Wow! I just saw the price increases in MT for nonresidents! $912.00 for the combo now makes it unaffordable for an average guy. Hunting is increasingly for the wealthy out west.

It looks like I will bird hunt only again this next season. I own a home in MT and pay some pretty hefty taxes there, but I'm still a NV resident. It doesn't make it easy to go deer or elk hunting for sure.

I've not been drawn for a Resident big game tag in NV since 2007, and now MT has priced me out.

I'm curious as to how many here have to pass on hunting due to the cost these days?

And I hear they've eliminated the outfitter tags.

They're starting to close in on us, aren't they? The Good Lord willing, and one more contract on the side, and I will go ahead and do my last Montana hunt next year.

Idaho did that last year, and sold a fraction of the tags. I suppose it will work better than that in Montana?

Makes you wonder if anyone around that table ever said "are you drunk?" when that proposal came up. JMO, Dutch.

Yep...

With the opportunities pretty much gone now, I'll probably be selling about a dozen or so guns and keep the bare bones and necessary 35-40 ones.

Seriously, I'm going to list a bunch soon. I can't see ever using them again.

I have bitched about the price increase more than most. I have hunted Montana every year I could get a tag for the last 5 or 6 years. Matter of fact I said I was done with Montana over the price increase and had set up a muledeer hunt in Wyoming this year. Well the ranch I hunt lowered the trespass fee because everyone had called and told them they were not coming to hunt this year. So I guess I am going to try and draw a muledeer tag this year but as soon as the ranch raises the trespass fee back to the original price I am out. [bleep] deer is just not worth that kind of money.

Dink

Look at the upside more expensive tags equals less hunters equals more "opportunities".

Montana will see the same or slightly increased tag revenue due to the price increases, but I predict less hunters will apply and buy licenses, so the motels, cafes, gas stations, sporting goods stores, and pay-to-trespass ranches will suffer.

Maybe they'll figure out they are killing a golden goose.

I somehow doubt it.

Its not getting any cheaper for us residents to buy tags either.

if you were planning on hunting the eastern end of the state might want to stay home anyway......record setting snow fall and lots of dead deer and speed goats

It cost me $160.00 just to apply for resident tags last year in "fees". That money is lost. The DOW public employees are sucking our tit pretty hard these days and my be in for BIG surprises soon.

Hunters here are tired of buying them choppers to fly and new trucks. They can get off their collective azzes for a change and get out to enforce game laws and stop poaching by the flood of out-of-state mine workers, who have no connection with the State and pass through in a few years, only to be replaced by their counterparts. Our resident tag fees are almost as high as some States' non-resident fees.

I have been reading everyones comments on the snow this year. How far west has the bad snow been this year? Is it bad around Round up?

Dink

not sure, farther west got more warm weather than we did but other than flying into and out of Billings the first part of January i havent headed any farther west than Glasgow.....know Billings and Helena got down to alot of bare ground in January.....not sure how far east the warm weather got...know Wolf Point only got warm enough for some bare ground in the last week and then we got blowing snow last night and covered stuff back up.....

A good source for weather records is the Weather Underground...Google them and surf their site. They have weather history for about everywhere in the country.

I've never payed to hunt - just as a matter of principal. Liscense fees were never really a hindrance.

At 912 smackers, it would become a consideration.

Hunting in Florida is a rich man's game as well. License fees are not all that high, but access to land is. The only successful hunters here are either members of a lease, own a lot of land themselves, or are politically connected, and can hunt limited access public lands.
The number of licenses sold each year is heading down. Several prime WMAs that used to be under quota limits for the first two weeks of general gun, , now have no quotas.

You live in texs and never payed to hunt?! You and/or family must have a bunch of land. The lease fees are getting very high around my part of TX. Mine has gone up to $2800 this year. As a retired old fart with no COLAs for a couple of years, that is getting a bit out of my league.

Getting squeezed off of federal land hunting in Western states because of high state fees really POs me. My grandkids, unless they turn nout to be rock stars or actors will never get the chance.

A few years back Congress got wind of the trend but backed down to a solid phaanx of lobbyists -- including the elitist Safari Club -- before doing anything about it.

Paying taxes for mint53nance of land you often can't axcess and or use. Whatacountry!

1B

they backed down because the supreme court has ruled that though the land is federally owned the game belongs to the state.....trust me you dont want a bunch of federal land in your state, its how they forced the [bleep] wolves down our throats.....you can come out and use federal land as you wish but the game is managed by the state......do you really want Montana's wildlife controlled by the dumb [bleep] in DC? how much hunting do you think would be open then if bunny huggers from NYC get a say in Montana wildlife?

I've been considering an eastern Montana deer hunt with my son but many of this year's forecasts do not look too promising.
I've heard deer & antelope numbers were already down in the eastern breaks and with the heavy snows of this winter things are not looking too bright.
It's been a lot of years since I've hunted there & hope to do it sometime soon.

Maybe a western Montana wolf hunt?

I don't know how MT gets away with treating its property owners so poorly. A friend of mine whose main residence is New Orleans has had a house and forty acres near Red Lodge for many years, and still has to shell out for nonresident licenses.

Hunting plains game in South Africa gets to be more of a bargain every day.

There will not be any long-term good come out of these ridiculous prices.

I own property in two mid-western states, both in areas that have been hit heavily by the leasing craze.

Where I believe the real damage to our sport will come about is through the loss of all of the small town based hunters. Families I know who have hunted as guests on local farms for generations.
Guys my age (50's) are hanging up rifles and bows because they don't have the access they used to because they can not compete from a $dollar standpoint.

Those same guys are losing small game hunting privileges because all of the new "outfitters" (yes, I smirk when I see that term used) aren't smart enough to realize that whitetailed deer are not scared to death and flee the county when someone walks within 1000 yards of them.

All of these guys represent votes, and we can't afford to lose them.

No single entity to really lay the blame on.

The "outfitter" (snork) is usually a local guy with a smidgen of ambition trying to make a buck.

The landowner is simply improving his ROI. Unlike some here on the Campfire have posted - no sane man could fault them for that.

I do get frustrated with those who pay the huge fees, I just don't quite get the trophy thing. To me a trophy is an adult representative that is typical of your local animal population.
The idea that some other local raises 22-inchers instead of 18 's as typical representatives doesn't thrill me to the point that I'd pay a premium to hunt there.

Long rant to the question....

Yes, the higher fees effect me and most that I know. It is not a good thing for our sport. I know I consider fewer and fewer out of state options every year.

Maybe, but prolly not. Idaho revenue substantially decreased after the increase. As a matter of fact, had the steelhead and salmon not showed up (and provided a zillion unexpected license dollars), IDFG would be between broke and destitute right now. FWIW, Dutch.

Just because one owns property in a certain state does not make that person a resident of that state who is entitled to resident license and tag fees.

That would be the sure way to have hunting dominated by the wealthy. Just buy an abondoned lot or a slum-lord apartment and you now avoid out-of-state fees? Get real! That's a formula for disaster.

The record books are just fueling this attitude and, in my opinion, are not true allies to hunters. The expansion of the "outfitter" style hunting will only lead to it being mandated which will give the greenies a way to tie up public lands.

I'm not against outfitters at all. I despise game ranching. And shooting animals that have been "managed" or raised to be trophies is not what hunting is about, and will lead to the end of hunting as we know it. These all lead to hunting by the wealthy.

Now, before any of you go ballistic, I do understand that vast public hunting lands don't exist in many states. I'm not bashing anyone's hunting styles or methods. I'm just saying that we need to really pay attention to what driving trends are making it more difficult for our kids to go hunting.

Amen.

The rancher I hunt on told me that Montana game and fish expected tag applications to be down %40 to %50 this year.

I did not ask how he got that information so take it for what its worth.

Dink

economy sucks, ppl have less money to spend to go hunting period, let alone travel half way cross the US to hunt....the wolves have hurt the number of animals seen by hunters and some out of state hunters refuse to make a trip somewhere where they may have to be happy with seeing an animal let alone getting a shot.....this winter is proving to be a hard one and theya re gonna have to cut tags anyway ont he eastern side of the state, they had to cut them last year for doe antelope in the 700 district due to an outbreak of blue tongue....

tag numbers and applications were gonna be down even without a fee change......i dont necessarily agree with the nonresident fee hike but i wasnt allowed to vote on what the fee was gonna be....

it is what it is. those that can pay the higher nr fees (and want to hunt) will do so. others will stay home. one can only hope that the various g&f commissions/states will get the hint when they see far fewer applications, and lower the nr fees to a "reasonable" number. however, i seriously doubt they will.

i can understand a state wanting more money (as much as they can get) for a valuable "resource", but there comes a point of minimum return, and we may be fast approaching it. good hunting to all.

dont expect MT FWP to get a hint bout anything.....they listen only to those that agree with them, to hell with facts.....

They were my alternative to the MT prices, but are now as expensive as MT; so is Oregon. I guess it is time for me to move to my very modest MT house. All I need is to find a way to survive, short of poaching.

My buddies and I were thinking about a deer hunt in Mt for 2012, not for that kinda $$$ for the tag. I hunted Mt. In 91 was great, dont think at this rate Ill be able to go back. to bad.

I feel for those western states that have become so extreme in their fees all federal lands should be closed to hunting. More than half of all lands in those states are owned by every citizen of this country. Until states hold nonresident fees to no more than 5 times that of the resident fees I am also in favor of cutting off all PR funds.

The argument that nonresidents don't pay state taxes does not hold water in most cases either. In most cases the states receive more back in federal dollars than they ever contribute to the federal treasurery between federal employment, various grants and funding etc.

I have lived in Texas all but 18 of my 59 years. I hunted on my relatives small holdings (15 acres to 160 acres) or National Forest growing up. I had a lease two years and got tired of the bickering over stands, drinkers vs non-drinkers etc and got off. I have again hunted National Forest for the cost of my license the past 16 years.

This thread is very similar to the disapearing middle class thread.
Seems the middle class is dissapearing from western big game hunting, at least for non residents.
I've lived my whole life for hunting the west, I'll fight to the bitter end, but I fear it is in sight.
Very sad indeed.

believe me we would love to see the federal land turned over to the state and the feds keep their funds......we didnt want the wolves but what choice did we have? they turned the [bleep] loose on federal land.....and before someone again says buy it from the feds its proved near impossible to buy land from the feds that they want to sell......

Why would the rest of us WANT to give you our land? You want to buy it at current fair market value? With taxes you could pay it off in a few centuries?

If the non-resident owners of that land are going to pay for the majority of the operational expense of your game department then by all means lets cut off the PR funds, the majority of which is also contributed to by non-residents. Then post the land until ALL owners has a fair shot in both expense and allocations. As it is now we ae simply sending money as we turn around pulling our pants down as we bend over.

they backed down because the supreme court has ruled that though the land is federally owned the game belongs to the state....[/quote]

The court case was not decided by the Supreme Court but the "Crazy Ninth", the most overturned curcuit court in our system. It involved an outfitter sueing the Western state involved and as I recall they simply decided he did not have standing.

On an issue like this if Congress changed the law I have no doubt the Supreme Court would likely decide it was federal land that the Congress had a right to legislate like they do most things on the land possibly even throwing in the old "interstate commerce" language.

I suspect that any move by Congress simply did not have enough voter interest that it could not be traded away for something else.

I bet it's a helluva lot cheaper to hunt in MT than it is in TX.

I'm pissed that Texas doesn't have any public land.....not



Move your ass up here and enjoy the cheap hunting. Bet you'll make alot more money to boot.....not

Just about all my hunting in Texas is on National Forest land that costs me the price of a hunting license. But that has nothing to do with subsidizing western hunting on land that I own a share while not having a fair shot at it.

Without all our tax dollars that subsidizes your state you could enjoy a economy on parr with Mexico.

Not to mention enjoying the temperate winters...

as for making more money...true dat...we have a very low per capita income rate..little do the nonresidents know, in one way or another, you pay for the privelege of being here.....

This whole trend is due to certain sportsmen that want to turn all hunting opportunities into Trophy Hunting. They pushed it through with I 161 and hid the fees/changes behind a hatred for outfitters and guides. There are quite a few people that don't like outfitters and feel that by cutting back their advantage on out of state licenses, that more land and opportunity will be the result for everyone else.

Now it is time to pay the piper, those that voted for I 161 can languish in their misconceptions of the passing of this bill. It will not be good for hunting in Montana, and you can already see what it has done to the out-of-state fees...

Oh really?

Welcome to the rest of the world, guys.

The overall trend in "sport" hunting anywhere on the planet is less access and increased costs. This has little to do with the greed of states or record books. It has to do with more people with fewer places to hunt: supply and demand.

There used to be quite a bit of decent public hunting east of the Mississippi, and hunting on quite a bit of private land was also available for the asking. Now a lot of the private land is subdivisions, so the public land gets hammered harder every year.

If you want good, cheap hunting then you have to live some place relatively remote. It will also probably be far from lots of good-paying jobs.

Bitching about how game departments are screwing us won't do any good, because the trend will still be more people and fewer places to hunt. Higher license fees and paying for a place to hunt are just a symptom of what happens to hunting as "civilization" progresses.

Pretty much Spot-On Muledeer.

Montana gets $1.58 in Federal Dollars for every dollar collected from Montana residents. (infoplease.com)

Among top ten states receiving federal dollars (heartland.org)

Montana received 1.7 billion dollars of federal dollarsn in 2007 or $1,741.73 per person (nonprofitscount.com)

Federal dollars are Montana's fastest growing source of public revenue. (thingprogress.com)

Montana is among top ten states receiving returns on Federal dollars. (Taxfoundation)

That does not include the bargain basement timber sales or grazing leases that further subsidize the states economy.

Pull out all federal dollars except what your residents contribute including federal employees, federal highway dollars, grants, highway dollars, education dollars, etc and I would say, "Yeah!"

Mule Deer I am not arguing that hunting is not more expensive. In my mind it is what constitutes a "fair share" for non residents. You charge residents $200 for a hunting license and I will not bitch about a $1,000 non-resident fee. I suspect off the top of my head that in most western states that current ratios are that a $200 resident fee would represent a 5 figure non-resident price on land they are shareholders of.

Fees are not the only concern as states hold more tags to residents only. I have not verified it but read the other day that New Mexico is again lowered the elk tag allocation so that it is now 2% for nonresidents who do not buy outfitter allocated tags.

do you really want to turn the animals on federal land over to federal management and out of state hands? the feds version of managing wildlife is turning loose wolves and protecting feral horses that are completely destroying desert ecosystems.....if the feds have total control of game animals on federal lands you aint going to be hunting them anyway cause now the bunny huggers in NYC get to have input on how game animals in the west are managed....

anyone is free to use the federal lands 12 months out of the year.....the game is owned and managed by the state, do you want some dumb vegan beotch in NYC dictating how you get to hunt in Texas?

Just keep drinking that entitlement koolaid.

Humorous to hear someone from texass criticize where Federal dollars go, while ignoring how his own state has fed long and hard at the Federal pork barrel trough since before LBJ was a crooked senator..

Actually Rattler no. What I want is a more balanced approach to fee and tag allocations. I am not picking on Montana either because Texas is guilty as well of what I consider exorborant fees. With a son in law from Colorado I recognize his families frustration at drawing for deer and elk tags also.

My problem with the Western states is that as heavily subsidized by federal dollars as they are and as much land that is owned by all U.S. Citizens I think to a degree that they are out of line in those fees and allocations.

I don't have all the answers and recognize a need to negotiate.My proposals are not locked in concrete. IF the federal government needs to be involved because states are in the opinion of a sufficient number of citizens of gluttony I would like controls. Those would I suggest for starter be a ration of what states can charge non-residents vs residents. Not set prices, but ratios only. Failure to meet those ratio's could result in closure of federal lands and release of PR funds until the states comply. If they wish they can refuse the federal contributions and operate freely without federal intervention. Certainly non-resident land owners have the option of posting their land in protest.

Off the top of my head a 5:1 ratio could be a starting point for discussions on license prices and a 20% allocation of tags to non-residents. A few years ago in a similar discussion on another forum I spent hours researching it that I will not now. As I remember many western states receives close to 90% of all license sales revenue from the less than 10% non-resident hunters portion of license sales.

I know that I am but one point of view and that certainly western residents have theirs and nobody would be totally happy with any midpoint. I might be just a little guilty of stirring the pot a bit to get a thorough discussion of those issues.

quite frankly if you dont like it, move here.....oil fields are booming in the northeast part of the state.....good help is hard to find and the oil companies are willing to pay well....course there is no housing and its a beotch living in a camper when its -50.....you want to hunt animals here cheap and quite frankly i would love to get NYC wages while living here.....thing is i made the choice to live on less so i could hunt and fish year round here....

Yup Loco. According to the Tax Foundation Texas gets back 94 cents of every dollar sent to the federal government compared to your states huge profit of $1.58 per dollar spent. I find it humorous how I answered you question and instead of responding to those figures you tried to obscure those figures by attacking a state that takes a loss on their contributions complete with a silly mispelling

Goose, I am not sure where you are coming up with that "entitlements" rubbish. It looks to me like it is the Westerners who feel "entitled" to ride other peoples dime.

Frankly Rattler I have no problem with that at all. Just close the federal land to resident hunters (except of course a small percentage equal to your states population as a part of the whole of the United States), cut off PR funding beyond the share your residents actually spent and stop our subsidies to you. Then you could be totally free to do whatever you wish.

give us the federal land and we wont take federal dollars......how much are the feds making off the mineral, timber and grazing rights on that federal land? know they are making good money off the hydroelectric power from their dams here......

Why would I GIVE anything I own away. That sounds like entitlement to me.

How about Montana BUY it at today's fair market value, again of course discounted by the percentage of population the residents represent?

cant buy it.....my father in law is trying to buy a 1/4 acre lot that the feds WANT to sell and its proving near impossible to get through the red tape to buy it.....

why should the feds get to own a huge chunk of Montana and comparably nearly nothing of the eastern states?

Because they gave the other half away in the 19th century to develop what is there? They did not give anything to Texas. Texas was an independent nation with the land already owned when they joined the Union.

Say paper work was not an issue and a 30 year mortgage (heck lets be generous and make it 50 years) that allowed foreclosure could/would Montana buy it?

so long as we get the mineral, timber and water rights that go with it, hell yes.....

Let's see...

Do I want some federal oficial (in NYC?) to control hunting on federal lands?

Or, do I want state buraucrats to divy up those animals on federal land to the voters that elect them at bargain basement prices while they gradually freeze out everyone else but the wildly rich.

Gee, that's a tough one. Either way I am screwed.

This huge disadvatage created by Western states politicos has about zero chance of going unnoticed in Washington DC where the real Supreme Court sits. Even Congress with all its dirty hands might turn around on the issue if lobbyists from the hunting industries chime in at the prospect of dminshed interest in their wares by a good part of the next generation of non-resident hunters.

1B

the one thing that most claim that Montana gets more money back than we pay in doesnt take into consideration the feds own and sell power from several hydroelectric dams that the state doesnt get taxes on, sells timber mining and grazing rights on land the state doesnt get taxes on and expects the states to keep up the roads through alot of these areas.....

really want to get pissed off? one of the poorest indian reservations that your tax dollars support and pay for the medical care and everything else for the natives is a tribe that owns mineral rights to hundreds of millions of dollars of oil but refuses to punch holes cause no oil company will dish out the funds to punch the holes and pull it up and turn around and give the tribes give them 40% of gross for signing a piece of paper and not have to lift a finger to get it out of the ground.......

Of course neither you not I have the power to negotiate anything. That is what we would have to do through our representatives.

I know the states will charge what the traffic will bear and have to face the realities of its states politics. I am simply providing an alternative view to be considered. At current trends I think there will be a rebellion and call for Federal action someday. I am afraid at that point it will go far worse that a bit of self restraint would. Truth is western political force (Senators and Representatives) is relatively small and with a strong enough movement would be overwhelmed. That is a scene you nor I want. It would likely have results neither of us like with the possibilities of tree hugger/animal rights activist involvement.

The rights you mentioned developed by the state would likely become private and have results you would not like. You might even get a lease system like those of us in the East and the land would not be as pristine. Neither is much of your game as adaptable to that development as the whitetail deer.

Fact is that the federal government doesn't do squat regarding wildlife habitat maintenance or improving and protecting game species here in the west.

Fact two is that there would be no places to hunt if the States were to gain control of the federal lands in many States. The corrupt State governments Will let big mining and land speculation take over the lands to garner tax revenue and to line their own pockets.

Fact three is that the limited tax base here makes it necessary to find revenue for wildlife management, and enforcement is harder, so fees are higher.

Fact four is you have contributed almost nothing to the betterment of wildlife here in the west, while the residents have contributed much.

Fact five is that residents are locked out of hunting due to higher fees and limited tag quotas in many States now.

I hate the high prices and the limited opportunity, but in many States I see no alternatives. The game-rich western States are a bit over the top regarding fees, however, and in these times it will bite their greedy azzes. They will see diminished returns and chase away vital revenue forever. Limited opportunity States like Nevada and Arizona can't absorb a flood of out-of-state hunters.

It isn't a good situation, and government/government employees (that includes the DOW agencies) are far too greedy, given the times.

I would take your fact 1 and 4 considering them they same as a taxpayer. I cannot say about the Western states because I would have to research them. I know the National Forests here have biologists on staff and do some habitat mangement such as cuts to open the forest floor to regeneration and controlled burns among other things. I suspect the same applies there.

If you saw my comment about my son-in-law and his family then you know that I recognize (and sympathize) with their frustration and your fact 5.

On your fact 2 we are in agreement as reflected on my comments on development of the states owned the land.

I understand Fact 3 and would not argue.

Truth is we agree on a lot more than we disagree. The rest is a matter of degrees. It sounds to me like we also agree that if the states do not come to some reasonable answer then in the end there may be results none of us like.

Yeah, like the non-resident taxpayer who owns all the National Forests and BLM lands!

I hunted WY last year and was fortunate to pick up leftover NR Antelope/Deer doe tags for $34 each which I found to be super reasonable. While I didn't get to take any giant bucks, I still had an amazing experience and filled both my tags. There are still some reasonable NR hunting out there but I guess not in NM or MT.

I do think there are bargains and I will be well satisfied with cheap female tags if I ever go back west (I was a resident of AZ several years) to hunt with my son and son-in-law. I have no more need for additional wall hangers and a bit if meat would be ample icing on the cake to spend time with family in new and beautiful country. All is not doom and gloom. Simply a bit of reflection, interchange of views and restraint is call for.

T'is a sad but inevitable fact that the cost of hunting will continue to increase....I have been traveling the West and Canada long enough to watch prices escalate and used to obsess over the increased license fees,and bemoan the fact...the reasons for it are too complex and imponderable to waste a lot of brain cells over.....like most things over which you have no control, my objections were not going to change anything..

Eventually I learned, that there is not much one can do about it,except complain and stay home, or suck it up and pay the freight.....and go hunting.

That said we all have our limits,both real and personal,regarding what it is all "worth" to us....and is up to each of us to make that decision for ourselves.

One thing for certain....when I look at a mounted head,cut into a steak from an animal,relive hunts with pals,or look at pictures.....I recall the details of that hunt very vividly.

But the one thing I can never recall.....is how much it all cost me.....

If Montana did away with an income tax and went to a state sales tax they would see a lot more $$$$ from vacationers and hunters.

Good point there BobinNH. You and I may not factor in the cost when it is all said and done, however I am concerned for the younger generations.

The whole dynamics of job opportunities and good paying jobs in this country are going to continue to effect the choices of the younger generations.

Hunting land access and hunting fees are not like the old days.

Amen. I made the choice to live here, to reap the benefits and pay the prices. [bleep] ridiculous some folks want to live in the sheepfolds in comfort, and have the same fees and access as those that live here year round. As long as we're dreaming, I'd like to pay resident fees to hunt AK. But I ain't gonna bitch because I can't. Someday if I can ever convince the wife I will live there and do so. Having fed land in the state doesn't mean every swinging richard is feel entitled to cheap tags.

But, to get back to the heme of the thread....

The demise of affordable hunting for the average Joe and his kids could be the death knell for the sport.

If ya don't grow up with it, ya more'n likely wont go hunting as a grownup either.

Birdwatcher

:)I must have missed that conversation. Was it in this forum?

I guess trying to twist what was said into something that was not said is one technique of a lie told often enough. However, it contributes nothing to a legitimate conversation.

Guys like me are tired of paying for all your roads, bridges and all the federal land and then being told I have to give 20x the price a resident does for a tag. If you are already recieving $1.58 for every tax dollar you pay in don't you think thats enough? How much of your state do I have to pay for?

The reason we come to Montana to hunt because we choose to make more money so we can pay for your state. We put up with people so when we travel to hunt we don't have to. We should not have to pay for fish and game department because you say so.

Now the residents of Montana has voted that I have to pay more for my tag because they decided I should. They did not vote to restrict or limit tags to non-residents they voted to make it harder for a guy to make a living in Montana by working as a guide. I guess you can do that when you get $1.58 for every tax dollar paid in.
Dink

My heart bleeds for ya, DINKUS!

700LH don't worry guys like me will keep working so you can get that check on the 3rd of every month. Enjoy.

Dink

Yep, turned 62 this week. Thanks for the check next month.
Maybe I'll spend $12.75 of it on a resident hunting license.

roundoak: I know that.....I watched subdivisions and urban development chew up the grouse covers I hunted in my teens......the farms where I hunted deer and woodchucks.....we are getting squeezed for sure.....

OTOH, the NH state record whitetail(gross over 200)was killed 1/2 hour from where I am typing this in Southern NH.....So opportunities are there, if they look.

....point being,if the kids have a will, they will find a way....just like we did...

My heart bleeds for ya, DINKUS!

[/quote]

+100....

LOL!!

Ingwe I am going to guess by some of the places you been that you have made some money in your life. You ever bitch about the taxes on that money that you had to pay being pissed away? I really don't care that Montana gets $1.58 for every $1 they pay into the feds. If the feds did not give it to Montana they would piss it away somewhere else.

Not only does Montana get more fed money than they pay I now get to pay a extra $200 to pay for thier game and fish department when there were already willing non-residents to pay that portion of it. All for a general draw tag that is good on fed land that I already pay/paid for.

What does piss me off is that the locals decided I needed to pay more for my tag because they wanted to do away with guaranteed tags. It really does not make any sense to me why a resident would care how non-resident tags are given out. I could see them saying only a certain percentage of tags go to non-residents but I161 changes nothing but the fee's for non-residents.

I am going to try and draw a muledeer tag this year but only because the ranch I hunt dropped thier trespass fee more than the price of the tag. So really the only person that is being cheated this year is the rancher I hunt on. I would mean that where ever he spends money gets less because he will have less money to spend.

Dink

There isn't any good hunting to be had in Missouri? I wasn't born here, I chose to live here. Same as you could. It was important to me to live where I could buy an elk, and a deer tag over the counter, and take advantage of all the other things Montana has to offer. I understand the bitching about higher tag fees, hell I would too. But what chaps me is the bitching and whining by those who feel entitled to come out and shoot shcit for free. There's not much I can do about what money gets sent where, but I can choose where I live and what I do to earn a buck. If hunting in MT is that important to you then relocate. Or buy some property here, and live elsewhere and bitch about not getting to pay resident license fees.

Pretty soon it's all going to be [bleep] up w/ deer leases and what not anyway, so I intend on squeezing as much out of it with the time I've got as I can.

Lots of folks are young! I started hunting in Colorado when a deer tag...for 3 deer was $37.50; elk was $50.00!!

I need to chirp in here. If you don't like paying non-resident fees move to the state of your choice and live with the consequences of doing so. But quit whining! I hunt WY, MY, CO, AZ, AK, ME and TX and don't bitch about the non-res tag costs. Try AZ they make you buy a $158 license to get pref point!

Just glad I was never bit by the fast car bug (aka drag racing or stock cars) now that is serious $$.

Secondly I wish and I actually bug our Guts & Feathers Department to cut back on friggin deer tags! They micro manage the damn antelope by area and manage mule deer by region. They sell more stinkin tags than Doans has pills! I want to see quality mule deer again where I have seen them 25 years ago....but no! All they hear is hunters want numbers and aren't concerned about quality. Bullsheit!

Want I would like to see is hunters be more responsible, both Resident and Non - Resident by leaving the smaller bucks to grow up. IF all you are going to do is shoot the first dang deer ya see for the freezer shoot a DOE. The dorks that kill all the small bucks are ruining the deer hunting here.

Last time I hunted Montana a non-res deer tag was $36 IIRC

Hmmmm....now we know why they're so many golf clubs! Green fees...must look cheap to those with the clubs!!

All you guys buy you a good Sharps rifle from Shiloh Rifle up in Big Timber....and they don't charge squat for going out and bustin rocks!!

Simple solution for all of the whiners. If you want to pay resident license fees, move to the state you think so highly of. The game belongs to the citizens of a given state. The amount of federal dollars that the state accepts compared to what it pays in has nothing to do with wildlife management and license fees. Come on out to MT and spend as much time on "your" federal land as you want - just don't shoot at any of "our" wildlife unless you pay us. Of course you know that the citizens of MT own just as large of a chunk of that federal land as you so the premise of closing it to hunting doesn't hold any water. Eastern MT could use more residents - why don't you pack your kit and move out here? Otherwise maybe you should stay home, sell your gear real cheap in the classifieds so I can afford it (wages in MT are really low), and complain some more. I paid over $1000 for my WY elk tag last year - Worth every penny!

In missouri you can a buy a any deer tag OTC for $225 and all the doe tags you want for $7 apiece. I don't think thats out of line. A working class guy can come here and hunt on public ground. A lot of farms are leased by non-residents because its a for sure tag.

I don't mind paying higher prices as a non-resident but when a resident tag is $16 and non-residents is $542 that is down right stealing. Thats not counting that you have to apply and they keep your money till they decide to mail it back minus a fee. There needs to some type of limit in place. Even to acquire points the fee for non-residents is $20 and residents $2. There is no more work keeping track of points for non-residents than it is residents.

Dink

When Montana just about lost all thier muledeer and elk because of over harvesting I am sure the federal ground that is there helped them get the muledeer and elk back. I bet they used federal money to help them bring them back too.

I keep hearing about how low the wages are in MT but it seems like alot of the guys that live there make it to places like Alaska and Africa. I am betting its like anywhere else if you work hard you do alright.

So you bought a special elk tag from wyoming but voted to do away with outfitter tags.....hmmm.

Dink

Again I have missed that conversation. Where was it?

What I have noticed in this and other conversations is a lack of willingness by most westerners to have a reasonable conversation on what is a reasonable ratio of cost. Instead the typical response is sarcasm, name calling, and other attacks. I can only conclude that they cannot defend their postions rationally and are a bit embarrassed at feeding on the public teat.

When the time comes that it bites them in the butts we will see who that picture of the little blond boy really fits. I would really like to see some facts and figures combined with a reasoned discussion on their part.

Well I own some land in CT not much just about 80 acres in East Haddam. I have Nature Conservancy on one side, Town of East Haddam open Space on another, East Haddam Fish and game on another. I am on the end of the paved road, yea it goes dirt even in CT. I have stopped allowing anybody to hunt on my property due to just plane rudeness and it became a god given thing. As for my costs to shoot a white tail this year, well the state lets me have tags for 0, but they cut my season from 365 days at one time to just November to the last day in December for rifle and no you can not hunt on Sunday. Oh I wish my property taxes was just 900 a year. Sorry fact of the matter out side of hunting near home and even then it was never really cheap compared to other things at the time, hunting out of state always was an expensive thing for the non resident.

Big difference between a special tag and a guaranteed outfitter tag. I damm sure didn't pay an outfitter or a trespass fee to hunt in WY. Whatever it is that you're paying to hunt on that place that you lease is too much. Take that money and apply it to your tag, it would be free then or near to it. There are hundreds of excellent places to hunt mule deer in MT for free - problem solved - you can thank me later.

No one's holding a gun to yer head.. Quit whimpering and either pony up to play, or stay home.

As Muledeer pointed out..supply and demand. The Rocky Mountain states have what many of us want. Since supply is limited, price rises enough to push demand down until it meets supply. Boys, that's called the free market.

Since the vast majority of MT wildlife budget is collected from NR license fees, we shall see how the most recent stroke of genius works out! The sad part is that some hard working guides and outfitters are going to be hurt.

Charge us NR guys what the market will bear. My thinking on my last trip was like sharpsguy...Africa looks cheap compared to MT! Rather than spend what MT wanted, I went to Namibia.

405wcf

Willful blindness doesn't help you. Yes I injected some sarcasm. How is buying a tag and hunting in a state I live in feeding on the public teat? It's nice to be able to hunt other states when and if you have the means. But residents of other states have no right to set the price of a tag regardless how self-riteous they think themselves. I fail to see why this needs to be so complicated. If you want to hunt it that bad, move there. Or bitch about the price, either makes sense to me. But to sit there and come up with some convoluted reason to justify a bullchit idea that you have the RIGHT to not only hunt here, but to set the price for tags doesn't wash with me.

US population 1970: 203 million
US population 2010: 308 million

More people, less access, higher fees, more competion.

You guys need to look at what Iowa charges for a non-resident to hunt deer? Ends up being $558

http://www.iowadnr.gov/law/files/huntingregs.pdf


Nebraska non-res deer $521
http://outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunting/guides/biggame/deer/BGdeer.asp

quit yer whining about western states. Wyoming non-resident deer are a bargain compared to that.


Wyoming DEER Nonresident $312.00

http://gf.state.wy.us/fiscal/license/licprices/default.aspx

NOBODY from one state has a RIGHT to another states wildlife.

Actually Wyoming, Idaho & Arizona have great nonresident youth hunting programs with the tags & license fees much less than an adult has to pay.

New Mexico has great hunts that are for youths, the tags in NM cost the same for youth, but their odds of drawing are pretty darn good even in trophy areas (will change with the new 2% NR cap though).

I applied my son for many of these over the years and it really made it affordable, where I might not have been able to swing it otherwise.
The biggest detriment to youth hunters these days is the preference point creep.
In several of the best trophy producing areas I don't think a kid stands a chance in a lifetime of applying, since there are so many applicants ahead of them and so few tags drawn.
It virtually eliminates all but those at the max point level and those very close to it.

More chow for the wolves

Here's a question for all the out of state cry babies.

Where do you think most of the game winter? Private or public ground?
And yes I'm aware that some landowners receive damage payments but the majority just deal with it as they are generally understanding that a tough winter happens once inawhile.

Whiners, when you gonna come herd YOUR deer and elk off the haystack?


[bleep] sakes, some douchebag 1000 miles away bitching about HIS herd in Montana.....seriously?

Yep.. I think he should come here and share his views.

I've been on both sides of the fence.
lived on a cattle ranch for quite a while & hunting season was a big fat pain in the ass.
I was always running trespassers off, picking up garbage etc...
By the same token I've humbly knocked on doors pleading for hunting permission and when you're sporting California plates that don't come easy.

I have damn good hunting here, but am always trying to scratch that itch.
Even if I lived in Montana or Wyoming, I'd be applying in other states as well.
Everyone is a non resident if they hunt enough.



Hunting in other states is a privellege.
I'll continue to pay the goin rate till I can't go no more.
Ain't no sniveling here.

Just got in from sledding grain to his majesty's flock of birds.

Maybe if we're lucky he'll let us shoot one this Fall....grin

I can't wait to get after 'em again.

Man, did I see some critters this week up north..

You out for work or on a tour with the fam?


Funny story about Wolf Creek.
Couple years ago there was a teacher from Cali who had visited Wolf Creek and really liked it.
She signs up for a teaching job in Wolf Point, gets off the airplane and says this isn't Wolf Creek!

No chit lady, you're only off by 400 or 500 miles....

I have so much [bleep] money I can hunt anywhere.


Travis

Not to hijack the thread. I was just curious how Northeastern Wyoming is looking for deer and antelope numbers? Any die off?
We hunted near Gillete last year and did ok on antelope but mulie bucks were a little scarce.

Bill/WI

WP is waaay prettier....


Travis

PM drhjh. he has the info

ooops..

Some of the boys in the local watering hole at Wuff Creek would sure enjoy our out-of-stater's ideas on hunting entitlement..

Was up that way working on a client's ranch. You know who..

Heck, let the states charge whatever they want for tags, and the feds start charging a $100 a day use fee on Federal ground for all, resident or not. Works for me Russ

One of the reasons some states get more money than the federal government collects from the residents of the state involves the percentage of land in the state owned by the federal government. That is land the state cannot tax, open up for private business or colelct property taxes on.




In all, the federal government owns about a third of the total land mass in the US. And that is heavily skewed in the Western States.

That reaffirms my belief about Texas.

This thread does the same about Texans.

Great image, very telling.

Then again not all public land is accessible. Much of it is landlocked by private.

The public land hunting in FL really sucks. A lease in AL runs $1500.00 or better and you have to buy a license on top of that.

You mean the tax payers might get a return on investment that would benefit all citizens?

We were thinking about going on a group hunt to Oregon last year.......then we saw the nonresident fees and said, "Yeah, no."

Not complaining, as that's life. We'll save our pennies and go next year.

Brian.

Oregon is one of 7 states I'll be in for this year.
I suspect I'll be doing a southern Oregon Blacktail hunt with my bow this year.

Best thing about the Point is not many people like it....(grin)

Why ain't nobody bitchin about NE and IA NR costs?

I have never met a rancher/farmer that did not recieve some type of payment from the goverment. I don't blame them I would do it too but I am sure if elk and muledeer are eating all the crops or hay they are getting a check for it somehow.

There are just to many "programs" for a rancher/farmer not be getting a check for something. They have websites and magazines (so I have been told) that tells ranchers/farmers what they can get paid for.

Dink

the new editor is liking it well enough but he is spending alot of time drinking with Neubauer on the weekends also got him hooked on bison and he is ready to do a hit and run on tribal ranch to fill his freezer

I think they are out of line too but Iowa does not have near the federal ground that the west does. I have had the chance to hunt Iowa a couple times and refuse to do so because of the cost and I hate slugs.

Dink

Between non resident tag increases, limited draws and increasingly high gas prices, a guy is going to have to prioritize his adventures.

I am familiar with CRP and other conservation programs. There are also payments for BMA's and conservation easements. You get paid not to farm, get paid not to graze, hell get paid to do nothing.

That must explain why all farmers and ranchers are rich and have alot of free time.

Saving a thousand dollars a year is an EASY thing to do, with some very simple lifestyle changes. If anything, higher tag costs will eliminate the trash hunters, and let the dedicated guys really get after it.

There it is in a fricken nutshell.

Is that the hunt in the Grants Pass area in December? If so, my cousin hunts that quite a bit. Says it's pretty damn good up there.

Brian.

Trash hunters?


Sorry but $$$ doesn't buy class.

no chit, some of the worst are usually those out of staters pulling a new camper and a new trailer pulling 4 new quads......guys i have the most fun chatting with are the old dudes driving beat to chit pickups.......

The trashiest hunters I've ever seen were rich guys.

Brian.

If you go back to my earliest posts in this tread I included ALL states including by name my own state of Texas.

I will repeat, quit whining or move...period.

You don't have to be rich to be able to stash away $2.50 a day for a deer/elk tag...

My point being that if you can't save up the money, then you probably aren't that dedicated of a hunter anyway.

Pixx off!

Nope I have bought a seat in this discussion. Just because you don't like my stand and can't make an intelligent argument is not a reason for ME to leave.

I include all states when discussing ratios but it seems to me the Western states have the weakest arguments against it.

Just when did I not make an intelligent response to your comments?

Quicher bitchen and move! the whining about high prices is over. Hell I pay $158 for a license just for the privilege of purchasing a $7.50 Pref point in AZ! I m not complaining. The residents deserve to get a better deal in their own state, public land or not. If you think public land is so good to hunt I have 25 sections I can take you to in October....bring your kevlar vest and that ain't no schitt. I quit hunting the general season for anything on public land many, many years ago!

its state dollars not federal dollars that pay for the vast majority of wildlife management in the states.....as i said you dont want the [bleep] feds involved cause then yah get wolves and they protect wild horses and burros that destroy the environment and push out mule deer and desert bighorns.....thats what yah get when DC is in charge of wildlife management....

Yep lets transplant horses, burros, wolves, grizzlies ,more coyotes and thousands of sodrats to the eastern states!

Calvin, I know what you meant and I agree to a certain point.
Honestly I hope MT(or whoever) hasn't price average dudes out of the experience.

At least it's a draw for the good tags so everybody gets a chance.

Last fall MT allowed kids to hunt a day before adults. Cool deal.

lets give them some of the bison those back east seem to think can be fenced in with a 3 strand barbwire fence

yep them too!

Send the coyotes and sod rats my way, we are running out of self erecting rifle targets in Iowa (grin) Russ

you want the plague that goes with the sod rats?

Sure, the sylvanic will take care of the hawks Russ

you obviously haven't seen the results...

yes I have Russ

Then come on out I will show you hundreds of square miles where sodrats used to be. It went up every drainage like wild fire.

Show me were I ever said they should not have a better deal. In fact every argument I have made supports that they get a better deal. The question becomes how much a better deal. That applies to both allocations and fees. For the start of the converstaion I suggest they have a 5:1 advantage.

I thought you guys were complaining about having them??????? And this happens every how many years??? Kind of like mange and canine distemper in the coyotes Russ

I think that non-res should get 10% of the tags.

I think we agreed to that quite a while back. I hear the would damage and living near Yuma for a while I know the damage of wild horses and burros. I do believe that the current inequities invite Federal intervention if not adjusted.

I am not the one whining about prices and I do hunt multiple states. I just made a statement.

got that too. I have never complained about sod rats. You are a bit liberal with "you guys"........need some rattlesnakes?

That would make a non res license in WY for deer $480 instead of $312.....OK! Cool!

That'd be the one.

Better yet lets all work together to repeal the federal restrictions and establish seasons on set by states on horses and burros, grizzly and wolves. Coyotes are doing fine in the east and are often larger and more aggressive having cross bred with wolves along the way in the northeast.

That might be the negotiated point.

There's a large gap between "not that dedicated" and "trash".

Brian.

Thats a laugh as a liberal (sic) could'nt be further from it, no we have plenty of eastern diamondbacks, masasagas and copperheads and a a few moccassins now and again off the river. Russ

i dont have a complaint bout any critter here, except the damn wolves and most of that has to do with us not being allowed to control them.....

statements me and elk made had more to do with how alot of ppl out east have no clue what it means to really live with wildlife year round.....and they were general statements.....whole lot of ppl see bison and griz and moose on disney type wildlife shows and dont realize how dangerous and unpredictable they can be...they see cute prairie dogs taking care of their young not realizing they eat the grass roots and all in a dry year or that they carry diseases like bubonic plague.....

never forget an out of stater stopping to chat while i was glassing some speed goats and asked what i was looking at, said pronghorn, guy picks up his binocs and says "so thats what they look like, ive got a tag for one"

I am not sure what that is in response to but perhaps it means you can not show where I called for an even deal for non-residents and had to back off?

I meant with the usage of the term "you guys"! Don't read into it what isn't there. I did not refer to you as a Liberal.

If Montana opens a season this fall I'll come out & try to help you out with that there problem...

I'd give an amen to that.


Travis

I sure hope Wyoming gets on the boat!

would be well worth it, by the way if you look at the fees for Iowa non res tags that you posted it is for 2 deer Russ

I guess I'll keep on buying the super tags for montana bighorn. Odds are against me, but if I score, yippie.

I am offering tampon necklaces for all of those who feel that the amount of federal land in a state should determine the price of NR hunting licenses -- I will sell them for the same price that I paid for the tampons being you seem to be a frugal group. What better way to identify yourself as a sniveling bisch? Let that estrogen flow and make a statement! $5.95 each + 49.95 shipping for those that live outside MT.

hmmm...you can get an additional antlerless here for $34. Can shoot 2 bucks on that IA tag?

it's not just out west, Virginia non-resident hunting license fees are going up substantially as well.

Show me where anyone has proposed a different standard for the western states than any other. I know I have proposed the same standard for all states. I have said that western states are in a particularly weak position given their dependency on federal dollars and land.

Sam - WP is the big city, lots of people must like it.

I understand completely, I'm an Iowa country boy that has hunted in Montana extensively and have family in Laurel. Fact of the matter is to keep the sport we have continueing to future we need to clean up and police ourselves and make the opportunities availible to people of all finacial status, and anyone wants to come out to my neck of the woods for big whitetails, turkeys or walleyes I am more than willing to help them setup do it yourself trips Russ

we are not any more dependent on federal dollars than Texas......we just dont get to collect taxes on 40% of the land we do have and the feds want the roads through that 40% of their land maintained and want the states to do it, hence the federal road monies that make up the majority of the money we get that your beotching about....

nope 1 any and 1 anterless only if I read the regs right, but there is the holiday NON RES only for $78 Russ

Thanks Elkhunter

Nope just think because you have large tracts of federal land availible to you, you should not think it is yours alone Russ

never said the land was ours, said the animals were......come up here and use the federal land, just dont beotch you only want to use it one week a year and what yah want to do is hunt.....lots of hiking, camping and fishing can be done on it.....course the feds expect the states to manage the fisheries too so your gonna have to buy an over priced state fishing license....

taking a drive through Montana, one can sure see all those federal dollars just blanketing the state in huge drifts of government funded cash and projects..

What a freekin' joke.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw in New Mexico years back:

"If Texas Is So Great, What the Hell Are They All Doing here?"

My reponse was posted to tampon boy above, not you rattler Russ

Think you better dig a little deeper on that to get your information. Without nonresidents subsidies in virtually every aspect of your life you could have an economy only a little better than Mexicos. Road funds account for some but so do federal jobs, grants, education funds, medicaide, farm allotments and much more plus the bargain basement timber costs and grazing leases that help support your economy, but are not calculated.

so move......................

Now you have it Russ - You sound just like a chick. Are you stomping your feet?

No, better stay here and help keep your state afloat.

Then quit whining....My state is doing quite fine. one of the few with a budget surplus.

Sound like a chick? No not stomping my feet at all' Just curious as to how you run your computer out on the range with the sheep, mutton for supper again? Well the best part of your night will be with your newest girlfriend, don't forget your velcro gloves Russ

here that Sam, you guys get bargain basement prices for that great grazing land your dad runs cows on in the summer......the chit that has bare gumbo over 50% of it.....grazing rights are sold cheap cause the ground is chit and unusable for anything but grazing a few cows.....if it was good for anything else they would have plowed it under for wheat and barley when the fed was giving land away.....

We all have those new internet phones.
They work great out in the sheep shed.

those that don't live here have nary a clue....they think it is the garden of eden. move here, adapt or shut up is what I say

Sam now that is funny Russ

It's great country, just takes a few more acres to run critters.

Not whining, just discussing a topic. When you have responded with something beginning to approach reasonable discussion and get a rsponse I note you simply shift to a new argument without ever completing discussion of the first. Resorting to accusations of whining an such simply shows the weakness of your position. I suspect you are scared because you see the possibilities and simply wish to limit discussion.

which is why the grazing rights are cheap, need alot of ground to run cows.....it does produce great tasting beef though, just cant run alot on it compared to someplace that gets rain real regular.......

Reasonable discussion?

That would be that Montana would be Mexico without texass tax dollars? And that we should make up for it by cutting your NR tag fees?

Put the pills down..

nope just see a lot of whining and complaining going on.....

put up, move or shut up. It ain't going to change. you want to banter got find a mirror. I don't bitch about non res fees. I just apply where I want to, pay the price and go about my business.

funny thing bout the list of things he rattled off about.....Road funds account for some but so do federal jobs, grants, education funds, medicaide, farm allotments and much more......doesnt Texas receive the same sorts of funds?

Not Texas funds, non-resident funding. Nor have I proposed anything not proposed tro apply to all states.

Texass has larger road projects than our entire road budget.

Last time I was in Montana your roads sucked, you guys need to get them fixed (grin) Russ

Yes, at a return of 96 cents on the dollar unlike Montana receiving $1.58 on the dollar.

Yup with 4 major interstates that are arteries in the national economy and how many more times of land to cross? Texans also pay for a much higher percentage in covering the cost as indicated by returns on tax dollars

yet in Montana the state is expected to keep up most the roads through 40% of the land in the state that the state cant collect taxes on.......which is where alot of the money over what we pay in and get back from the feds go for, the fact that the feds want these roads kept up.....sounds like his beotch should be with DC which is who says we need to do the road projects and than gives us money to do them......take that out and we really dont get much more money than Texas on a per dollar paid in basis, cause most the chit like medicaid, federal jobs, grants and such Texas gets aswell they just have more land they can tax and make up the difference and not need as much back....

You are referring to fuel taxes there...not game and fish monies.apples and oranges.

Russ - sheep jokes are lame. On the other hand, you've never been happy until you've been with a bottle calf.

Actually not an unreasonble argument. But again it does not address the situation that will someday have an ending none of us want, which is greater Federal involvement. My first choice would be a bit of self restraint followed by a standard applicable to all states.

But tell me how do YOU make them let go (grin) Russ

ROFL, you were the one talking the highway costs to which I responded. You were the first of the two of us to talk those apples and oranges.

WTF are you talking about? I never mentioned fuel taxes until that post. What the hell are you drinking man?

Rattler now way can montana (or any western state) pay for thier own infastructure. There is not enough people there to support itself.

With that federal money comes jobs and lots of them. Who works on the road crews? Where do they spend that money?

I have said this before but if the state owns all the wildlife how come when you hit one they are not responsible for it? Oh that rights they don't own it.

Don't worry though when they bleed all the non-residents for all they can get they can only get more money one other place.

Dink

Dink, you truly are dense.... think for second.

You hit it, with your car.

Your fault you dumbphucker!

I was responding to this post of yours:

"Texass has larger road projects than our entire road budget."

Again the sarcasm of your spelling shows the weakness of your arguments. Sorry to disappoint you but I quit drinking in 1991 right after Desert Storm.

DINK - Why don't you just move to MT? Deputies make decent money out here and you could just buy a license over the counter for deer, elk, bear, upland, waterfowl, and fishing for $85. I'd like to hunt in a lot of different places, when I get the opportunity to hunt those places I will pay the price and enjoy my hunt - that's just the way it is. You can pizz and moan all night and that's not gonna change.

Russ - Never really thought about it... Why would you want it to?

bet we could pay for what we need.....whole lot of federal dollars are for infrastructure the feds want us to have....hell i aint that old and i drive on some paved roads paid for by federal dollars that i drove on when they were gravel....

feds dont chip in when i make the 600 mile round trip to see a specialist or the 200 mile round trip for a decent dentist....i put up with the extra costs cause i like living in the middle of nowhere, would live here without some of the infrastructure.....

what you seem to forget is Montana is a producer that makes products ppl in other states want, we produce and export a hell of alot of power via hydroelectric, coal and natural gas power plants......we export oil, timber, beef, wheat, barley, sugar, hell we even supply some of the finest sapphires in the world onto the jewelry market...hell this whole thread is about a natural resource ppl want to pay for.....

we have products ppl want, dont doubt we could support the infrastructure we need to get it to market.....

You brought up the bottle calves,figured you were the expert Russ Ranger 1 time to go to bed with the farmers daughter, sleep tight with your bottle calves. We can take this up in the morning Russ

I would love to move west but my wife won't go. I hope both of my boys move west.

Don't get me wrong I am bitching about $600 deer tags. I don't mind paying more because I choose to live in a place where I can go down the street and buy a gallon of milk but $600 to $16 is just out touch. If sportsman do not make a stand against high license fee we are all going to loose. The non-residents will be first but make no mistake residents are next.

I am only paying the price because of the trespass fee being lowered. I will pay it and be over it hopefully by the time October gets here and enjoy the hunt. Whats the price gonna be next year when the residents of Montana decide that non-residents need to pay for something else? $1000 deer tag? $2000 elk tag? If Montana keeps getting these high prices for tags it won't be long that non-residents will be getting more tags than residents. Why sell a tag to a resident for $16 when a non-resident will give you a $1000 for it? I bet there is some complaining when that takes place then.

whole lot is also done behind the scenes outside of fees......ive donated more that your paying for deer and speed goat tags to improve warm water fishing in the state last year, getting ready to do it again this year in a couple weeks....yet anyone gets to benefit from the results...and i do this likely making less than most coming to hunt and fish do.....

dont see anyone beotching bout the high tag prices giving Sam money for the hay the deer are eating or the grain he is throwing out for the grouse and ditch pigeons at his dads place.....feds aint giving him money to toss it on the ground and before you beotch bout federal programs helping farmers and ranchers the farmer and ranchers in your home states get the same.....

the animals are managed by the state with state dollars, not federal dollars.....same money would be spent if 1% of the land was federal and not 40%.....with the federal land you dont have to pay to access it.....your not paying to hunt on federal land your paying the state for a tag to hunt state managed animals that happen to be on federal land when your out here.....2 months later they are often on private land eating haystacks....

If you ever counted the Texas license plates in Montana, you would know for sure the monetary support from the "Lone Star State" is still less than the wear they ad to our highways...

Yes Rattler and many of us belong to the RMEF even if we have not hunted them in years and have none in our states along with other organizations that benefit all states like DU.

Shrapnel, I suspect that is unlikely buy the time they pay gas taxes in your state.

gonna send Sam money for feeding the birds and deer? he aint getting money from DU or RMEF to do so....especially given his dad really cant apply for depredation permits for his haystacks and he is feeding birds he has to pay through the nose to hunt given they are on the rez?

we have had record setting snowfall this winter, killing deer and speed goats left and right and im betting all im gonna hear from out of staters is the cost of tags and the fact there are fewer tags than normal this year......

dont see those in western states beotch bout paying similar prices to hunt elsewhere in the west.....just see those in the east beotching bout western prices......guess those in the west figured out that it just costs more to do business out here.....hell im looking to go to Australia and pay through the nose to shoot critters that are considered varmints down there but ive got to pay to play, instead of beotching bout it im gonna do some carpeting jobs on the side to pay for it.....

everything costs money, pay up or do without.....you dont want to live here and deal with lower wages, i deal with lower wages and spending lots on gas on top of the normal doc and dentist charges to go and see them.....

animals are the property of the residents of the state, state sets the prices.....aint like i havent voted to increase or add to my license fees so more money can be spent on improving fishing and hunting in this state, ive got no problem paying more.....i live in Montana cause easy access to hunting, fishing and hiking are more important to me than my bank account balance....dont like the prices dont come here, enough dont come here and the prices may drop....

If sam wants to let me hunt for a trespass fee he could use that money to feed the birds and deer..grin.

Dink

you cant hunt deer where they are eating up his haystacks, your skin is the wrong color......werent for the fact my skin is the wrong color aswell i would have whacked and stacked bout 6 of them this fall if he was willing to help me skin and quarter them.....you can hunt deer where they run cows in the summer for free and a chunk of it is private ground that anyone can hunt on for the price of stopping and signing in at a gate.....

bird hunting on his dads place would be $75 over and above anything the state requires.....

I have hunted one place in montana that I had to stop and sign in. There must of have been 500 people on that piece of ground that day.

Dink

not that many out where his dad runs cows, infact my wife got her buck this year out there as did a friend of mine......you do realize its a big [bleep] state and things arent the same everywhere in it......

Yeah I know its a big state...grin. The problem is with being a out of stater its hard to tell what is good walk in property and what is bad by looking at a map. Thats one of the reason I pay the trespass fee. I know when I get there that the only guys on that piece property are the ones that come with me.

I think there are probaly just as good of bucks on public ground but I don't have the time to sort out whats good public ground and bad public ground in 5 days of hunting.

Dink

public versus private matters lil, been on plenty of private ground that didnt hold chit for deer.....public ground is just as quick to sort out as private and other hunters can be an advantage if yah know how to hunt....find a large chunk of public ground and get off your arse and get walk away from the road.....once you get 1/4 mile from a road your away for 98% of other hunters, no matter if your hunting the mountains or the flats.....

The funny part is down on one the hunting forums here they are complaining about Colorado's $500 nonresident elk licenses.....

Altjaeger:
--True, most states in the interior west receive more federal tax dollars then they pay, but some of that has to do with the managment of federal lands. When Colorado became a donor state instead of a receiver state 10+ years ago, the Denver Post trumpeted that fact.

--The Supreme Court decision that allows states to discriminate between residents vs nonresidents in fees and quotas occurred ~175 years ago--there was no 9th Circuit back then. Indeed, it had to do with clam digging fees in Massachusetts that a Conneticut clam digger resented (you see, this argument has been going on for almost 2 centuries).

--The authority for states to discriminate has been upheld in fed courts time and again--Google US Outfitters vs New Mexico.

Rattler:
--The federal taxpayer and American citizens paid for these federal lands with money and blood. The states were very happy to let the feds deal with the costs. Remember Sewards Folly.

--If American citizens want to get their money out of federal lands here in the west, then let the federal government sell it to the highest bidder--but that wouldn't be you and me, that would be the Ted Turners, Oprah Winfreys, and Saudi shieks of the world who would own that land.

--Besides, the states couldn't afford to manage it--they would sell it too. Or they would take the quick and profitable way out and sell off the resources, and there wouldn't be any wildlife habitat left. See current state budgets.

Sam is right:
--There is a huge disparity in the economies of the interior west versus other more urban states (Denver, Salt Lake, etc, not withstanding--but we don't consider them residents )
Not to mention the former working cattle ranches that were once available for hunting just for the asking--now owned by nonresidents who a) aren't here very much, b) who have closed off the hunting to locals, c) charge exorbant fees (primarily to nonresidents who appear to be more than willing to pay) for the privilege of hunting on their land.

--If a person wants to pay less for his elk tag, then let them move here and make less money.

As usual, Mule Deer is right, wildlife are a finite resource in a (for now) infinitely expanding human population. Wildlife habitat is NOT expanding--quite the opposite. And THAT is what is driving license fees.

If every Campfire member who has ever bought a nonresident elk tag stops buying one, it would not make a dent in the numbers of folks who come elk hunting. Regardless of Colorado's latest ad campaign trying to attract more nonresident elk hunters........

Sport hunting was traditionally the sport of the rich or very dedicated. The average "middle class" guy hunted for food somewhere out his back door. The average guy did not travel hundreds or thousands of miles to go sport hunting.

It was only post WWII that the middle class had enough discretionary income to start what became the whole "sport hunting" industry that we know today.

In some ways, we are returning to that kind of pre WWII hunting--reserved for the wealthy, upper middle class, or the very dedicated.....for better or worse.


Casey

Agreed.....pay to play or stay home and quit complaining.

Count yourself among the lucky one's having a place to go....I have guys beating my door to hunt some of my places....thankfully, I just don't "control" that priviledge...but have "paid" for it over the years in cash and/or good will and developing friendships along the way.

I consider myself priviledged to be that lucky.

Damn you are an arrogant one. Sorry to deflate your ego but that was a simple typo I didn't catch. Hard to type with a bandaged finger or 2. I have lots of friends and relatives in Texas but they don't whine like you.

The reference to budgets was in response to your statement of federal monies and proportionate funding. it was a simple analogy, nothing more.

Put up or shut up, stay or move, but quit whining. With that I say adios.

Exactamundo..in response to responses to my earlier crying baby post...yep, like Bob I have been fortunate enough to do a little hunting here and there...If I run into a state or venue that I cannot afford, or simply think is overpriced ( and there have been PLENTY....) I simply don't go there to hunt...
I don't think or know that the lack of my business has hurt them or their feelers, but it doesn't matter...it is not, as we say, Rocket Surgery....If it costs too much for whatever reason, don't do it...

It maybe a typo, but it is one you have committed at least twice in this thread so I call that highly doubtful if I want to be nice. I am not whining, but discussing real possibilities for the West.

Yup an example given and answered.

Alpinecrick, good post. The U.S. Outfitters post is the case I was referring to when discussing the Crazy Ninth. Courts as I am sure you know rule on law and Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution to my knowledge would prohibit Congress from claiming Interstate Commmerce as they have so many times and making law. They have certainly been effective in the catastrophic Wild Horses and Burro Act, plus the wolf reintroduction program in taking control of hunting regulations. None of us want that.

I am not writing Congress to change laws and regulate this, nor encouraging others to do so. Unless my legs or lungs give out first I suspect I will pay the freight in Colorado to hunt with my son and son-in-law in Colorado a few times yet.

My point is that the western game agencies are placing themselves in danger of having controls placed on them. The resident hunters bluster and bravado is encouraging that and simply another form of burying their head in the sand.

Heaven have mercy on my soul! I made 2 tyos! Oh woe is me! Like I said, kind of hard to type with bandaged fingers. Don't beleive me, I simply don't care. Now go argue with your self some more, I need to apply for my inexpensive Wyoming hunting licenses.

An astute observation. Thirty years ago when I got my German jagdschein (hunting license) after completing the classes to do so I made the observation then that in time the United States would move to a more European like system over time based on what I had seen growing up in Texas and read of in other states. There it is as you say a reflection of wealth or the dedication to the sport. That is that more and more land would close to a leasing system of hunting rights. Demands on public land would increase and become more restricted to manage that demand.

Today the public land out west is managed by a lottery system much as the public land in Germany is. Texas has a special program where large acreage holders (owners or leasors) can have the state develop a recommended program with special permits and seasons along with the ability to control much of the management similar to German programs. I considered and consider these results inevitable over time. As seen in England that has over time allowed the animal rights activist to become more politically active and viable because there are fewer hunters and honestly a bit of wealth envy involved.

I would rather see honest, sincere debate and discussion allowing us to control it instead some political block that leads to a situation like the New Jersey bear hunting wars.

We do agree on the basics, for sure. They are what they are.

I think you are correct and I am not trying to adjutate change but cause serious thought to possible changes. Our differences are only in degrees.

The high cost of non-resident tag fees is what keeps us smiling while listening to tourists drivel.

The merchants who serve you aren't smiling, and many depend upon tourists. That isn't drivel. I live in a tourist-supported State and know how their loss affects us all.

But...keep that goofy grin.

Thanks for again proving that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Your proportionate "analysis" doesn't wash due to the size of our state, population, and amount of federal land.

The non-resident fee increase is a PITTANCE when put into context of the total cost of a non-resident hunt. I see you guys show up in your new yuppie suvs', struttin' around town in your Sitka and Underoos, all of which you bought in some big box store in another state. Then you buy maybe a few hundred bucks worth of meals and lodging and want us local yokels to bow when you pass by.

The guy that started this discussion has a home here AND in Nevada, and $100 is gonna' break him.

Good riddance.

Case in point.

LMAO...

Tourist drivel does get to be tedious, for sure.

How many $200 pittances does it take to effect the total cost of out of state hunt? I can't buy just a deer tag in Montana it has to come with fishing license, small game license, conservation stamp (I really like that one. I guess the cost of the deer tag is not for conservation). I wonder why it has to come with all that other chit?...Oh yeah money.

Dink

How much do you pay for your lease again?

Not a whole lot more than what it would cost me to stay in motel and hunt public ground for five or six days.

Yes I can afford the extra $200 for tag but I could also afford to give a crack whore $200 a week. Just because I can afford it does mean I like paying it.

Dink

How much?

That's not the real issue. Most Western states & Alaska had been requesting state control of all licensing within their state. What was driving this was the desire to have total unregulated control of license cost. Both Democrats & Republicans supported the bill introduced by Harry Reid. Before sportsmen groups could respond including the Congressional Sportsman Caucus the bill was passed. Most of us didn't support any Federal control of hunting & fishing licenses, but a thorough discussion of the benefits & deficiencies of the bill. One of my concerns was that even on Federal land non-residents would be squeezed out. With the yearly decline in hunting licenses purchased the last thing our sport needed was passing this bill without debate. This is exactly what happened & many of us involved in protecting hunters rights predicted this would happen. I have hunted Montana many times & love the country & people. I discussed this with a F&G official shortly after the bill was passed & was basically told that the state would continue to increase the price of non-resident licenses until they didn't sell. I have never hunted Montana since & probably never will. This entire bill will prove to be counter productive for both resident & non-resident hunters.

Since no one was going to the ranch the trespass was lowered $600 for this year. So $600 less than what it would have cost me last year........

So are you mad that the tag prices increased? Or that you have been getting rooked by a Montanan for the last couple years?
I bet he smiles whenever you talk.

I had pretty much the same opinion of Montana that you do until the trespass fee was lowered for this year. Then i justified it to myself and the guys I hunt with wanted to go back to Montana. Even though I know I am contributing to the problem of buying over priced tags.

I hate to wish bad things on hard working people that may or may not have had anything to do I161 but I sure hope that it is a very lean October and November for people that depend on hunters. What I really hope is that Montana game and fish has to do some cut backs because they are sitting on a pile of unsold tags. With Colorado advertising for more elk hunters to come to thier state it just might happen.

Dink

After reading the majority of this thread, I'm kinda puzzled. I have a bit of a time understanding how folks, who can afford land, and in some cases a second home in another state somehow find it a budget buster to have to spend say a grand on non-res tags? I also fail to see how merely owning land should somehow grant one resident status. Pretty sure you can only claim residency in one state.....so pick the one you like, and deal with the fact that you have to pay to play, in someone else's back yard. There ain't no free lunch.

I'm all for residents having priority on tags. Guides and non-res should have to suck hind teat IMO. Not saying they should be excluded, but there should be a perk for being a full time resident of a state.

Jeff

The ranch I hunt is all about the money. It is strictly business for them. Make no mistake they count on us paying those trespass fees for what ever reason. They did not want to drop the price because they were pretty reasonable to begin with but they had to because they knew we were not coming back.

Dink

What does a "pretty reasonable" hunting lease in Montana cost?

I don't care who you are, how many houses you own, whether you own land in all 50 states, you only get to be a resident of one. That residency carries with it certain benefits. One of those benefits is better access to wildlife that you own collectively with the other RESIDENTS of your home state. Not hard to understand and yet so many seem to have trouble with it.

Want to pizz and moan about something that is out of reach for a lot of people? How about leasing a ranch? I can drop $1k for a license but the $12k that a couple of guys from PA put down on a local ranch to lock out everyone else is more than anyone I know can do on a yearly basis. Leasing will kill off the next generation of hunters long before the cost of NR licenses.

I don't see where you show I lied with the figures. I might show up in a Stetson, Wranglers. My wool pants will be old NATO Surplus and underwear likely old poly pro or thermax. My SUV is a 2004 Mazda 2004 B3000 standard cab pickup and since I tent camp on my trips to just about anywhere unless I find truly cheap cabins the license constitutes a major portion of any trip I take. My rifle is likely to be an old pushfeed M70 .30-06 that was my only rifle for over 20 years and killed four species of deer and a free ranging mouflon in Germany. I have collected most my gear over a period of 40 years and buy mostly consumables such as fuel and groceries (much of which will be one pot meals cooked at home for simple reheating) so would likely leave less to the economy that the license cost. The tag is likely to represent as much as 50% of the total costs. My household income would be right at home in your state. Sorry I do not fit your stereotype, but few people will ever do so.

[quote=akjeff]After reading the majority of this thread, I'm kinda puzzled. I have a bit of a time understanding how folks, who can afford land, and in some cases a second home in another state somehow find it a budget buster to have to spend say a grand on non-res tags? I also fail to see how merely owning land should somehow grant one resident status. Pretty sure you can only claim residency in one state.....so pick the one you like, and deal with the fact that you have to pay to play, in someone else's back yard. There ain't no free lunch.






Jeff,

I have a second house, and it is in Montana. It isn't a second home, however, as I can hardly afford to live in one place, let alone another. I bought the MT house with a small inheritance and rent it for a VERY modest amount...just enough to maintain it and pay taxes and insurance. I got it for a retirement I probably will never enjoy, as things are now.

"A grand" is a fortune to me anymore, and it is to many these days, while it was much easier to budget for only two years ago.

My beef is that the prices have risen too sharply for the common man to afford. Hunting the west is rapidly becoming a wealthy man's sport. I completely agree with far higher fees for out-of-staters, but the new fees shut out average guys in no small measure.

Quotas should be set for out-of-staters, as is done presently, too. Residents have every right to first chance and better odds regarding tag allocations for the reasons I posted earlier. Still, guys with limited means need chances as well as the well-heeled and residents. I said "Chances", not guarantees.

Hunters with a lot of money have the luxury of applying to MANY hunts, too, while others may have just enough to try one special place. This also limits opportunity.

We agree in principle, Jeff.


L2S

DINK - There aren't a whole lot of people that live in MT that are going to complain if fewer hunters come here to hunt this fall. As long as there are still pheasants, deer, elk, and antelope to hunt here, there will be NR hunters coming to hunt them. And many of them will spend the price of a good used vehicle every year to make sure that none of us that live here get to hunt close to home.

Go north of Fernley Nv towards Spanish Springs and look at the holding areas where they keep the ones that won't be adopted. They have feed and water but will live out the rest of their lives in sun baked mud flat corrals.

I agree with you. There are people in this world that do have money. A guy can dream though that of the 17,000 non-resident deer combo tags that fish and game will still be holding 10,000 of them come march 15th. Of course then they would sell them for half price and really piss me off.

Dink

Funny...I have noticed the PA hunters in droves in MT. A place I hunt west of Helena was discovered by a PA MOB! They bring 20-25 people and drive the deer and elk hard for the first 2-3 days of the season, party shooting, ruining hunting for everyone else. I have seen this other places, too, in ID near Elk City. Whoever gets shots blast as many deer and elk as the tags in the party.

Why do you want to know so bad? Jealous?

Dink

With prices on the rise in all western states, it's really become a deterrent. I've never hunted big game out here, even though I live in CO and I'm not sure I'll be starting any time soon. You can hunt Africa or Europe for roughly the same money (sometimes even less), when it's all said and done.

I want to know how much money is pretty reasonable. I have a feeling it is several times the amount that fees were raised.

It has been a long time since I have posted on the Campfire.

This has not been mention on this thread yet, so I will refresh your minds:
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out of state elk hunters.[1] The Court held that the Montana statutory elk-hunting license scheme is an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource�elk�and a substantial regulatory interest of that State, and hence does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

++The Court affirmed the right of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters. Justice Blackmun found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause only applied to activities which bear "on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity." Since elk hunting is a recreational activity and not fundamental to the survival of nonresidents of Montana, Blackmun argued that it did not fall within the scope of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. "Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union," he concluded.++

Get over the fact that Montana is charging $900 plus dollars for a non resident hunting licence. I believe that come March 15, 2011 there will be over 17,000 applicants in the drawing, if not, then before September 1 all 17,000 will be sold. In the last 40 years are country's population has grown over 100 million people. Big game animals are a finite resource and the demand far exceeds the supply, how are we going to allocate the supply. One is price, the other is a drawing. A third unexplored option would be an e bay style auction which would determine the true value of a hunting licence.The State of Montana and other western states have combined a drawing with price, whether it is fair or not depends

The 17,000 hunters who have purchased a $900 combo license should have a greater disposable income and will be able to spend more money than those who are priced out. Is it fair, no, but it is an economic truth. If the owners of small businesses that depend upon revenue from hunters, then it would be wise to attach those with the most money -- more money, more money spent, more money in the till. The business owners want those who buy goods and services not bring food from home and camp out. Years ago there was a saying: a hippie brings twenty dollars and the shirt on his back and dosn't change either. I think there are some "hippie hunters" on this thread

Altjaeger feels that there should be a price ratio at 5:1. One of Jack O'connor's last articles in Outdoor Life was "The Great Non Resident Rip Off". He proposed a 5:1 ratio for non resident to resident licence fees. I have always felt that this was fair. I am a lifetime Montana resident except for four years that I lived in Alaska. I think that a non resident licence should cost $750 and a resident licence should cost $150. That is three to five ski lift tickets or four or five green fees or three or four tickets to a MSU or UM football game. Fifty dollars from the resident licence and one hundred dollars from the non resident licence should be used for Block Management. Now the residents are going to be pissed, too.

I have hunted nearly 50 years in Montana and our family always had non resident hunters in the fall. In 1998 a non resident licence cost $100 and was purchased over the counter. Gasoline cost 29.9 cents a gallon, a motel room cost five to seven dollars per night, today gas cost $2.95 a gallon and a hotel room cost $60 to $90 dollars a night. There has been a ten fold increase in prices in the last forty years, why should hunting licence's not have the same price increase. I was twenty years old in 1972 and drove to Alaska for 28 days hunting moose and caribou. I left Montana with $552 and returned home with $39 and that included an air charter. Today that some trip is over $5000, I can not afford to repeat it but I am not going to bitch.

It is time for everyone to get over it and start saving money for the things they want to do and if that is not possible then do what is possible.

I live near Lewistown, not too far north of Roundup. We have had more snow than last year, but the big problem as I see it the chinooks that came in and turn a lot of ground to ice. The animals can't get through that to get to the food. With that said we did have open ground for them to feed on prior to the last snow. Many of the storms that came through the Great Falls area went north of us thus the reason for the highline getting so much cold and snow. Great Falls is 11" above the old record for snow for the year to date so that area may have a harder hit to the game herd than here. The mountains are getting a lot of snow although I don't know the totals.

Good post

Thanks for the info.

Dink

I would not have a problem with 5 to 1 even if the tag cost $750. I do have a problem with 34 to 1 when a state is getting a $1.58 for every tax dollar they pay in. I think the only way a state should be able to charge more than 5 to 1 is if they are recieving less federal tax money than they are paying in and then there would still have to be a limit.

I can afford to do one or two out of state hunts a year. All I do is hunt and shoot. I don't own boats, motorcycles or RV's. I don't drink my money away and try not to piss my money away. For me its no so much about the money but the principle of fact that they feel the need to steal it.

Dink

Of course it cost more than the $200 that the tag fee was raised. Do you know a rancher with 50K acres or so that will let me and a few other guys muledeer hunt for $200? If you do and you provide me a name and number me and the guys that are going hunting with me will send you a very nice cash gift after the hunt takes place.

Dink

Maybe people should read the MT FWP website before jumping to conclsions. As you can see below it is only the combination licenses that are raised. Also, the NR deer draw went to $542 not $912. The $912 is for deer and elk combo. With that you can also Fish and hunt upland game birds. Doe and cow elk licenses were not effected.

MT FWP Webpage.

With the passage of voter Initiative 161 in November 2010, the cost for Montana's 2011 Nonresident Big Game and Deer Combination licenses will increase. Under the new voter-approved law, the following changes go into effect March 1, 2011:

�Outfitter Sponsored Variable Priced licenses, also known as the Outfitter Guaranteed licenses, are no longer available and the quota for those licenses are now in the general category.
�A total of 17,000 Nonresident Big Game Combination licenses, and 4,600 Deer Combination licenses, are now available via a general application process.
�Fees for Nonresident Big Game (Elk and Deer) Combination license increase from $643 to $912.
�Fees for Nonresident Deer Combination license increase from $343 to $542.
�Fees for Nonresident Elk Combination license increase from $593 to $812.
�The revenue generated by the increased license fees is earmarked to fund wildlife habitat conservation and public hunting access programs.
The fee increases only apply to Nonresident Combination licenses. Deer B, Elk B, and Antelope licenses are not affected.

With more general licenses available in 2011, drawing odds should be better than in past years. Combination licenses include Montana's Conservation license, Upland Game Bird license, and a full season Fishing license.

As you make plans, and compare 2011 hunting season costs and opportunities, we hope this information helps you to better understand the fee increase issue.


Also, one outfitter seems pretty excited about it as it will give more people the chance to draw and come out to hunt. Maybe he is just doing his best to make (as he may see it) good out of a bad situation.

Federal taxes have nothing to do with how ANY state chooses to manage its game.

As abc pointed out, prices for everything else involved in a hunt have gone up at least 10 times over the past few decades. When I started hunting in Montana, the non-resident combination license (deer, elk and black bear tags; plus upland bird and fishing licenses) cost $150. Gas cost 27 cents a gallon, and my father had just purchased a brand-new Dodge van for $2500.

Today the same licenses cost $1372 according to the Montana FWP website, gas is averaging around $2.95 a gallon, and a new Dodge van is at least $25,000. Looks to me like the Montana hunting tags are a relative bargain, since they haven't gone up as much as gas or vehicles.

Dink

You live in Missouri and I live in Montana. We both like to hunt except the hunters in your area want to come west what do you have to offer a western hunter, nothing. I can shoot a whitetail buck on my sister's family farm/ranch along the Yellowstone River in a couple of hours that would be larger than 90% of the bucks killed in Missouri. No interest.

But what about Montanans going to Alaska? There are more Alaskan hunters in Montana hunting elk, mule deer and antelope than there are Montana hunters in Alaska. I did research on this several year ago when Alaska was going to require a guide for non resident moose hunting.

Where do you get a 1:34 ratio. A Sportman's licence cost $85 which is the same as a non resident combo licence, it is more like 1:11 ratio. Wait a minute. If you are thinking only about a deer licence then maybe you are right except I do not hunt deer specific only if I see a ver large buck while elk hunting which has not happened in 12 years. I only hunt elk, antelope and unlimited sheep. I have shot so many mule deer in the early years I do not have a desire to hunt only hunt deer.

Yes...it illustrates my point.

Western hunting is for the well-to-do now, if you don't live in ID, MT, CO, or WY.

It was always a substantial cost to average guys, but it just nudged over the "possible" threshold for a great many.

With reduced opportunity in the less game rich western States for residents the joy and anticipation of hunting with friends and family each season are gone.

We have too many people and less places available. Varmint hunting isn't a substitute.

This wasn't meant to be a gripe thread. I and several others have stated the new reality. Bird hunting is taking up more of my gasoline and tire rubber now, but a dozen chuckar don't compare to 200-600 pounds of deer and elk in a freezer.

Mule Deer

I have always wanted to meet you. You and I went to U of M at the same time. Every morning I have breakfast at the Home Page Cafe in Bozeman along with others. Most morning Keith McCafferty, a Field and Stream editor, sits across from me while I read two news papers and he works on his novel or a magzine article.

He says that he sees you at the local gun shows are you going to be in Bozeman this March.

Dink,

Although I share your passion for hunting, you got to let this go. Hunting in Montana is what it is, maybe not fair in your eyes, but life isn't about fairness it's about reality.

It has been mentioned over and over about the price people pay to live in Montana. I was born and raised here, I will not leave for the same reasons you want to come here. I live where I would vacation.

You remind me of a horse with your head over the fence reaching for greener grass. The fence is there and you can do nothing about it. 14 pages and this topic is stil being argued. Nothing is going to change in the very near future. You should consider Alaska, but then the prices are worse and every outing is an expedition...

Missouri has nothing that Montana does not have but the eastern wild turkey if someone was looking for a slam.

34 to 1 is a resident deer tag is $16 and non-resident is $542. Of course the non-resident tag comes with a bunch chit that no one wants.

Like I said I don't mind paying more for not living there but 34 to 1 is just wrong.


If your sister needs anyone to control the deer population on her ranch I volunteer...grin.

Dink

That may hold true for guided hunting, but as a Do It Yourselfer from California, I still find ways to afford it on my simple wages, mostly through thoughtful budgeting.
I guess I'm an eternal optimist.

I know federal tax dollars have nothing to do with game management.

I do look as it as double dipping though. Your state takes money from other states to stay afloat then gouges non-resident on tags. So not only do tax payers get to pay for state through taxes now we have to fund who knows what with our tag money.

Dink

You are right and it is what it is. I have already decided to put in for the tag but I don't have to like it...grin.

Dink

My sister's place is in Block Management with a honey hole reserved. Maybe you will luck on to it, I will never tell.

MD...all true.

But, and also, real wages have not kept up with all this.

Like taxes, there comes a point where people can't afford the tariff anymore.

I can't blame States for gathering revenue form wherever they can find it. I can't blame residents for wanting highly limited non-resident hunter ratios, either.

We here in NV have biatched as loud as anyone about our resident tag limits and the quotas for non-residents. We had a stinking system where Non-residents could purchase guided hunt tags, while the residents could not...even for the non-resident prices!

Montana is pretty special, and I want it to stay that way. Until I move there I won't be able to avail myself to all it has to offer, however.

BTW, how does MT welfare work?

While your financial status is none of my business I wonder how you can afford to own homes in both NV and MT (One of the most expensive parts of MT by the way), but can't come up with $542 for deer and everything else that combo tag give or Elk and deer combo for $912. It is less than an additional $300 for the tags. The Elk only combo tag went up $219 to $812

Unless you were buying outfitter sponsered tags for much more than current prices chances are you didn't hunt here every year unless you are extemely lucky or hunt does. As has been pointed out doe, cow elk and antelope tags were not effected by the change, just the Combinatino licenses.

Altjaeger,

There is one common misunderstanding/assumption theat runs through these nonresident hunting license threads (and we have one about every three months, and a doozy every six months).

Namely, big game animals live exclusively on federal lands. Virtually no elk live exclusively on public lands, nor do they live exclusively on private lands. Wildlife are rather unique in our concept of private property rights in the USA--wildlife are exempt from that concept.


Feeding deer and elk for the CDOW on our family ranch in the harsh winter of 1983-84:







And New Mexico resides in the 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals--the least overturned of the circuit courts.


Casey

DINK,

There are a number of reasons for Montana getting more federal money back than its citizens pay in federal taxes:

1) It is a huge state (4th largest in area) and contains quite a few raw materials that mostly end up being transported to other states. Thus the federal highways and railroads get quite a few federal funds, so other states can receive those raw materials.

2) About 1/3 of the state is federal land, so local governments get federal payment in lieu of the taxes those lands would produce if privately owned.

3) The population is very small, still less than a million people. Wages are also lower than in most other states, I believe about 40th out of the 50 states (we beat the Deep South but not by any vast amount). Many of the corporations that produce the raw materials are headquartered out of state, so their federal taxes on Montana materials are paid by taxes that supposedly come from other states. Combine the two factors and not many federal tax dollars are produced in-state.

If you think that Montana is getting rich off "double-dipping" on federal tax money and big game license fees then you should come here and live for a while. An economics professor at Montana State University used to say that he lived here "because he'd always wanted wanted to live in a Third-World Country with good sanitation and natives that spoke English."

Alpinecrick we got what I wanted which was a real discussion. I know I may never hunt another western state unless it is Colorado with my son and son-in-law. Then I will buy a cow tag because it will be more about family, camp and new country that anything else. A bit of prime meat would be a nice bonus. Just as some moved west for the hunting one of the reason (though far from the only one)I made a career of the military was to live and hunt in a wide variety of places. I got that including a total of 6 years of Germany with Red Deer (Same species as elk), fallow deer, roe deer and a mouflon.

I don't think the system will change until it collapses. I do believe self-restraint will help prevent a collapse and the attendant pain. I proposed a 5:1 ratio as a starting point with all states including mine set to the standard. If a resident payed $200 for a tag then in my opinion the non-resident would have no legitimate beef with a $1000 tag. But that is strictly my opinion.

I know every state has its unique problems and I am not insensitive to them. I honestly believe almost everyone here is at least 80% in agreement with the differences with in range of negotiaton. Its been a good chat and I suspect it may affect personal attitudes inb ways that may surprise some of us in ourselves.

It's kinda funny that a bunch 'fire members who would lose their minds at the thought of "One World"(I'm not a fan of the concept either), but when it comes to the cost of non-res hunting fees, all states should adopt some magic ratio of res to non-res license prices. Whatever happened to letting the market set prices(which it is), or little things like states rights? Hell why not eliminate all the borders and just have one big USA and no more states. You can't be a capitalist for one aspect of your life, and a socialist for others.

Jeff

Akjeff look at this way. Lets say I write you speeding ticket and your from Alaska. Well your not from Missouri so the fine is 34x what a Missouri resident would pay. Still fair?

I know your going to say that a fine is not the same as buying a tag but if it was advertised before hand and you knew the rules what would be the difference?

Dink

For starters, speeding ain't a finite resource, it's punishment for a behavior deemed illegal by society. And if the state of MO decided to fine non-residents 34x what they would fine a resident, I simply wouldn't travel there....as I like to ride my motorcycle a little on the fast side! If enough people viewed it the same way as I, fewer non-res travelers/tourists would cause MO business people to pressure the legislators to lower the fines to encourage more nonresidents to travel(and thus, spend money) in MO. Simple economics.

You could apply the same logic to the MT non-res license fee situation. If enough people quit applying, MT FWP would likely lower the fees to encourage more nonresidents to apply for tags. Since there are far more applicants, than there are recipients, it is highly unlikely, for that to happen.

Nobody said life was fair.

Jeff

I have a 992 SF two bedroom, built in 1947 here in rural NV, where taxes are not too high. It is on 20 acres that were barren desert, but 30 years of scrimping and work, and $150,000.00 into a deep well and pump over those years gave me a small farm. The water was to be my retirement, as it was like gold here, UNTIL real estate crashed. Now it is worth $150,000.00, and I spent a gazillion more to develop the water rights. This was to be my retirement, but I needed to use a bunch of equity for an emergency. The real estate in LIBBY is far less than about anywhere else in MT...R L. Grace saw to that. Look at Libby MT Real Estate on Google and tell me it is an expensive area.

My home in Libby is only 1380SF counting the cellar, and it was built in 1935. As mentioned, I got it with a small inheritance. I bought it for an affordable place to live when I retired, which seems only a dream now. It is rented out for a small amount...what someone in Libby can afford. I'm blessed to have it, for sure, but it doesn't represent anything anyone of wealth would have.

BTW, I have it for sale.

And yet you seem to be able to come to MT and hunt, until now.

Your house in MT is about the size of what my wife and 4 kids live in.

...not since 2006...and I do miss hunting in MT, as well as the people, most of the people.

In many ways MT is like NV was when I was a kid. We had the smallest population in the 48 with a very large geographical area. We never had the game populations that MT had, but I remember seeing 500-1,000 mule deer a day in the Ruby Butte area.

BTW, I wish all you starving Montanans would quit coming here and stealing our mining jobs. We need quotas and need to tax you 10X more.

ALL kidding aside, I bet we would get along pretty well and have plenty of good lies to tell each other.

My concern about the license fees in Western states & Alaska is only part of what I see as a major deterrent to the future of hunting. I run an outdoor show in the DC area for SCI & have heard a few members & non-members, on occasion, say they wish license tags for elk, Mule Deer, caribou, sheep, etc were $5,000. The affluent can hunt any where any time they please. For what ever reason there are a lot of wealth hunters. There are also a lot more average income hunters that dream of a DIY hunt in a Western state or Alaska. These same hunters have been priced out of joining hunt clubs or obtaining leases in their home state. These are the hunters that are leaving our sport by the droves. Some might say that's good for them since there will be more & better quality animals available. This is a short sighted opinion & will have a significant impact on future hunting. Where does the average hunter think all the money comes from to support the largest lobbying effort to support hunters rights? SCI receives significant contributions from manufacturers & outfitters in our industry. Certainly, there are individuals making contributions, but the big bucks come from companies like Cabelas & BASS PRO & large outfitters. Let this funding dry up & our lobbying efforts will dry up. Its easy to live in say Montana & have the attitude what do I care about lobbying in DC. Every aspect of hunting is under attack from small game, water fowling, & big game. Without the efforts of SCI & other outdoor organizations the antis will take control. In 30-40 years I believe a few residents in most states will still enjoy the privilege of hunting, but the affluent hunter will have the best of the best. Expect many more restriction including loosing most hunting opportunities on Federal lands & wildlife refuses. The future of sport hunting is not bright.

The problem with the new fees and regulations in regards to the outfitter sponsored tags in Montana is due to what everyone is crying about. The FWP did not raise the fees arbitrarily, we had a group of "sportsmen" in this state that sold the concept of I 161 to the public, which then voted on it...The short version of that bill was to eliminate the Outfitter sponsored tags (5000 of the 17000) and then increase the out of state fees to help support the cost of Block Management. These so called "Sportsmen", were wanting to have more opportunities for their own concept of trophy hunting in Montana, and figured by taking the permits from Outfitters and raising more money, they could get what they figured was a better managed hunting resource for themselves.

There are plenty of public areas to hunt in TX... when we were between leases I hunted public areas and still apply for draw hunts. Its amazing what you can take if you just apply yourself to finding areas.... heck I know a guy that killed a nice mule deer on public, that I wasn't aware of, that takes no drawing even....

There's fewer people hunting National Forest than ever in Texas, because leasing land is just so convenient, and private. Lots of Army Corps of Engineers land open too, folks just don't bother looking for it.

I have hunted a National Forest since I returned to Texas 17 years ago and estimate about 1/3 as many hunt it now as in 1993. I seldom see another hunter once a hundred yards from my truck. In addition I apply for the control hunts in state parks and wildlife management areas where the application fee is $3 and if drawn costs $80 for a 48 hour hunt.

I do drive 3 1/2 hours to the NF so any trip is a weekend long one. If drawn for a control hunt the drive may be as little as 45 minutes. Those who complain about being locked out by dollars in Texas are those not willing to put the effort out to use whats available or research it.

I'm sure we would get along. I believe people can disagree and still be friends. However, I am still waiting to learn of the wine shop in Polson you mentioned last year. My wife got me to enjoy wine (and my doctor recently suggested it for heart health) so I am interested in trying various flavors. Plus I have family in the area so head that way occasionally.

Libby is an area of the state I have never been, but have always wanted to get to. They had a job opening there at one time at the hospital, but my wife said she wanted to live in a place our kids could eat dirt. As you referred to that is not possible there.

That's good to kow... but most of them are Bow/Shotgun places.


Which ones Rifle?

I love Texas but most hunting land I know of is private. The days of asking an owner to hunt on his land is over... unless you lease it.

I hunt only rifle. All the National Forests are open to rifle. Depending on the Corps of Engineer location it may by rifle, shotgun (slugs and buckshot) or bow. Most of the places having draw hunts have a bow hunt and then a rifle hunt and often a second doe hunt as well. Check the TPWD site and the Texas National Forest and Grasslands site for starters. They will both show up in a simple search.

The wine shop you referred to is on Main Street in Polson and is called The Terrace. Good selection there for sure.

Speaking of whine, for all the whiners out there...15 years ago I did a complete re-structure of my life and profession so that I could live in Montana. I sacrificed a lot to make it happen, but now that I've lived here for a while I know I made the right move...life is good. Everything previously shared by other posters is true, and it is harder to make a living here. If you want to hunt MT bad enough, either move here or save up the dough.

I voted for 161 because of MY experience with the outfitters in this state was horrid. Talk about a sense of entitlement...these guys take the cake. Also, I won't lose any sleep if less out of state hunters come to MT. Again, from what I've seen personally, I'd rather not have the majority of them. That's just my opinion, though it's pretty common with the guys I run with.

I have heard that often in a number of places by local blowhards, especially around the bar. The factual material such as arrest and convictions show that the great majority of slobs and poachers are in truth residents. Not all, but most.

Public land is still free to use. Lots of ranchers used to allow public access for free as well.
Until folks started paying big money for exclusive rights, that is.

Why a man would pay for mule deer hunting in this state is beyond me.

THANKS


T

Wouldn't know about the bar, as I don't generally make a habit of giving air time to drunks.

Fact is, I'd rather the greater majority of Montana hunters stayed at home too ...saw some stuff this year that really made me angry...the same self centered, inconsiderate, ignorant behavior that's often attributed to non-locals.

i dont get it either, even living here i would pay for easy access to a big elk......whole lot of excellent speed goat and mule deer hunting on public ground if your willing to get away from your truck, hell i quite hunting alot of private land i had access to cause it was a pain in the arse, lot fewer fence lines that you have to remember and dont have to worry bout getting shot at if yah accidentally cross the wrong one....

Its really a matter of convience. I live 22 hours from where I have been hunting. There is no way for me to scout or look over pieces of public ground to hunt. Even if I wanted to scout before season its about time away. It takes two days to drive there, scout two days and then hunt five days and then drive two days home. That would make it a 11 day trip. Thats along time to be away from home when you have a new born and four year old.

That does not take into account of not knowing how many people will be there hunting.

The other factor is I do not own all the camping equipment that it would take to hunt there. So that means staying in a hotel if you can find one with a room.

Its make it easy to pay the trespass and drive through the gate. The only people that will be there are the guys I am hunting with and ranch hands checking cows. Usually all tags are filled in two or three days of hunting and we are on our way back home.

Dink

This just reminds me of the first time I went to Montana.

Five us were antelope hunting but did not get to ranch until late in the day on second or third day season. There is several sections of BLM ground that borders the ranch I hunt. When we arrived we drove out to see if we could find any antelope before dark. As we were leaving the ranch that night there were both residents and non-residents camped on BLM ground that we have to drive by (they were camped right on the road). We stopped to talk to several guys and they threw there chest out and stated "we don't pay to hunt". They did tell us they had not killed a antelope yet. Nice guys but you could tell they did not think we should paying to hunt a private ranch for whatever reason.

The next day before noon we killed five buck antelope and were leaving the ranch and guys were standing around when we pulled out. They again said that they would never pay to hunt antelope.

Over the next two days we filled ten doe tags and shot a pile of prairie dogs. Everyday we stopped and talked with guys and the whole time we were there they never killed a antelope. I don't if they were waiting on a booner antelope or just did not care if killed one or what but when I head west I plan on killing stuff.

Every year that we have hunted antelope on this ranch the same guys are always at that piece of BLM ground and I have never seen them with a dead antelope.

Dink

Dink

If all you could afford or could draw would you travel to Montana to hunt female deer, elk and antelope?

last year i saw plates from Alaska and Florida out there, they seem to do alright getting critters on public ground.....

we road hunted when i went out last year cause i was recovering from back surgery and after grabbing my rifle and some water i was at the limit of what i was cleared to haul so it did me no good hiking back somewhere cause i would have had to rely on someone else to get it out...also there was a new guy with us that had never seen eastern Montana but had already filled his A tag with a whitetail over in the Bitterroot so we said [bleep] it and played tour guide from the truck with only a few walks that my wife and daughter did.....in two days we saw several hundred mule deer and speed goats from the road on public ground.....we see fewer deer when we are on our hikes but horn size goes up.....aint gonna pay for access when thats for free and a whole lot of out of staters here on short trips feel the same.....

We feel exactly the same about the MT miners swarming here. They take up locals' jobs and poach the h@ll out of the sparse game. I'm not just flaming now. It is all true. Ask any of the locals.

It cuts many ways. Some of us are at a stage where we can't re-group and start over. This hit boomers as a real surprise.

MT is a great State, except for the influence in politics from the colleges and college towns. I sure don't blame "locals" for guarding what they have.

If its all I could afford to do yes. I like trigger time. If I could not afford to hunt bucks I would probaly just shoot antelope doe's and prairie dogs.

Dink

I guess generally one of the problems I have with such posts is that they are so general. I hear things like "slob hunters", "mostly poachers", "leave trashy campsites" and other broad charges that have no back up to base it upon. Instead it is something like "most off my buddies agree" as if that certifies the problem.

On the other hand they complain about locked up lands and outfitters. Outfitters are not going to allow such things from their hunters because they want to provide a quality experience to the clients on the next hunt. It has been years (pre-internet) that I have read any figures but those I have seen show that by far the residents were there great majority of poachers and litter pigs. Reading your game departments game site it appears for you today it is a multifaceted thing with only a few meat hunters revolving more around trophies. The lion share seems to resident non-licensed "outfitters" who ignore the laws servicing servicing non-resident "sportsmen". It is hard to say which is worse but they are all criminals stealing from all legitimate hunters. I know there is sometimes the truly outstanding case of poachers taking dozen of illegal animals or violating the rules of chase for a head or a TV show that is a non-resident. Those cases though are a minority which is what makes them so newsworthy. Those cases are often involving reidents.

I would like to hear about personal observations and see them even presented as what the an example that forms a posters opinion. I just have a problem with it presented as fact without factual back up.

Enjoy your hunt.
Hopefully the ranch holds a few bruisers.

Thanks for the info Whip.

I would not bet against the idea that the resident of any particular state poaches more than NR. However, the big cases involve NR and illegal outfitters in this state. We just had a bust a couple weeks ago over just such a thing. It seems every year or so we get a guy who gets unscrubuless NR to pay a person a lot of money to guide them onto animals for which they don't have licenses for or shoot too many or Shoot out of season. I don't think the person who spend his/her hard earned money to come out here is going to poach though. Like people in uniform NR license plates stand out like soar thumbs on their pick-ups or SUVs during hunting season so it is not hard to figure out why they are here.

Looking at several states fees for NR hunting MT is comparable when you start adding up all the fees the other states require. Nevada charges $1200 for a NR elk draw alone. That is over $300 than MT for elk.