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 02-02-2011, 09:11 PM
  #71  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by txhunter58
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.
That ten gallon hat must be blocking your peripheral vision there tex, causing you to miss my location. Tip that Stetson up a little and you'll see that I live further from Montana than you do...hence the "AK" in AK Jeff...as in Alaska.

What so many of you keep missing is that the state of Montana is actively trying to price some of the non-residents out of hunting there. License demand has exceeded supply for years, so they're driving up the price because they have surplus demand. They don't care in the slightest if any of you think it's unfair. It's not fairness, it's business.

As far as the economic threats they're really reminiscent of the tourism boycotts that were lobbied against Alaska because of our aerial wolf control programs. There was a lot of crying (howling actually), and threats about how it was going to crush the economy. In the end what happened...absolutely nothing.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 02:42 AM
  #72  
Spike
 
Oletrapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 32
Default Non-Resident

Originally Posted by salukipv1
Just read in Eastmans' MT did away with the outfitter sponsored tags, so now tags are going to be substantially more!

something like $643 tag is now $915 or so...I don't have the details in front of me but from what I recall...

I'm sure a resident elk tag will still be $19, ie way too cheap!

seriously there needs to be a max non-res/resident tag fee multiplier, somewhere less than 10x makes sense to me.

http://www.nrahunterrights.org/blog/Default.aspx?id=482

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

in this case, $20 vs. $900? ie a non-res is paying about 45x what a resident pays!?!?
I think in MT case, they are trying to limit the number of out of state hunters by putting the cost out of reach for the ordinary guy. I would rather see them have a lottery for non-resident. Maybe they already do that. Not sure. If they do have a lottery then they are definitely catering to the big bucks individual shutting the ordinary man out of the process.
Oletrapper is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 03:52 AM
  #73  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
Default

AK: Yes, I noticed your location, just figured from your prospective you must have some ties to MT, but the arguments still hold weight either way.

And I guarantee with the economy where it is, if enough people would do what I said, there would be some downward action on the price. For me, I won't be applying, but I am sure they will still sell out to the more affluent.

Oletrapper: yes, you put in for a drawing (Lottery) already in MT
txhunter58 is offline  
Old 02-03-2011, 04:48 AM
  #74  
Spike
 
Oletrapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 32
Default Lottery

Originally Posted by txhunter58
AK: Yes, I noticed your location, just figured from your prospective you must have some ties to MT, but the arguments still hold weight either way.

And I guarantee with the economy where it is, if enough people would do what I said, there would be some downward action on the price. For me, I won't be applying, but I am sure they will still sell out to the more affluent.

Oletrapper: yes, you put in for a drawing (Lottery) already in MT
Didn't know. Kentucky has a lottery here. It's 10 bucks. Your up against 48K to 60K. If you win you still have to spend $30.00 for the tag. Big whoop. If you are drawn and a non-resident the license is $365.00. Not a bad deal but the odds are astronomical. $10+$30+$365. Most people can afford that. Of course there is the cost of the guide, lodging, food, etc. I have put in every year since it started. Not a smell. I know several in my end of the state that have been drawn for cow tags however. Our herd is new but expanding rapidly. Fish and Wildlife here says it is very possible the next world record could come from KY. We shall see. OT
Oletrapper is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 06:54 AM
  #75  
Typical Buck
 
justhuntitall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 674
Default

Originally Posted by beech18
Right now the reinstated protection on the wolves means the states once again have to follow federal guidelines for managing wolves.
Thats what I'm getting at . Here the sportsman in Montana needs the help of every hunter in the U.S. to fight for there right to manage there own state against outside Anti hunting,Peta,wolf lover crazy in America and for what ? Cant hunt it anyway, residents don't want us there cost to much, let the wolves have it.


Now that's a scenario. Do not chop my head of I don't want that for Montana I still might move there lol. Some how we as hunters have to find coming ground.
justhuntitall is offline  
Old 02-04-2011, 09:03 AM
  #76  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

I agree the wolves need to be managed by the state instead of the fed's. I dont think raising lic fees has any bearing weather or not the general sportsman will fight or not fight against the tree hugger on this issue.

Speaking of raising the lic fee's. I actually know of some non residents who dont mind the idea. They are looking at the wide picture, not the narrow view. They like to hunt, working class with familys. Yeah they dont like the 300 odd dollar raise, but they think the odds of drawing is going to be much better becuase of some people not applying because of this reason. Which means they mabey can go hunting every year instead of having years they dont draw while they sit at home and watch the next guy hunt. 300 dollars in todays world, less than dollar a day. Less than 1 coffee a day, or a pop. Dont take much to make up for the raise in fee's if your priority is wanting to go hunting in Montana.
beech18 is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 06:32 AM
  #77  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
Default

Originally Posted by beech18
I agree the wolves need to be managed by the state instead of the fed's. I dont think raising lic fees has any bearing weather or not the general sportsman will fight or not fight against the tree hugger on this issue.

Speaking of raising the lic fee's. I actually know of some non residents who dont mind the idea. They are looking at the wide picture, not the narrow view. They like to hunt, working class with familys. Yeah they dont like the 300 odd dollar raise, but they think the odds of drawing is going to be much better becuase of some people not applying because of this reason. Which means they mabey can go hunting every year instead of having years they dont draw while they sit at home and watch the next guy hunt. 300 dollars in todays world, less than dollar a day. Less than 1 coffee a day, or a pop. Dont take much to make up for the raise in fee's if your priority is wanting to go hunting in Montana.
Yep and what about when they raise it to $1200, $1500..........ect?? What is fair as the top? Whatever the market will bear? Say what you will, but by your own admission, there will be less people applying, many due to being finally priced out. Add the price increase to wolves in the southwest part of the state where I have hunted and just can't swallow the package.
txhunter58 is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 08:44 AM
  #78  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

You say, What if the tags go even higher, your speculating.... I got a what if for you, what if gas prices go back to 4.00 a gallon or raise to 5.00 or 6.00 a gallon. Whats fair you ask? You want fair? The topic at hand with Montana. Back to supply and demand, its the most basic economic theory out there in the free market. Your basically saying Montana is screwing the non resident. Montana has a surplus of demand and can afford to lose some people to gain a higher fee. Life isnt fair. Correct me if I am wrong, every state charges a higher fee for non residents than residents. This isnt the first time a state let alone Montana has raised fee's. And it dont stop there, Some states like Wyoming a non resident can not hunt wilderness areas, is that fair? New Mexico sheep tag for non resident is over 3,000.00 dollars, but Montana's sheep tag for non residents less than 1,000.00 dollars. Is that fair?
I did not vote for I 161 that caused all this but no sence in belly aching over it as it is what it is, either come or dont. I thought the system was fair before I 161 but no one thought to ask me if I thought if it was fair. Time will only tell weather this will work for Montana or not. More than likely Im guessing it will otherwise they wouldnt have done it, I think they will be able to still fill there quota, and in time I think some, NOT all, people will get over the sticker shock of the higher fee and come back.
I know the SW part of Montana very well for elk hunting, great part of the state, go there every year.
beech18 is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 01:16 PM
  #79  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
Default

"Your basically saying Montana is screwing the non resident. Montana has a surplus of demand and can afford to lose some people to gain a higher fee. Life isnt fair."

You got that right on all counts. I will believe till I die that pricing normal people out of the great privaledge of hunting elk/deer is wrong. If what is happening is right, then why not just sell the tags to the highest bidders? Each year it is becoming more and more a rich man's sport. No, you are not quite there yet, but it seems to be a slipery slope most states are headed down.

A couple of years ago I stayed in a hotel in Dallas. On my bill was a tax specifically going to pay for the building of the venue that the Dallas Mavericks play in. The way I see that is they want a toy to play with, but they want other people to pay for it. Well, I am a Texan, but that is just wrong. When states keep raising the price only on nonresidents, when the majority of the states licenses fees already come from nonresidents, that just seems wrong too. I guaratee you I would feel the same if I lived in your great state.

At some point, nonresidents will just say "enough" and choose not to spend money in those states that keep raising prices. I feel sure you are not there yet, but you are close.
txhunter58 is offline  
Old 02-05-2011, 09:13 PM
  #80  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

IMO we need some legislation or something limiting non-res tags at 10x resident fees, and 5x is much more like it, when talking trophy animals, ie bull elk, buck deer. I'd love to see "once-in-a-lifetime" tags made the same price as well. Like NM sheep 3 grand when a resident probably pays not even $100.


MT should just make sure all non-res get tags, then whatever is left offer them to residents at $19...talk about more money for the state!

I see MT has once again required a non-res to draw a general tag in order to apply for a special limited draw tag, when many non-res like me want a limited entry or nothing at all! ie if I draw a general tag and not the limited I'll be returning it for a refund of 80% which amounts to something like a $200 pref.point.

So this year I'm really debating even applying for a tag in MT, I may just to send them the message along with others. Or I'll be hoping I don't draw the general tag so I can save $200 for the pref.point.
salukipv1 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.