Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Nonresident ripoff

Well that's not fair!

$600 and $1000 for deer and elk respectively? Good lord...
I have no dog in the fight, don't give a [bleep], I love and hunt ID and AK.
But that is expensive.
One can hunt dall sheep or mnt goat in Ak with next of kin for far less.

At least one state is trying to capitalize on it's resource, can't blame MT.

Smokepole, thanks for explaining his less than insightful jealousy comments, to this old bird, me. I'm not worried... honest.

That's not the least of it. When they finally did put in a Dairy Queen, they put it two miles from my house, and it was uphill both ways.

Dink,

I-161 was like any ballot issue. Some people understood the initiative and some didn't. It was supported heavily by sportman's groups that, indeed, have an issue with outfitters and the fact that the state allowed them 5,000 of the 17,000 out of state permits to be guaranteed to outfitters while the rest were open to the lottery.

The supporters of the initiative felt that taking those guaranteed permits would take some of the private land leased to outfitters and open more land to resident hunters. This was indeed a selfish power play to hopefully recover hunting opportunities lost to leases.

It didn't work as far as resident hunting opportunities as that land and the leases did not become available to the rank and file hunting community. Another thing people don't realize is that the outfitting industry doesn't have a totally negative impact on game and hunting opportunities. Like it or not, outfitters have a legitimate business in the state of Montana and they are as responsible to operate in accordance to law as any other business.

Outfitters don't have any more control on the fees for non resident hunters than any other person or group in the state does. The legislature decides those fees gained from input of all those parties that respond to fish and game meetings around the state that are open to the public for review.

That said, I am not an outfitter and I am not in the pocket of the fish and game, mistakes are made and leverage is used from all sides to approve every interested group and their opinions. The department of fish and game manages the wildlife, seasons and fees according to these principles, whether done in accordance to your wishes or not. Residents do contribute to those decisions, but don't make policy.

As far as I am concerned, I am not bothered by non resident hunters or outfitters. I can either hunt on public or private ground the same as anyone, there are only two options. I spend my time making the most of those choices I can and pay accordingly, I would suggest you try the same...

I hunt MT every year as a NR. It cost me with tags about $1750 to hunt for 10 days all up. This assumes a few guys going with me. This is considerably cheaper than a 7 day trip to Cabo with the wife.
I would like to see MT raise the tag price further.
DINK, is just a whiny miserable a-hole. I don't think the state of MT will miss him much.

I'm jealous of that $600 deer license. I paid less than 600 total for these 5 Montana animals combined - even if you throw in the 5 B&C entry submissions. Thanks again for your contributions to Montana and your sniveling whimpers.

DINK,

Montana "residents are jealous of a lot of things"? Like what?

I'm not calling anybody names, just stating very apparent facts about your inability to understand facts:

Federal land is controlled by the Federal government, but with some exceptions the game on it is controlled by the state. If you want to whine and moan about that "injustice," even after the legality was long ago firmly settled in court decisions, then by all means start another lawsuit. But based on past results, it won't go anywhere, despite how much you whine.

For years Montana did NOT raise their non-resident rates in comparison to inflation, and of course nobody bitched because they were getting real deal. Then Montana did raise its rates to a comparable level to fifty years ago, and people like you started whining.

The vast majority of Montana residents don't have any problem with non-residents hunting here. What many residents resented was Montana outfitters leasing considerably more land after they were guaranteed a certain number of tags for their clients--after the outfitter's association promised that wouldn't happen. Residents didn't "want to be mean to the outfitters," because a lot of residents know outfitters, work for outfitters, and are related to outfitters. But they thought the outfitters got a good deal with the license agreement--then grabbed for more. This trend continued for several years, and eventually a majority of residents decided the outfitters had reneged on their part of the deal, so revoked the deal.

You're also ignoring the fact that several years after I-161 passed, non-resident licenses are still selling out, despite costing more. So your claim that passing I-161 caused the price rise is obviously incorrect, since revoking guaranteed outfitter licenses didn't cause demand to drop.

I consider a non-resident license charge in Montana to be a bargain. Great hunting and great residents make it all worthwhile.

I suspect that the Montana residents would be glad to see Dink far, far away.

Steve

I been drawing elk tags every year since I-161. Beats paying $1500

What a ripoff!!! Grin

2012 was the year Montana really laid it to me!! Still mad about that!!


DIY

2011 was yet another horrible year over there for the pard and I , , less than 14 hours apart, evening of the first day, he killed his 180" daybreak of the second morning, DIY ground anyone can hunt. Bastards!!

2010 sucked too, as the pard killed this 185" buck on the first day , DIY public ground, first year in that area....


I can't take in anymore I'm sending my tag back for a refund!!

I've hunted NM and several times in AZ. Always good value. I just flew down and took the AZ non res hunter Ed course and will have 20 elk points next year. What kind of $ do ya think I'll have into that one when I finally draw for a public land hunt?

My son AND daughter are applying out of state this year. Why I don't take them all over the west? Because I live in MONTANA and they can and do hunt a TON here! Duh. We just hunted yesterday and saw deer, elk, moose and bear. How's things in Missouri?

- a jealous MT resident

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to say what I said about dink and his little insults, and that was the best way I could come up with to say it.

So here's an idea for you. If you plan to do this hunt every year why not save $1.64 a day for a whole year to pay for that $600. Surely you piss away $1.64 a day in worse ways than saving for a hunting trip to make memories

A bit more to the cost of a hunt than a tag...

No schit?

Only thing I've read him complaining about is the tag

It SHOULD.

I don't give a flying puck it Montana charges $120,000 per deer tag for NR or don't allow NR to hunt at ALL. I think residents should ALWAYS have first priority.


That said, on FEDERAL LANDS, EVERYONE should have equal opportunity and equal prices.

HOW THE [bleep] IS THAT NOT RIGHT? Better yet, the FEDS shouldn't be controlling ANY lands and let the states have them.

When MONTANA owns ALL the lands, I don't give a flying [bleep] what they do/charge with their lands. I'm all for STATE'S rights.

To recap for the stupid [bleep] that can't comprehend on this thread: FEDERAL LANDS= Equal Opportunity, Equal Price

STATE LANDS= Montana does whatever the [bleep] they want.