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 12-06-2010, 09:38 AM
  #41  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
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.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head.
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 10:35 AM
  #42  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Who should pay for access is a good debate that not everyone will ever totally agree on. I got a senerio to add to the mix for what its worth. I know of residents who do this including myself. Offer our pesonal free labour to the ranchers around our home who allow hunting to them such as help fix fence, calv'in season, etc to show them we as hunters apprcaitate they allow hunting. Some of these places are even in block management that allow hunting to residents and non residents alike, majority of the non residents come in, hunt, and then goes home. Thats the extra grease in the wheels. Wheels will turn round and round with out it, but not as smoothly.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 10:46 AM
  #43  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

life isn't fair, I certainly would rather work towards making it more fair, than just pounding the sand...but that's just me.
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 01:37 PM
  #44  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by Muley70
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.
I didn't realize that only the all mighty outfitters were allowed to comment on this thread. Considering I've followed I-161 since the beginning and I'm actually smart enough to read and comprehend it I think I'll keep commenting. You keep griping about it not pointing out the downside, but the downside is all theoretical. It says the truth, that revenues will increase assuming all of the licenses are sold. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that revenues could be lower if the inventory doesn't sell out, but there's any number of mitigating factors that can cause that. Change in licensing scheme is by no means the only factor that can change the participation level of non-residents. For all you know there may be an upsurge in applicants because they think they'll have better odds of drawing a tag now. A ballot initiative doesn't need to spell out every hypothetical scenario that could possibly play out.

It was a simple YES/NO vote. FOR = YES and AGAINST = NO. That's perfectly plain English and it's easy to comprehend. The bottom line is your industry is generally disliked by the general public in Montana and their vote reflected that. Feel free to try and repeal it, though. I doubt it will be successful, but like I said before that would actually save me money to go home and hunt.

---------------------------------------------------

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 12-06-2010, 01:48 PM
  #45  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by salukipv1
life isn't fair, I certainly would rather work towards making it more fair, than just pounding the sand...but that's just me.
Saluki,

I'm not trying to pick at you man, but I don't think you're really comprehending what you're saying. How exactly is it "fair" for you to get the pricing benefits of residency in Montana when your state can't even offer 9 of the 10 species of big game that Montana has? It doesn't matter if there's any set multiplier because Illinois can't offer non-resident elk tags at any price. How exactly do you find it to be "fair" when you're effectively trying to negotiate a trade, but you don't have anything to offer in return. What it boils down to is you just want something for nothing. You can absolutely get equal treatment, but you'd have to move there and wait 6 months to get residency. From there on you'd be golden. That's as fair a scenario as it can be.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 02:31 PM
  #46  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
Saluki,

I'm not trying to pick at you man, but I don't think you're really comprehending what you're saying. How exactly is it "fair" for you to get the pricing benefits of residency in Montana when your state can't even offer 9 of the 10 species of big game that Montana has? It doesn't matter if there's any set multiplier because Illinois can't offer non-resident elk tags at any price. How exactly do you find it to be "fair" when you're effectively trying to negotiate a trade, but you don't have anything to offer in return. What it boils down to is you just want something for nothing. You can absolutely get equal treatment, but you'd have to move there and wait 6 months to get residency. From there on you'd be golden. That's as fair a scenario as it can be.
also like I said I apply to "the west" I can't live in 10 states, I really just don't see how paying taxes has much to do with non-residents paying excessive amounts in tag fees.

I pay federal taxes just like everyone else. I pay state taxes, of which I feel very little of our taxes go to fund state wildlife, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought almost all of wildlife was funded through federal or through tag fees/licenses etc...

I also don't feel like everyone is dying to hunt MT, easterners, and non-residents alike, just want to shoot an elk at some point in their life, whether that's MT or CO, or AZ.

I think every state should just adopt a maximum multiplier of 10x. That's still not fair to non-residents, but at least it's more fair.

Just like IL, I'd pay more than I do to shoot a trophy buck in IL, and all I hear about is residents paying $426 or something for a non-res license.
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 04:23 PM
  #47  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

You do not pay into the Montana tax system to argue that point of view. Your federal tax dollars have no bearing on this argument either. The game animals we are discussing are property of the state of Montana, not the federal goverment.

Paying into the state tax system, being part of the state economy year round to the state has ALOT to do with why the residents pay a lesser amount than a non resident to the selected state in which he or she lives in.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 05:38 PM
  #48  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff
I didn't realize that only the all mighty outfitters were allowed to comment on this thread. Considering I've followed I-161 since the beginning and I'm actually smart enough to read and comprehend it I think I'll keep commenting. You keep griping about it not pointing out the downside, but the downside is all theoretical. It says the truth, that revenues will increase assuming all of the licenses are sold. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that revenues could be lower if the inventory doesn't sell out, but there's any number of mitigating factors that can cause that. Change in licensing scheme is by no means the only factor that can change the participation level of non-residents. For all you know there may be an upsurge in applicants because they think they'll have better odds of drawing a tag now. A ballot initiative doesn't need to spell out every hypothetical scenario that could possibly play out.

It was a simple YES/NO vote. FOR = YES and AGAINST = NO. That's perfectly plain English and it's easy to comprehend. The bottom line is your industry is generally disliked by the general public in Montana and their vote reflected that. Feel free to try and repeal it, though. I doubt it will be successful, but like I said before that would actually save me money to go home and hunt.

---------------------------------------------------

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.
Why do you keep adding adjectives like: "almighty" and "prima donna" and such? You just said your were smart, no? So if your gonna debate than drop the comments. I do, however, appreciate you letting me know how the sportsman of the state feel about outfitting, LOL. Thanks for that revelation. All this talk makes we want to lease up some more land. Think I'll call my attorney in the morn.

So, how does I-161 benefit the Montana sportsman again?
Muley70 is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 07:04 PM
  #49  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
Default

I voted yes on I-161. You can blame me and other state of Montana residents that are just like me for the raise in non-resident fees.

I do feel the cost for a non-resident license is too expensive.
I would not be suprised if a Montana resident elk tag went up to $40 or even $50 a tag.
Wolf killer is offline  
Old 12-06-2010, 07:18 PM
  #50  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf killer
I voted yes on I-161. You can blame me and other state of Montana residents that are just like me for the raise in non-resident fees.

I do feel the cost for a non-resident license is too expensive.
I would not be suprised if a Montana resident elk tag went up to $40 or even $50 a tag.
Would you still buy an elk tag if it went up to $50? $75? $100? for a bull elk tag?

You really think an increase is in the future for residents? I could see $19 going to $24 haha, but certainly not $40 or $50.

Make a resident bull elk tag $75, a non-res bull $750, res cow $20, non-res cow $100.

know how many non-res would buy a bonus cow tag if they were $100 or less? nowadays I bet almost no non-res buys a 2nd cow tag for like $300? ie for a meat tag? it would go from 0 to thousands, talk about increased income!
salukipv1 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.