NR elk tags have a 40-50% success rate...How many of those non-residents paid to hunt private ranches to get the success rate that high?
I keep hearing about how everyone that works in montana is under paid and how they pay that price to live there. Well if the rest of us make more money (I have no idea if that is true) you guys should be glad everytime you drive on a state maintained road, bridge or overpass. Those are all paid with federal tax money that we get to pay more of since we make more money.
I know alot of people are mad at outfitters for various reasons but guys like me have nothing to do with that. I pay a private ranch owner to hunt. I am sure the ranch owner spends most of that money in montana either on his hired hands, feed or equipment.
Pointer what I pay alot already as a non-resident with out the tag increase. I think a $200 tag increase is stealing. The people voted against the outfitters and against the non-residents in hopes of having these big ranches that are leased opened to free hunting. In my opinion these people voted on a dream and now I have to pay for there dream of free hunting on ranches that I don't think is going to happen.
I heard everyone say about non-residents paying there way to the front. What are they going to vote against next custom rifles? Since the average guy can't/won't afford a $7500 custom rifle are they going to vote and make it a law that one can only hunt with a factory rifle that cost less than $600? What about the guy that can kill game at 800 yards he will kill more game than the average guy. They going to outlaw rangefinders and shots over 200 yards so its fair to the citizens of montana?
Dink
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referencing a draw rate success, the actual success rate for filling elk tags is much lower. Buying them is the easy part!
My vote had nothing to do with you, but with fairness in general in the drawing system. The difference between an elk tag and a rifle is that one is bought from the gov't. When you can curry special favor from the gov't with money, we are essentially facing corruption. When a specific lobby can manage to have that money come through their industry by swaying some pea brained politicians, that is corruption. You undoubtedly understand the difference between publicly owned property (game) and privately owned property (rifles).
The reason this, and other issues, have to go through voter initiatives is b/c politicians are too cowardly to stand up and do what is right and what the folks want, so we have to put it to the people directly to vote up or down. The people spoke, and a consequence of this correction was that revenue had to be replaced. Considering the drawing rates, I think the elk license increase was warranted. The deer tag increase seemed drastic to me, but I didn't get to decide. Also, I'm not privvy to the numers involved, or smart enough to conduct a proper analysis to determine what sort of price shift the market can bear. In my opinion, there will be alot less people putting in for elk and deer. Next year elk tags will be a bit more expensive, but easier to draw. Then NR's will be able to get their tag for less than they would have paid for the outfitter's tag and use it where and how they wish. I'll bet there will be far less deer tags purchased, so those who have them will have less compitition in the field. Maybe this will translate to you having to pay less for a lease? Silly that you lease anyhow in my opinion, but I don't wish to tell you your business. It is funny to me that someone who choses the elitist route of securing a lease in an area with so much public land, and at great personal expense, is grumpy about kicking down a couple of hundred bucks more that will undoubtedly keep poorer folks from competing in general (more elitsm). You will certainly not hear me begging you to come purchase a deer tag though! You can come back to MT and shake your fist and be angry that we stole from you (?) or you can go somewhere else and pay a similar fee. Considering your bitterness, how could you enjoy coming back here?
The only ranch I've ever known that had a private lease was north of Terry (as opposed to an outfitter lease). The nice folks who owned the place locked out all locals because some guys from WA paid for the rights year after year. Last year they coudlnt' afford the lease, and she gave me permission to hunt their place as a result. I never made it over to hunt, though it was a good piece of property. I did hunt about 20 miles from there 3 times on other property, BMA, BLM, and private (where permission is given to anyone who asks). I didn't need to drive the extra 20 miles b/c of so much other property to hunt. If you don't come back and lease your ranch, maybe next time I knock on their door they will say "sure." I can't say this will happen anywhere but where I experienced it, but I personally know of this one example.
