the middle. Use mean to see how the full set pulls. Use percentiles to see more of the spread. None of the three is a pay promise. A person, team, or listing can sit far from all three for reasons that are outside these BLS rows.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-mean-median · mean-median-gap · no-causal-inference

Job scale

How the two Fish and Game Wardens job bases differ

California has 330 estimated Fish and Game Wardens jobs. Montana has 70. The larger count shows a larger covered job base in this source. It does not show more open roles, faster hiring, or a better chance for one applicant.

California has 0.02 Fish and Game Wardens jobs per 1,000 local jobs. Montana has 0.14 per 1,000. This rate helps compare places of different size. It is not a job-post rate and does not use the MeritLog catalog.

The employment RSE is 0.2% in California and 0% in Montana. RSE means relative standard error. It is a survey precision flag. It is not the chance that the job count or one person's pay is right.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-employment · paired-jobs-per-thousand · employment-rse-field-scope

Local share

Where Fish and Game Wardens takes a larger share of jobs

The location quotient is 0.49 in California and 3.79 in Montana. A value of 1 means the role has the same share of local jobs as it has across the nation. A value above 1 means the local share is larger. A value below 1 means it is smaller.

California's quotient is 87.1% below Montana's. That gap is about the job mix. It is not a wage gap, a job-count gap, or a growth claim.

Read location quotient with employment. A small place can have a high share and few jobs. A large place can have many jobs and a share near the national mark. Then read pay as its own field. The three measures do not form one score.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-location-quotient · quotient-gap · metric-separation

BEA price view

How price levels differ between California and Montana

BEA's 2024 all-items price index is 110.7 in California and 94.6 in Montana. The U.S. level is 100. A higher number means the broad local price level is higher than the national mark. It does not say a place is good or bad.

Housing is 154.3 in California and 84.6 in Montana. Goods are 106.1 and 96.0. Utilities are 158.9 and 72.3. Other services are 102.6 and 98.7. The parts can move in different ways.

The wage period is May 2025. The price period is 2024. WageScope keeps those clocks visible. It uses the all-items index for one clear proxy. It does not mix BEA prices into the BLS source row, and it does not claim the two releases describe the exact same month.

Evidence: bea-rpp-2024 · bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-rpp-fields · rpp-us-baseline · source-period-separation

Price-level proxy

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

WageScope divides California's $100,090 median by 110.7 divided by 100. The result is $90,399 per year. It divides Montana's $59,490 median by 94.6 divided by 100. That result is $62,856 per year.

California's proxy is 43.8% above Montana's. The nominal gap is 68.2%. The order can stay the same or change after the price-level step. Both results must keep their labels.

The proxy is a narrow math tool. It is not take-home pay. It does not add taxes, benefits, household size, debt, commute, schools, safety, climate, or taste. It does not set a wage target. Use it to see how one broad price index changes the wage view, then check your own costs outside WageScope.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-bounded-comparison-v1 · Rule: price-level-adjusted-formula · nominal-adjusted-gap-separation · proxy-limits

Same-proxy pay

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

$100,090 per year in California has the same national-price-dollar proxy as $85,558 per year in Montana. The math keeps California's proxy fixed, then applies Montana's all-items price index.

$59,490 per year in Montana has the same proxy as $69,594 per year in California. This reverse view is useful because the answer depends on which wage you start with. It is not a claim about an offer in either place.

Equivalent nominal pay uses one broad price measure. It does not know what a person buys. It does not know rent, family size, debt, taxes, travel, benefits, or savings. Treat the result as a clean source-backed comparison, not a full move plan or a number an employer must match.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-bounded-comparison-v1 · Rule: equivalent-nominal-value-forward · equivalent-nominal-value-reverse · proxy-limits

Data care

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

The mean-wage RSE is 0.1% in California and 0.9% in Montana. The employment RSE is 0.2% and 0%. RSE is a precision flag for the field it sits beside. It is not a score for the whole page.

BLS does not publish the same RSE field for the median and each percentile. WageScope does not move a mean RSE to the median. It does not use an employment RSE as a wage care mark. Each value stays tied to its source field. Missing or top-coded values also keep their source state.

A later BLS or BEA release can change the result. MeritLog checks the official source clocks before promotion. The page cannot call its data current when a newer complete release is waiting for review. Current job cards have their own seen date and do not make the government data newer.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · Rule: paired-rse-field-scope · no-rse-transfer · independent-source-freshness

Use the result

A short check list for California and Montana

Start with the same Fish and Game Wardens wage field. Then read the full percentile spread. Check job count, jobs per 1,000, and location quotient. Add the 2024 all-items and housing price levels. Read the national-price-dollar proxy with its limits. Keep the BLS and BEA dates in view.

Next, inspect one current employer-title match in each place when an exact public place match exists. A job post can show work level, hours, location rules, and pay that the BLS row cannot. The post is dated employer evidence. It does not change the survey median or prove a broad trend.

Last, use your own facts. Compare the job needs with work you have done and can support. A wage gap cannot show fit. A price-level gap cannot show fit. A job count cannot show fit. MeritLog's résumé path starts only after you choose a listing and confirm the work facts you want to use.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-public-job-boundary-v1 · Rule: comparison-checklist · job-source-separation · confirmed-resume-evidence

Limits

What this Fish and Game Wardens comparison does not decide

The page does not choose California or Montana for you. It does not say what one worker earns. It does not promise a job, offer, raise, or move result. It does not say why the medians differ. It does not turn the larger wage, job count, quotient, or proxy into a place score.

The comparison leaves out people who work for themselves and other work outside the OEWS scope. It does not add taxes, take-home pay, benefits, stock, bonus pay, hours, travel, remote work, or a household budget. Current listings are separate and can be empty even when the government rows are complete.

Use this page for a bounded choice. Compare the same May 2025 BLS role and metric across two exact areas. Add the separate 2024 BEA price view. Inspect dated employer-title matches. Then build a résumé from facts you have confirmed. Keep each source tied to the question it can answer.

Evidence: bls-oews-may-2025 · bea-rpp-2024 · meritlog-public-job-boundary-v1 · Rule: no-place-choice · no-personal-pay-claim · source-purpose-separation

Fish and Game Wardens: California vs Montana

Same occupation, same annual wage metric

The winner can change when local prices differ

Housing and all-items indexes explain the adjustment

Equivalent nominal pay, using price levels only

Employment scale and local concentration

Compare another occupation or pair

Fish and Game Wardens: California and Montana guide

Fish and Game Wardens in California and Montana: common questions

Compare Fish and Game Wardens listings by place

California

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Montana

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Current jobs

Tailor for a real Fish and Game Wardens job, not a generic wage number.

Fish and Game Wardens pay in California and Montana

Compare the full Fish and Game Wardens wage ladder

Mean and median tell two parts of the Fish and Game Wardens story

How the two Fish and Game Wardens job bases differ

Where Fish and Game Wardens takes a larger share of jobs

How price levels differ between California and Montana

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

A short check list for California and Montana

What this Fish and Game Wardens comparison does not decide

Compare Fish and Game Wardens listings by place

California

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Montana

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Privacy choices

Fish and Game Wardens: California vs Montana

Same occupation, same annual wage metric

The winner can change when local prices differ

Housing and all-items indexes explain the adjustment

Equivalent nominal pay, using price levels only

Employment scale and local concentration

Compare another occupation or pair

Fish and Game Wardens: California and Montana guide

Fish and Game Wardens in California and Montana: common questions

Compare Fish and Game Wardens listings by place

California

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Montana

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Current jobs

Tailor for a real Fish and Game Wardens job, not a generic wage number.

Fish and Game Wardens pay in California and Montana

Compare the full Fish and Game Wardens wage ladder

Mean and median tell two parts of the Fish and Game Wardens story

How the two Fish and Game Wardens job bases differ

Where Fish and Game Wardens takes a larger share of jobs

How price levels differ between California and Montana

Compare the medians in national-price dollars

What equal price-level pay would look like in the other place

Check the survey marks before you use the gap

A short check list for California and Montana

What this Fish and Game Wardens comparison does not decide

Compare Fish and Game Wardens listings by place

California

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.

Montana

No precise employer-title matches in this place right now.