Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire No Hunting Again

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.