AK Jeff

Give it a rest dude. Your legal challenge idea has already been tried and beaten down. The state of Montana has every right to charge you what they want, because it's a luxury commodity that you certainly don't need to survive. No court is going to care that you have to pay a little more, anymore than they care that heating bills are going to go up if oil prices keep climbing. If you can't afford it then it sucks to be you, but that's the way it works. If Disney World wants to jack up their prices and you can't afford it, bummer but you have no legal recourse in the matter just because you don't like it. In a free market economy your feelings are irrelevant.

Now here's what I think is "unfair" with non-resident hunting. I'm really tired of non-residents from states with absolute crap hunting (like Illinois) crying about the opportunities they have to hunt in states with great hunting (like Montana). I'd like to see reciprocity where non-residents are only allowed to hunt the species (or comparable species) that their state offers. That, unlike price caps, is absolutely legal and actually already occurs with Montana trapping licenses. If your state doesn't allow Montanans to trap as non-residents, then you aren't allowed to trap as a non-resident in Montana.

FYI for anyone that thinks they're getting ripped off compared to resident prices you should check the Alaska hunting regs. That'll really chap your backside. As an Alaska resident I can hunt moose, caribou, dall sheep, mountain goat, black bear, interior/northern grizzly, Sitka blacktail deer, wolf, muskox (registration permit), bison (drawing permit), elk, wolverine, and small game and the sum for all of those tags is...$0. Yep, I just buy a $25 hunting license and all of the aforementioned can be hunted without paying another dime in tag fees. A non-resident would have to pay $4,465 for just one of each of those (I can get multiple caribou, black bear, deer, wolf, and in some units grizzly). That's a multiplier of 179 fold!!!

salukipv1

AK has some of the cheapest non-res tag fees IMO.

IL, crap hunting? Best whitetail in the world but who hunts whitetails? typical over 200", non-typical over 300", how many states can boast that?

jerry d

Personally I think it's not a bad deal.I went on the MT.fish and game website. For the amount of different spieces you can hunt and the length of the hunting season I don't think it's so outrageous.

beech18

jerry brings up a very good point that Ill take 1 step further to explain one aspect. You also get to hunt pheasants, grouse, etc with your combo lic that you bought to go deer or elk hunting. After you tag out you can grab the shotgun and go bird hunting. I checked North Dakota web site for pheasant prices as it seems most people think Montana is screwing the non resident. Non resident North Dakota small game that they can hunt for 2 7 day periods within there season for pheasant, comes to 100.00 figuring in the habitat fee. Montana is giving you a 100.00 value based on North Dakota fees within your deer/elk tag. Just another view to look at.

Salul I think what AK Jeff meant by IL is crap can be summed up bu this statement. How many people from IL do you see wanting to hunt Montana? And how many people from Montana do you see wanting to hunt IL? I agree with you though, IL has some good whitetails, as does Iowa, Kansas, Missouri too. Go ahead though and return your lic for the 80% if you draw like you say, your only benifiting Montana even more, good way to send a message that the non residents do not like there new system.. They took 20% of your money to return the lic, and then in return notify applicants who missed the draw, like a 2nd chance, offer to buy the lic. I know this how, my brother is a non resident and had this happen to him. So if you want to send Montana a message about you not liking the raise in fees, your theory is doing the opposite. Dont think the state of Montana is going to take a "hit" on you returning your lic, they have there bases covered.

Want to talk about unfair. Interesting. The new Eastmans. Check it out. Page 86 in the MRS section. They're opinion... Quote "Wyoming takes the cake for socking it to the nonresidents financially"

justhuntitall

[quote=beech18;3769639]

Salul I think what AK Jeff meant by IL is crap can be summed up bu this statement. How many people from IL do you see wanting to hunt Montana? And how many people from Montana do you see wanting to hunt IL? I agree with you though, IL has some good whitetails, as does Iowa, Kansas, Missouri too.
[quote=beech18;3769639]

Well that's comparing apples to oranges there is a huge population difference MT has 900,000+ I think IL is 12.9 mil.

From 1980 to 2001 IL has had more Bone and Crockett bucks then any other State I don't think MT made it to top 10.

Like I said different demographics, If IL had Elk I wouldn't leave home. I have hunted out west most my adult life first hunt was when I was 20 and now 39 haven't missed a year yet never felt the need to hunt MT .

I know when Co. raised there tags from $250 to what was it $500 . They took a major hit in revenue all the small shops we would get supplies for years were throwing a fit talking about closing up some did and you would see new owners ever other year. The Hunters you would see year after year were gone just a few left of the old crowd now ya see new hunters or guys that would come ever 2 years.
Then Co dropped cow tags back to $250 trying to bring some back I dont think it helped tho.
I guess we will see what will happen .

justhuntitall

Well that's comparing apples to oranges there is a huge population difference MT has 900,000+ I think IL is 12.9 mil.

From 1980 to 2001 IL has had more Bone and Crockett bucks then any other State I don't think MT made it to top 10.

Like I said different demographics, If IL had Elk I wouldn't leave home. I have hunted out west most my adult life first hunt was when I was 20 and now 39 haven't missed a year yet never felt the need to hunt MT .

I know when Co. raised there tags from $250 to what was it $500 . They took a major hit in revenue all the small shops we would get supplies for years were throwing a fit talking about closing up some did and you would see new owners ever other year. The Hunters you would see year after year were gone just a few left of the old crowd now ya see new hunters or guys that would come ever 2 years not near the numbers that it used to be. But Ionly bow hunt maybe diffrent then gun hunting.
Then Co dropped cow tags back to $250 trying to bring some back I dont think it helped tho.
I guess we will see what will happen .

AK Jeff

The number of B&C whitetails that IL can produce is completely irrelevant. Spending $5k to sit in a box blind, overlooking a corn field in Pike County is about as far from hunting as I ever care to participate in. That's just expensive waiting. I would much rather hunt in Montana, even if I knew with absolute certainty that there was a 0% chance that I'd take a record book buck. The hunt is about the entire experience, and Montana has a hell of a lot more to offer as far as quality hunting experience. That's what they're charging for, and they have every right to do so. I'll point out for like the 8th time in this thread that I'm a non-resident of MT so I'll have to pay more for the privelege to hunt there as well. I don't like giving my money away anymore than the next guy, but I understand the overall economics. If the demand neccessitates a price increase to match the available supply, then so be it. Time will tell. The price may go down, and it may well go up. I guess we'll see.

salukipv1

I have nothing against MT, I think most easterners want to hunt elk, whether it's in MT, CO, NM, etc... they could kinda care less, so it's not some mystical allure of MT, it's the allure of elk.

I really don't understand why people complain about making a process more fair?

Perhaps most people are cheap, which I see all too much of, I know I'd pay more for a buck tag in IL, ie why should I pay more as a resident when we can just charge non-residents more?

I hunt the west, so far just NM, CO, WY, MT, but I apply to even more states.

Also, it's nice to see when the non-res multiple makes sense, every tag is say 10x, etc...I think NM, has different multiples for every tag which makes no sense.

either way I'm going to play the game, fair or not.

justhuntitall

LOl you watch to much TV , its not like that at all . Kinda of like sitting on a logging road blow my bugle once and have a 300" bull run into clearing for a 20 yards broad side shot but pass because we will get a bigger one here in a bit.

I do agree its about the experience to each his own. With that said I love to chase elk cant get enough of it . Its like a drug and I guess the states know this and that's why they can charge what they want .

AK Jeff Why do you prefer MT over AK just curious, I would assume AK would have everything to offer that MT does?

AK Jeff

You keep beating this fairness drum, but you won't make your case regarding reciprocity. If we're going to all be fair, then how is it fair that your state has one species of big game to offer non-residents and Montana has 10 (not counting wolves which have and will eventually make it 11). How the hell is that "fair"? It doesn't matter what price you put on it your state can't offer elk, bison, pronghorn, or bighorn sheep licenses to non-residents like Montana does. In effect what your saying is you're really not interested in making things fair, you just want something even though you have nothing to offer in return.