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.

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

Old 12-05-2010, 01:25 PM
  #31  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Alton, NH
Posts: 19
Default

HMMMMMM well I live in NH and the hunting here is horrible except forthe moose and bear. We still don't make people cry when they draw a moosetag or come and hunt bear. I am just an average Joe and my brotherand I do our own DIY trips every year. But their shouldbe a cap on tag prices just my opinion.
NH602 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 05:17 PM
  #32  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by unbridled
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.
Below is the text for I-161. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Both the initiative language and the voting sections start out by describing the change in licensing proposed.

Frankly, if I was just looking after my own @ss it would be in my best interest to see I-161 fail. I was born and raised in MT and my whole family still lives there so I qualify for the Come Home to Hunt Program. The price of those licenses will climb just like the rest of them. I'm just calling it how I see it though.

-----------------------------------------------
http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/archives...ives/I-161.asp

INITIATIVE NO. 161
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

I-161 revises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.

I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.

[ ] FOR abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.

[ ] AGAINST abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 06:21 PM
  #33  
Nontypical Buck
 
npaden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 1,401
Default

I thought I had one of my brothers talked into doing one of the "Come Home to Hunt" tags next year for mule deer, but with the tag almost doubling in price and talk about the overall quality of the deer hunting in the NE part of the state being down, I think it isn't going to happen now.
npaden is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 08:25 PM
  #34  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
Below is the text for I-161. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Both the initiative language and the voting sections start out by describing the change in licensing proposed.

Frankly, if I was just looking after my own @ss it would be in my best interest to see I-161 fail. I was born and raised in MT and my whole family still lives there so I qualify for the Come Home to Hunt Program. The price of those licenses will climb just like the rest of them. I'm just calling it how I see it though.

-----------------------------------------------
http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/archives...ives/I-161.asp

INITIATIVE NO. 161
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

I-161 revises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.

I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.

[ ] FOR abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.

[ ] AGAINST abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.
LOL, are you reading what your writing? How in the world does this sound straight foward? Look, Linda M's office approved this language from the bills sponsor against objections from MOGA, Linda is the governers appointment, a governor who is no friend of outfitters. This was a classic rural/urban vote with the urban areas voting for. The were several instances of signiture fraud documented with foresics and hand writing analysis, all waived by a governor appointed judge. The defense in the case, the pro-I161 defense, argued it was ok for the sponsors of the bill to lie, as it was the voters responsibility to discern the truth. I-161 is a sham, a political peice of garbage ram-rodded through and twisted and munipulated for a yes vote. There is no increase in revenue it the tags don't sell out, there is a net revenue loss if they under sell, where is that language?

Honestly, if that looks like an objective Iniative to you I don't know what to say.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 10:47 PM
  #35  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

it seems like a lose-lose to me,

the guy who books an outfitted hunt with a guide/outfitter, in the past could afford the extra tag fee to have a guaranteed tag, now outfitters and hunters alike must apply for a tag that they're not even sure they can draw, ie outfitters are going to have to book 25 guys for 10 hunts and hope 10 of their hunters draw tags.

Jealous? I don't think that's the right word, perhaps, I think UNFAIR is more appropriate, many non-residents apply to the entire west....so living in every state certainly isn't a possibility,

maybe MT is really just trying to cater to residents, period. which doesn't make much sense since a non-res tends to spend way more on the local economy than residents.

personally I don't even see a reason to charge a non-res anymore than a resident, especially if all states adopted the same program, which is what I liked to see every state at least adopt a maximum multiplier, like 5x or 10x.

of course aren't they also suppose to do away with the 2 draws for non-residents this year? ie you either apply for a general tag or a special tag, but not having to draw a general tag first in order to apply for a special tag. which if that is the case this year, I have a feeling almost no non-res will even bother applying for anything less than a special tag, unless they're going with an outfitter who has a quality general tag area...

good luck MT! curious to see how the draws go....maybe 10% drop? or do you think more like 50%?
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-05-2010, 11:24 PM
  #36  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
LOL, are you reading what your writing? How in the world does this sound straight foward? Look, Linda M's office approved this language from the bills sponsor against objections from MOGA, Linda is the governers appointment, a governor who is no friend of outfitters. This was a classic rural/urban vote with the urban areas voting for. The were several instances of signiture fraud documented with foresics and hand writing analysis, all waived by a governor appointed judge. The defense in the case, the pro-I161 defense, argued it was ok for the sponsors of the bill to lie, as it was the voters responsibility to discern the truth. I-161 is a sham, a political peice of garbage ram-rodded through and twisted and munipulated for a yes vote. There is no increase in revenue it the tags don't sell out, there is a net revenue loss if they under sell, where is that language?

Honestly, if that looks like an objective Iniative to you I don't know what to say.
Keep crying a frickin' river Muley, but the fact remains that initiative is written at about a 5th grade level. If you or anybody else have trouble reading that, then you should really brush up on your junior high level English comprehension. All the conspiracy theory crap was played out in court and it lost, plain and simple. I-161 was passed by a margin of more than 26,000 votes and it really doesn't matter how urban or rural the distribution was. There are plenty of active hunters in Billings, Great Falls, Missoula, Bozeman, etc. It's not like people from New York City were able to vote on it. Even with the backing of the NRA and the RMEF and considerably better funding the opposition flopped.

The thing that's surprising is that you are complaining so much, but you seem to think the licenses will be undersold. If that's the case then not only will you still have guaranteed tags, but a deer/elk combo will be $353 CHEAPER for your clients!!! Nothing in the initiative bans outfitting, so it should actually make your operations more attractive because the licenses will go from $1250 to $897. Now it's time to stop acting like a prima donna because your guaranteed hand in the cookie jar got taken away and learn to play by the new rules. There are plenty of states that don't have outfitter sponsored licenses and their outfitting industries are doing just fine.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 12:10 AM
  #37  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by salukipv1
Jealous? I don't think that's the right word, perhaps, I think UNFAIR is more appropriate, many non-residents apply to the entire west....so living in every state certainly isn't a possibility,
Life's UNFAIR...so what.

Originally Posted by salukipv1

maybe MT is really just trying to cater to residents, period. which doesn't make much sense since a non-res tends to spend way more on the local economy than residents.
That's not even remotely true. You have tunnel vision salukipv1. Non-residents might spend comparatively more for the whoppin' two days that they're in town on each end of their hunting trip, but the residents participate in the local economy every single day. The residents are the ones paying for the road maintenance so you can drive to your hunting camp and they're the ones that are keeping the local stores and restaurants open for the 360 days of the year that you're back home.

Originally Posted by salukipv1
personally I don't even see a reason to charge a non-res anymore than a resident, especially if all states adopted the same program, which is what I liked to see every state at least adopt a maximum multiplier, like 5x or 10x.
You have to be kidding right? Why would a state like Montana that has whitetailed deer, mule deer, elk, antelope, black bear, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, bison, and mountain lion offer resident priced tags to somebody from a state like Illinois that has whitetailed deer and um.....oh yeah that's it. Supply and demand. Practically everybody that hunts in Illinois wants to hunt Montana and practically NOBODY in Montana wants to hunt Illinois.

If you want to hunt there on the cheap so bad then more there. I always wanted to hunt Alaska and I knew I'd likely never be able to afford the guide fees to hunt as a non-res so I upped and moved. Now I've got moose, caribou, sheep, bear, wolves...It's just all in how bad you want it and what you'll do to get it. If you want the creature comforts of your life in IL then by all means stay there, but if that's what you choose to do then frankly you can pound sand if you don't like the system in Montana, or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by salukipv1
good luck MT! curious to see how the draws go....maybe 10% drop? or do you think more like 50%?
The general draw had about a 50% draw success. People that were willing to pay $1250 for outfitter sponsored licenses can now get a license for $897 so it's reasonable to assume that their numbers won't decrease. Bottom line is many thousands of people can choose to not apply due to the higher prices and the licenses should still sell out.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 09:09 AM
  #38  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Nothing is equal and fair, life isnt fair. Comparing state to state isnt fair, to a certain degree as each is unquie in there own way. In comparisions theres always pros and cons. I liked Montana's old system just the way it was, but I do agree with AK Jeff, other outfitters in other states are doing just fine with out having a garenteed . Im sure everyone will adopt. The non residents are going through sticker shock right now. Some will pay it some wont when it comes time to pony up. One thing to ponder on. I remember talking to a outfitter friend in Wyoming before there points system came in for deer and elk mabey 4-5 years ago. They had no points to help with with potential clients and schueduling trips prior to the draws. They were thrilled to get the points system as that helped them in that perspective... But then in Wyoming, is it fair that a non resident can not hunt a wilderness area with out a guide which is a whole debate within itself. Montana does not have that law. Nothing is even and nothing is fair in life. Each state has there own rules and regulations.

For Salukipv1's comment, for those people who apply the entire west cant be a resident in every state. Really????? If a person can apply the entire west, Im sure acouple hundred bucks more for Montana is not going hurt too bad. In todays world I go to town and go to Wal-Mart, never can leave the store less than 100.00. 100 dollars doesnt go very far. Its less that a dollar a day you have to save through out the year. If someone can not save a extra dollar a day to do something they truely desire and want to do, such as hunting in Montana this case, its not all that important to them. Theres millions of ways to save a buck a day.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 09:16 AM
  #39  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,320
Default

[quote=salukipv1;3733866]

Is it just me who thinks most resident tag fees tend to be too cheap, while non-res tag fees are grossly overpriced?

quote]

Seriously can anything be too cheap ? I am a resident of CO and I kinda like $50 elk tags. To be honest and quite frankly I don't care how much they charge non-residents. Whatever the market will bear.........
skb2706 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 09:30 AM
  #40  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
Keep crying a frickin' river Muley, but the fact remains that initiative is written at about a 5th grade level. If you or anybody else have trouble reading that, then you should really brush up on your junior high level English comprehension. All the conspiracy theory crap was played out in court and it lost, plain and simple. I-161 was passed by a margin of more than 26,000 votes and it really doesn't matter how urban or rural the distribution was. There are plenty of active hunters in Billings, Great Falls, Missoula, Bozeman, etc. It's not like people from New York City were able to vote on it. Even with the backing of the NRA and the RMEF and considerably better funding the opposition flopped.

The thing that's surprising is that you are complaining so much, but you seem to think the licenses will be undersold. If that's the case then not only will you still have guaranteed tags, but a deer/elk combo will be $353 CHEAPER for your clients!!! Nothing in the initiative bans outfitting, so it should actually make your operations more attractive because the licenses will go from $1250 to $897. Now it's time to stop acting like a prima donna because your guaranteed hand in the cookie jar got taken away and learn to play by the new rules. There are plenty of states that don't have outfitter sponsored licenses and their outfitting industries are doing just fine.
Hand in the cookie Jar? You mean me selling the states tags to clients I paid to get so the residents could hunt private property for free and the cleints can not? Dude you don't even live here, I do. I was involved in this process for 7 months and understand the sham it is. You honestly think I-161 is the end game? I can't tip our hat but I assure you it is only the beginning.

You keep yacking about other states not having gauranteed tags what the hell do you call OTC? What about landowner tags, what about Wyoming requiring the use of an outfitter for wilderness area hunts? Get a clue. You have no idea what the marketing and biz side of western hunting is.

As far as the new "rules" I am playing by them, I'm leasing land for my out of state clients and keeping the locals off it. I have a 220 acre river bottom ranch that had 8 bowhunters we let hunt, they are gone. Also looking at a multiple section lease is eastern Montana for antelope and late season Mule deer. I'll be leasing that up at the first of the year.

At 100% draw odds Montana is now a glorified OTC state with cheaper tags for our clients, it ain't a bad deal for us yet. However, it is a crap deal for the NR/DIY hunter. I think it is time the resident Montana hunter start financing some of their own access, not NR elk tags that are 43x the cost of a resident.

Finally, who said I had trouble reading I-161? I said the language was terrible because it is. It is worded as if there is no downside, thats absurd for ballot language. I prefer a simple Yes/NO, wouldn't you agree that is more appropriate? If anybody is a prima donna is this debate, it is you. You don't live here and were not involved in the process, yet you apparently feel infinately qualified to comment.
Muley70 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.