One of the things that has not been discussed is the fact that the fee increase was voted on as part of a bill to abolish outfitter sponsered licenses. Voters in MT passed I-161 54%-46%.
I voted for I-161. I voted for it for many reasons. One of the problems I had with it was that the outfitter didn't have to pay for these licenses, then they can turn around and charge for them. I know they have to pay fees to be a licensed outfitter, but the fact that they can get the licenses for nothing and then sell them rubbed me the wrong way.
The way I look at it, now these licenses are available to everyone and if you buy one and still want to hire a guide, then go for it. But for the hunter who wants to hunt land that is publicly accessible (which we have A LOT of) they can do it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as opening the door to the more avid hunter, and ones that can't afford a guide. They can pay a couple hundred bucks more for the license and hunt on their own, rather than having to pay thousands for a guide.