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 12-03-2010, 09:29 PM
  #1  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default MT elk fee going from $643 to over $900!

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!?!?

Last edited by salukipv1; 12-03-2010 at 09:51 PM.
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 04:11 AM
  #2  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Default

The true MT resident pays MT taxes year round. The celebrities and out of state wealthy have caused a lot of ill will between true MT residents and others. Several celebrities and out of state wealthy have bought up large sections of land and pay little to no tax. I am not sure if the loophole still exists, but they would claim their land was a wildlife sanctuary, etc. This meant the tax burden for the tax paying MT resident was greater. I am sure there is not a huge surplus of state money in MT either. Yes, there is oil production; but that is not something that can always be counted on either. If the current administration puts a moratorium on drilling in MT, that revenue will be greatly reduced or stopped.

Then you have the fact that some non-resident hunters have a bad attitude acting like they own the area and talking down the people of MT. How many people do you know who have referenced to those who live in the country or a very rural state as rednecks and hicks?
country1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 04:20 AM
  #3  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 194
Default

The tag raise is needed to pay for the block management program where the outfitter tags in the past paid for.

I voted against prop 161 when it was up at elections, I thought the program and set up was just fine before. However, it was passed and its what we got to work with and hopefully Montana will make the best of it. I do get tired of out of staters whine about lic fee's. Im a resident of Montana, however, when I hunt in another state I pay out of state fees.

Benifit of being a resident of your home state. Hunt in your home state and get the benifits of being a resident hunter. Like the benifits of another state, go live there.

Last edited by beech18; 12-04-2010 at 04:39 AM.
beech18 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 06:32 AM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,526
Default

This has been hashed out on several forums recently such as bowsite and archerytalk, but from what I have gathered this is for a combination tag including elk and mule deer. When put in that context it is not the most expensive place to hunt.

Personally, I still think it is too expensive but it is what it is. Montana just wont see any of my money for a while.
Hurricanespg is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 07:13 AM
  #5  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Default

Originally Posted by beech18 View Post
Im a resident of Montana, however, when I hunt in another state I pay out of state fees.

...

Benifit of being a resident of your home state. Hunt in your home state and get the benifits of being a resident hunter. Like the benifits of another state, go live there.
Well said.
country1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 09:16 AM
  #6  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
salukipv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
Default

why even charge residents in that case? since they pay taxes... or $1 tags for everything, sheep, elk, deer.

let's just make non-res pay for all the tag fees etc...

we all pay taxes, a little fairness would be nice,

I know I've often gone to buy a resident tag and been like? really it's only $35 for 2 tags etc....?
salukipv1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 11:03 AM
  #7  
Fork Horn
 
AK Jeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 419
Default

Originally Posted by salukipv1 View Post
why even charge residents in that case? since they pay taxes... or $1 tags for everything, sheep, elk, deer.
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.

Originally Posted by salukipv1 View Post
we all pay taxes, a little fairness would be nice,
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.
AK Jeff is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 11:09 AM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Default

There are residents of states who are lower income and use the resident tags as a way to get good quality and affordable meat. Why create another tax and charge residents more for their resident tags so you can have a lower non-resident tag fee? If a person is traveling to another state for hunting, chances are they are not lower income.

I agree with beech18 - if you like the benefits of that state, move there and buy the resident tags.
country1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 11:11 AM
  #9  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 608
Default

Originally Posted by AK Jeff View Post
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.
Well said.
country1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2010, 12:51 PM
  #10  
Fork Horn
 
Muley70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: beautiful western montana
Posts: 193
Default

First off,I also voted against I-161 as it was an attack on NR and outfitters, nothing more, nothing less. As far as the tag being an elk/deer combo, that is also misleading. For example, in the area I outfit one must put in for a special "deer permit" to hunt mule deer with draw odds of less than 1%. So in other words, in many areas it is a 897.00 dollar elk tag. Additionally, not everybody wants to hunt deer, but they are still forced to but a deer tag along with an elk tag and in some areas require a deer permit they have no chance of getting.

The disparity between resident license and NR has gotten out of control here. During the debate resident Montana hunters called outfitter welfare queens because we got the sponsored tag from the state. We work the show circuit, spend ten of thousands on advertising, field the calls, book the hunts etc. Then we were forced to sell the states tag at 1250.00 combo or 995.00 elk to our clients the we solicited and sold to. The money was then given to the state to pay land owners so resident hunters could hunt their land for free. So who is the real welfare recipient here?

I-161 is a diasaster. We have effectivley created a glorified OTC state, were it is expected the draw will now be at 100%. Outfitted clients are no longer bound to hunt with just outfitter and can hunt BMP lands. We have transferred leasing from Montana businesses over to out of state corps and hunting clubs and with 100% draw odds, you can bet leasing will now take off in Montana. The public land, small outfitter will get screwed, as will the average Joe NR looking for a DIY excursion. Stupid law.

The ballot langauge was also a nightmare. After I read the ballot I dang near was ready to vote for it. It said vote to increase wildlife funding!! etc. We need to repeal I-161.

Last edited by Muley70; 12-04-2010 at 12:53 PM.
Muley70 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.