Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Big Game Hunting
MT elk fee going from $643 to over $900! >

MT elk fee going from $643 to over $900!

Big Game Hunting Moose, elk, mulies, caribou, bear, goats, and sheep are all covered here.
 Nosler

MT elk fee going from $643 to over $900!

Old 12-04-2010, 01:00 PM
  #11  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
Because they still make a lot of money from resident license fees is why. They're less expensive, but they sell considerably more of them than they do non-resident licenses.



You don't pay MT taxes. You don't pay MT income tax, county property taxes, vehicle licensing fees, and you don't contribute to the MT economy year round. Federal income taxes are irrelevant because game animals are the property of the state. Do you honestly think the people of Montana give a crap about whether or not you think their system is fair? I can tell you with absolute certainty the answer is not in the slightest. They have a valuable commodity to sell, that your state doesn't have, and they're going to get the highest price they can for it. If you want to enjoy that commodity then you can either fork over the license fees or you can move to MT and contribute like everyone else. That's about as "fair" as it's going to get.
I expect the disparity in fee cost may end up in court. I have no problem with NR paying higher tag fees, but 10x residents is getting absurd. It is true the people of the state own the wildlife, but much of it resides on federal land were the state is not paying for the cover, food, water and raising of the states animals either, the American tax payer is. Locals are also not paying private land owners for raising the states wildlife either.

Locals have demanded access to private lands via I-161. Has anybody bothered to ask, how long will these prime areas be prime if it is opened to public access? The local Montana hunter has complained and whined for years. Survey after survey has indicated that private lands are leased for control issues and bad history with the general public. There are millions of acres of public land here, but the reident wants to shoot a 6x6 out of the truck window, those days are gone forever.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 01:05 PM
  #12  
Fork Horn
 
finnbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
Default

Supply and demand..........if folks weren't fight'n to get'm they would be dirt cheap...Ya gotta pay to play!!!! I wonder what NC charges out of state hunters????
finnbear is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 01:34 PM
  #13  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
I expect the disparity in fee cost may end up in court. I have no problem with NR paying higher tag fees, but 10x residents is getting absurd. It is true the people of the state own the wildlife, but much of it resides on federal land were the state is not paying for the cover, food, water and raising of the states animals either, the American tax payer is. Locals are also not paying private land owners for raising the states wildlife either.

Locals have demanded access to private lands via I-161. Has anybody bothered to ask, how long will these prime areas be prime if it is opened to public access? The local Montana hunter has complained and whined for years. Survey after survey has indicated that private lands are leased for control issues and bad history with the general public. There are millions of acres of public land here, but the reident wants to shoot a 6x6 out of the truck window, those days are gone forever.
Good luck repealling I-161. It won by a large margin and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Your argument about wildlife on federal lands is moot. That's been taken to court and beaten down repeatedly. The game animals belong to the states...end of story.

We live in a free market society so supply and demand dictate price. I'm not a Montana resident so if I want to hunt there I'll have to fork over the market price to play the game. I don't doubt a lot of outfitters are hard working individuals, but there's no reason why they should have a guaranteed business set aside. Outfitters are doing just fine in other western states that don't have outfitter sponsored licenses and I'm sure they'll continue to get by in Montana too.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 01:57 PM
  #14  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

Originally Posted by finnbear
Supply and demand..........if folks weren't fight'n to get'm they would be dirt cheap...Ya gotta pay to play!!!! I wonder what NC charges out of state hunters????
I think it is $60 for a statewide non resident NC hunting license. Unless you are from South Carolina, or Virginia, in which case it is $125 and $80 respectively.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/License/Li...ide.htm#annual
Hurricanespg is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 02:01 PM
  #15  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
As far as the tag being an elk/deer combo, that is also misleading. For example, in the area I outfit one must put in for a special "deer permit" to hunt mule deer with draw odds of less than 1%. So in other words, in many areas it is a 897.00 dollar elk tag. Additionally, not everybody wants to hunt deer, but they are still forced to but a deer tag along with an elk tag and in some areas require a deer permit they have no chance of getting.
Interesting, I did not know that.
Hurricanespg is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 02:56 PM
  #16  
Dominant Buck
 
Champlain Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: On an Island in Vermont
Posts: 22,564
Default

Could result in people going to other states for a cheaper elk tag. I think Colorado is $550 for OTC bull or draw for either sex.
Champlain Islander is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 03:21 PM
  #17  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander
Could result in people going to other states for a cheaper elk tag. I think Colorado is $550 for OTC bull or draw for either sex.
True, but Colorado's general seasons are a matter of days in length compared to well over a month of general season in Montana. Colorado gets a lot more pressure in a much smaller area too. Each state has its perks.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 03:45 PM
  #18  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
Good luck repealling I-161. It won by a large margin and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Your argument about wildlife on federal lands is moot. That's been taken to court and beaten down repeatedly. The game animals belong to the states...end of story.

We live in a free market society so supply and demand dictate price. I'm not a Montana resident so if I want to hunt there I'll have to fork over the market price to play the game. I don't doubt a lot of outfitters are hard working individuals, but there's no reason why they should have a guaranteed business set aside. Outfitters are doing just fine in other western states that don't have outfitter sponsored licenses and I'm sure they'll continue to get by in Montana too.
There is a repeal bill being introduced in the Montana legislature next session, and I-161 didn't pass by a large margin state wide. Additionally, it doesn't take much to get another I -process going to repeal, just a few thousand signitures and it is back on the ballot in 2012. Other western states have land owner tags, wilderness outfitter requirements, OTC etc, apples to oranges. Supply and demand laws are silly when dealing with a non-elastic public resource. I think it is time Montana hunters pony up and start financing some of their own access, instead of crying about those who can afford better access, that is the real supply/demand dicotomy.

As far as outfitters being garanteed a biz set aside, you really have no clue. How does a sponsored tag equate to a garanteed client? Outfitters make zero dollars off of OS tags and the money was used to finance BMP land for residents, who paid nothing for access. Outfitting is a 147 million dollar industry in Montana, a state that ranks 49th in the nation in per capita income. The average return on outfitted clients greatly exceeds DIY dollars by nearly 4 to 1 margin for NR hunters. The state ROI for outfitter tags was much higher with the employment of packers, guides, cooks, wranglers, lodge staff, farriers, tack supply shops etc.

Jim Posewitz founder of the Orion- the hunters institute and author of "Beyond Fair Chase" supported I-161, and when asked how it benefits the average Montana hunter, his response was: "I don't know." To me, that is the perfect statement to discribe this measure.

On a final note, I think it is a bad and dangerous precident to have general elections that set wildlife policy. Sooner or later we will see movement to start chipping away at or hunting heritage here in Montana. We pay wildlife managers and vote for representitives to vote on our behalf, the process here is wrong. We nearly had a vote on banning trapping this year, it will be back in 2012.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 03:49 PM
  #19  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by finnbear
Supply and demand..........if folks weren't fight'n to get'm they would be dirt cheap...Ya gotta pay to play!!!! I wonder what NC charges out of state hunters????
If that is really how you feel, then why not auction off all the tags equally? If your a resident and want to play, you better out bid the other residents and NR's no? If 20 bucks is good for residents, why not 150 bucks, gotta pay to play right? I'm not arguing the price of tags, rather, the disparity of NR/R tags.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:42 PM
  #20  
Fork Horn
 
finnbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
If that is really how you feel, then why not auction off all the tags equally? If your a resident and want to play, you better out bid the other residents and NR's no? If 20 bucks is good for residents, why not 150 bucks, gotta pay to play right? I'm not arguing the price of tags, rather, the disparity of NR/R tags.
We are talkin about non resident tags in MT not anyother tags or any other state
finnbear is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.