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 01-24-2011, 05:28 AM
  #61  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Default

I think there is just a little bit of a misstatement in that last post. You don't need to buy a combo license to hunt deer only. If you don't want to hunt elk, just apply for the deer tag that is good in a lot of areas. If you get drawn then you can apply for one of the limited tags if that is your wish and you can then hunt it if you get drawn. The deer tag fee is now darn near double compared to the nonresident license fee in Wyoming where I have been hunting since 1994 though. I would imagine Wyoming will see an increase in nonresident applications for deer and elk when people see the rates that Montana has gone to. I would imagine that most of the outfitters will do okay with the new setup and the marginal ones may go under. It may require that they try to book more people than they can handle in a given year so they know they will have a full camp. The way to do that would probably be to tell everyone after they reach the limit of what they can handle is that they will fill a spot if they are drawn to fill a spot ahead of them if that person didn't draw the tag. That would possibly insure that the outfitter has a full camp for his hunts, but would be sort of a double jeopardy deal for the hunters in that they might not get a final booking even though they drew a license. It sort of comes down to the old saying that life isn't fair, but that is sort of the way all commerce works and that's basically what we are talking about. I always felt that the guaranteed tag system Montana had set up was wrong, just like I think the Wyoming law of not letting a nonresident hunt in a Wilderness area without a guide is wrong when it's all Federal land! Time will tell if this change works in Montana, but it would seem that it should because no other state had that system, although some states do have landowner tags and that is abused a lot of the time too IMHO!
Topgun 3006 is offline  
Old 01-24-2011, 10:22 AM
  #62  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

Originally Posted by WNYhunter
"resident application revenue was something like $7MM and Non Res was $19MM"

if these numbers are even close to right then I think it is time you start paying for "YOUR OWN WILDLIFE". What did you guys get for our $19mm anyways? Big Brother most likely will benefit more than you guys.

And everything will be overpriced. It is supply and demand. I don't mind paying to do something I can't here in ny but when is enough going to be enough.
A 5x resident/non-resident multipliar would be fair, I think a maximum of 10x should be enforced though in every state.

ie an elk tag would be $75/$750 @10x
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 01-29-2011, 05:10 PM
  #63  
Spike
 
joemontana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: montana
Posts: 36
Default

leasing land what good does that do most outfitters i have ran into in montana hunt national forest,blm or the wilderness areas.i live her in montana have for 5 years i did like akjeff said and moved here so i could hunt here everyyear for less.i agree with i161. i hunt the bob marshall mostly and have had 3 different outfitters try and ruin my hunt and have been told this is their area to hunt i needed to move on. this is public land i was on. i used my horses my tack and went in so wheres the fairness in that. im no genuis by all means but just a dumb welder that luvs to hunt. this price increase wont change nothing i work all over the us and everyone i meet ask where to hunt and when should they go not how much is the license.
Originally Posted by Muley70
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?
joemontana is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:26 AM
  #64  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
Default

The decision of MT FWP and others to drastically bump the NR BG Combo license to $912+ this year has caused me to take them off my list of states to hunt in. It's their choice to make it out of reach for most working man's budget for Elk/deer. The guy I hunt with and I will just need to put in for Elk licenses in other states.
We enjoyed the people we met and the beautiful country in MT.... We just can't afford those costs on our budget. It'll probably also hurt the hospitality businesses there in MT. It's too bad. That's the way it is.
MinnFinn is offline  
Old 01-30-2011, 11:34 AM
  #65  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
Default

Originally Posted by salukipv1
How come you don't just buy a cow tag for MT?
Have more fun in WY?
Relatively few MT hunting districts have over the counter cow/calf Elk "B" licenses for sale for NRs anyway. Elk "B" drawing licenses for NRs are also in only designated areas. Otherwise, NR General Elk / deer (BG Combo) licenses are the ones that have jumped to over $900.... That's what the choices in MT are now for NRs.
MinnFinn is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 01:38 PM
  #66  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 24
Default

I-161 is to blame for the increase in price. I live in MT and believe NR tags are to high since NR hunters are so important to Montanas economy and hunting land. The increase is to keep paying for Blockmangement land(private land leased for the public to hunt on by FWP and the state) which can be great places to hunt. Resident tags are cheaper due to the fact of the amount of taxes us residents pay each year. It's a perk of living in MT and I am very glad for it. It may take a few years, but if the state realizes that they are not making the money they desire from NR hunters, they will eventually begin to lower NR tags.
HuntinGuy is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 04:38 PM
  #67  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
Default

I realize MT and any other states have the power to charge what they think they can get out of NRs to hunt elk or other species. I also know that this drastic increase in NR BG combo has given the appearance that the "welcome" sign to NRs, unless you're willing to write the big checks, has been taken down at the MT border. This may not have been their intent, but it is the appearance to me.
In my opinion, this will carry over into peoples decisions beyond where to hunt big game. My family and I have vacationed in MT 3 of 5 last summers in addition to the couple years I've hunted elk and deer there. I know I won't be hunting there at these prices. I don't think we'll be vacationing there as often either in the future. If I'm not welcome to hunt, I don't feel as welcome to travel to MT for vacation or other things, as I once did. Sorry, that's just how it is. The law of unintended consequences is showing itself again.
MinnFinn is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 06:01 PM
  #68  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
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.
So now I have to pay $300 more before I ever spend a dime in your great state. And since we don't contribute to your taxes , etc. for the rest of the year, and you have such a poor opinion of us, I suggest that all nonresidents try not to spend a dime they don't have to while they are there to hunt.

In other words, buy all your groceries, ammo, gear, ect at home and bring them. Don't stay in a hotel, bring in a tent, etc. Buy only gas. Just give all that money to YOUR local economy, since we pay taxes, etc all year there, so why not support them even when we go huntin?

Remember, the Fish and Game didn't vote this in, the PEOPLE of Montana did. So, they are the ones who need to get the message. Only way to do that is not spend a dime you don't have to when you go. If you can't go whole hog, then just buy a hundred dollars of groceries you normally don't and bring it with you. And give up 1-2 nights in a hotel you would normally stay in.

As as far as selling hunts to your great state to the highest bidder, then you and I have a very different view of what hunting should be, and you won't be welcome at my fire, not that you will care.

What if you could still sell basically all your hunts for $5000? Still fair? $10,000? If you can get it, why not??? Because it is wrong to price normal guys out of the game. Sure, hunting big game in Montana or any other state is not cheap, but it should not be prohibative and beyond the means of ordinary guys.
txhunter58 is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 07:05 PM
  #69  
Typical Buck
 
justhuntitall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 674
Default

Originally Posted by beech18
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.

P.
I will ask this again if the animals in your state are yours why cant you mange your states wolves?
justhuntitall is offline  
Old 02-02-2011, 08:09 PM
  #70  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

Right now the reinstated protection on the wolves means the states once again have to follow federal guidelines for managing wolves.
beech18 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.