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

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

Old 12-04-2010, 08:03 PM
  #21  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by finnbear
We are talkin about non resident tags in MT not anyother tags or any other state
Huh? I was talking about NR tags in Montana. You brought up NC your last post, stop confusing me Finn.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 08:35 PM
  #22  
Fork Horn
 
finnbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
Huh? I was talking about NR tags in Montana. You brought up NC your last post, stop confusing me Finn.
sorry I was just wondering what NC charge for non resident tags and i guess it just went through my fingers LOL!!!!!
finnbear is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 08:49 PM
  #23  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Time will only tell what effects come of 161 in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years down the road. What will be the effects? Time will tell. The orginal post talking about pricing. Montana still isnt the highest tag prices out there when talking about non resident elk prices. Example, Nevada, non resident elk tag, 1200.00. Respectively, I realize thats comparing apples to oranges in many ways between the 2 states, however, elk is a elk.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 09:16 PM
  #24  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

I wonder how many NR will hunt a general unit/area this year even with or without an outfitter.

There's no way I'd keep a general tag for MT this year as NR, if and that's a big IF I apply for MT elk, it's going to be a great limited area special tag.

and if there are really that many more resident hunters applying than non-res', are there really 45x more residents applying than non-res? kinda doubt it....I'll try to find some info....

it'll be interesting to see if NR's leave MT in droves this fall...
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 09:20 PM
  #25  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

Originally Posted by beech18
Time will only tell what effects come of 161 in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years down the road. What will be the effects? Time will tell. The orginal post talking about pricing. Montana still isnt the highest tag prices out there when talking about non resident elk prices. Example, Nevada, non resident elk tag, 1200.00. Respectively, I realize thats comparing apples to oranges in many ways between the 2 states, however, elk is a elk.
you really can't compare NV elk to MT elk, even that's not apples to apples.

you're talking a once in a 10+ year/lifetime elk tag for NV, vs. an every year tag.

I'd be happy to pay $1200 to hunt the best NV unit every year...

btw isn't a resident NV elk tag $120? $120 vs. $1200, not $20 vs. $900, 10x vs. 45x??
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 04:34 AM
  #26  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 797
Default

I do understand some points here. Non-residents feeling like they are getting ripped off. At those prices I'd say they have a point. Residents should be allowed to hunt their state without the extra money for the tag. But if everyone hunted Montana at a cheap price then the time it would take to get a tag would be so much that you'd hunt Montana 4X in a lifetime and the quality of the hunting wouldn't be any better. Colorado is heading down the same road. Higher prices and less Quality. Hunting Elk is starting to be a investment in both time and money and it's not really fair to those people that just like hunting elk and not having to kill a monster bull.

The reality of it all is every state is heading to the draw and the number of tags vs the number of hunters is going to get very tight. Trophy hunters don't care it's worth their time to invest in a chance of getting a big bull. The average joe is the one going to be shut out of this game. They are using the quality trophy ploy to raise fees and try to cut down the amount of people in the field. The rich man's scenario of Elk hunting has arrived.


I just like having a chance to go see what's out there every year. I'm not happy about any of it.
Blackelk is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 06:22 AM
  #27  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Please re read my post, I said its like comparing apples to oranges between the 2 states. not apples to apples. But why is a elk in NV worth more than in MT. Nevada has some great bulls (Ive drew there tag before so I can personally relate and debate that subject as well), Montana has great hunting as well. Muley brought up a great point, and thats why you will not likely see resident prices go up, Montana ranks 49th per capita. The money lost generated from the outfitter tags has to come from somewhere....
As said prior I voted against 161 and all this non sense. But it passed and this is what we all have to work with.
in my opinion the biggest reason 161 passed, jelous people. People were jelous of the outfitter and jelous of people leasing lands up. Salukipv1, your jelous of the resident hunter paying a lesser dollar. People need to stop being jelous of each other. Life isnt fair. You want the price of a resident hunter, move to a western state. Live, work, and become a resident of another state. Why do you live where you do now? Must have a reason why you live where you do?
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 08:11 AM
  #28  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by beech18
Please re read my post, I said its like comparing apples to oranges between the 2 states. not apples to apples. But why is a elk in NV worth more than in MT. Nevada has some great bulls (Ive drew there tag before so I can personally relate and debate that subject as well), Montana has great hunting as well. Muley brought up a great point, and thats why you will not likely see resident prices go up, Montana ranks 49th per capita. The money lost generated from the outfitter tags has to come from somewhere....
As said prior I voted against 161 and all this non sense. But it passed and this is what we all have to work with.
in my opinion the biggest reason 161 passed, jelous people. People were jelous of the outfitter and jelous of people leasing lands up. Salukipv1, your jelous of the resident hunter paying a lesser dollar. People need to stop being jelous of each other. Life isnt fair. You want the price of a resident hunter, move to a western state. Live, work, and become a resident of another state. Why do you live where you do now? Must have a reason why you live where you do?
I think you are right about a lot Beech, but I honestly think I-161 passed because of the ballot language. The line "increase funding for wildlife habitat" on the ballot was a killer. The folks I have run into were appalled when they realized what they had voted for. It needs to be revisited.

The iniative process is a form of government that needs to go. Our founding fathers established a consitutional republic and rejected the notion of democracy. A states wildlife should not be controlled by a voting public, with 30 second sound bites for special interest leading the charge.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 08:47 AM
  #29  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Yeah, I do agree, that "increase" in funding line in the voting booklet helped seal the deal with the general voter.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 08:53 AM
  #30  
Fork Horn
 
unbridled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 151
Default

It was really poorly worded. To me, it seemed like people who didn't do any research on the issue would have voted for the increase, just because it sounded like there was no down side.
unbridled is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - 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.