MT elk fee going from $643 to over $900!
12-04-2010, 01:00 PM
#11
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
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.
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.
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.
12-04-2010, 01:34 PM
#13
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
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.
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.
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.
12-04-2010, 01:57 PM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,526
http://www.ncwildlife.org/License/Li...ide.htm#annual
12-04-2010, 02:01 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,526
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.
12-04-2010, 03:21 PM
#17
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
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.
12-04-2010, 03:45 PM
#18
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
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.
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.
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.
12-04-2010, 03:49 PM
#19
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
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.
12-04-2010, 06:42 PM
#20
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
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.