I guess people that were born in Montana were not a fan of the new tag prices.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/billhtml/SB0136.htm

Instead of a combo tag costing $912 it will be $144 if you were born and got relatives in Montana.

Dink

Hahaha!

Unconstitutional...

Anything that brings Dink displeasure, should be constitutional.

Doesn't bring me anything. I am probaly not going back to Montana so it matters not to me but since the law does not take effect until after the March 15th deadline I thought someone might save some money.

Dink

Actually, licenses are available March 1, and the Montana born has to appear in person. But then must apply for special permits before March 15.
Have had several conversations with fwp as two of my brothers have MT birth certificates.

So the higher priced license is reducing the number of leasers!!!!

At least this year you threw in the 'probably'. Last year was kinda silly with all the effort to tell everyone how you weren't going to ever go back to MT and then did. BTW, did you post a pic of the buck you shot on that lease? I'd like to see it.

This is great news!

I've been looking for an excuse to move to another state.

I've never been to Montana hunting and most probably never will go. Someone please explain to me why I, as a non-resident, have any cause to moan and groan about what the people of another state do? It's their state not mine. Someone help out my ignorance.

Casey

Sam,

I bet you're planning to move to Williston, NoDak, aren't you?

It is going to be difficult to make the constitutional argument now that the federal government has disclaimed its interest in wildlife management under the dormant commerce clause.
As a starting point read-
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2005/WhoCallsShots.htm

I killed a little buck on the last day of the hunt. The rancher's wife ask us to kill a couple deer for the local food bank. So I killed a doe and forked horn so Rancho could have something to eat...

The biggest deer I seen during daylight was a little 4x4. Worse year ever for us.

I like Montana but its no better than other states I have hunted in the west.

Dink

Then why do you persist with your bitching, pizzing, whining, and moaning?

That's right DINK, hunting in MT sucks. Tell all of your friends. You can hunt all week and only see little 4x4 muleys and the only way to get that much done is to lease a whole ranch.

Don't you ever get tired of being jealous?

I know a lot of people that hunted Montana last and most said it was worse they ever seen.

Dink

Because I think it was a pretty sneaky deal for Montana to take care of their own, no matter where they now live, and put it to every other non-resident.

What happened to the argument that everyone had to pick a state to live in? Now it only matters where you were born. That is crap.

Dink

Hahaha, DINK... I kinda feel sorry for ya. Killing a decent deer in MT is pretty damn easy. I've been trying to get it across to you for a long time that you're wasting your money by leasing. You're approaching the situation from the same POV that you might use in MO and it doesn't apply here. I've told you, I have permission on tens of thousands of acres of private land. I also know of some very good spots on BMA land that can produce, then there's the hundreds of thousands of acres of public land that hold very good deer. As a matter of fact, the two best mule deer I've seen were both on public land, both 190-200" deer (archery season). Having a place to hunt that nobody else is hunting that week isn't much good if that same place is being hunted hard the rest of the season.

JB, how did you know?!



Personally I think an individual should have to live in the state to gain 'benefits'.

Some wanker could be born here, move when he's 2 months old, have relatives that live in the state and then get a great deal on tag costs?

Some money grubber leaves MT for a big paycheck and still gets a sweet deal on hunting?

Something is fishy not to mention isn't MTFWP in a bit of a budget bind?

Sounds like opening up a rather large can of worms and creating alot of paperwork.



And lets see everybody's big public land mule deer from last Fall.....grin

Yeah, what'd you hunt, a whole three hours before you dropped the hammer on that thing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Montana already have a "come home to hunt" program, where they give reduced tag fee's to natives living in other states? IIRC there's a few states that do this, in order to bring in dollars..

I'd guess somebody with some clout decided they didn't want their kids to have to pay the new fee. It's still the best deal in western hunting. Deer, elk, upland game, and fishing, for a little over $900. I just got done dropping over $2000 in WY for the boy and I to apply for elk and antelope. My elk tag alone was over $1000 and all that gets me is an elk! That's the price you pay to hunt someone else's backyard - no complaints here.

I might be wrong, but I don't think these come out of the NR pool. so it's actually extra money for FWP - if they sell out the NR tags.

Sen. Joe Balyeat in last year's Legislative session. Senate Bill 136.

No picture? I would have liked to see it...

3.5 hours....must have been a high dollar lease deer....grin!

Good luck over there if you go. I had a couple chances to hire on with Sangel and Haliburton. I couldn't see giving up bid pay at the mill just to gross 20K a year more, just to SPEND 20K a year more getting to and from work


What kills me about this NR born here tag deal is it doesn't do [bleep] for guys like me. I was born in Seattle, and have lived in MT since I was 9. Just because my dad was a railroader with jack squat for seniority. And no, I don't sport a "Native" sticker on my pickup...

Dan, I ain't [bleep]' going over to ND!


$80k for that goatshow isn't even tempting...at all.

I'll take my $20k a year and continue being happy(and 'broke')...grin

Sweet. My brother and sister were born here.

Parents made the monumentally stupid decision to leave before I was shat. Said I'd live here when I was ten years old. Took awhile, but I made it.


Travis

Better late than never brother!


Great grand parents(both sides) homesteaded nearby.

Evidently the last couple generations were too lazy to move...grin

What's not to like? ;-{>8

Except Williston, that is. I'm out of here.

Pointer is this good enough for you? If not I will get his horns out the garage and take a pic with the sunday paper tomorrow. Just let me know.

[img:center]http://[/img]

How much did you pay to shoot that poor little hay stack deer??

A bunch.

The food bank needed the meat and I just could not stand the thought of you go hungry.

Dink

Probably a good thing the Bakken is alot thinner over here.

I haven't been to Williston in years, hell back in the mid 90's I thought it was pretty busy compared to Wolf Point.
Can't imagine how it is now.



Dink, I'm not an outfitter but for around $4 grand we could find one slightly larger......grin

Ha! That was funny.


Travis

Bwaaahaaaahaaa!!!

Wow. I'm not one to talk schit about anybody else's buck. But to lease a ranch to hunt, and not even take the meat home seems pretty ridiculous. But hell, it's your money.

Made a whole lot of noise last year saying you were never coming back to MT, and you hoped everybody went under financially. Yet you came back.

Seems fitting you didn't get a toad.

BillyGoat, except for sausage, I have not ate a deer or antelope in 10+ years and as long as I can afford beef I won't eat one. I donate it all no matter where I am.

Dink

You are one odd duck. Not even the loins? You missed out on some of the best meat going on that deer in your pic.

Sam I don't have that kind of money. The trespass fee I pay is pretty cheap. Its cheaper for me to pay the trespass fee there than it is to lease a farm here.

Dink

Hope that Bakken is plumb backed up to exploding under the family farm by Scobey. ;-{>8

Those Huns won't be much bothered by a few tank batteries.

I really don't mind the oil production. It's the loss of the small town northern prairie culture I can't abide.

That rancher must smile pretty big when he sees you Missouri boys.
You don't need to lease ranches to shoot bucks like that.
Everyone that hunts public land will leave those for you too.
They get bigger if you let those walk.....

Thanks for sharing the picture.

Dink, seems every time you get to stick your nose in the mud you cannot help but to do so. Why is it that you would legislate Montanans, native born or not, from Missouri? You state that you hunt deer by paying a trespass fee and you do not consume the meat? Doesn't make sense at all. I truly believe you have a burr under your saddle that you cannot scratch. You are an enigma who makes little sense. Stay in Missouri as your closed mind society will enable your madness. MTG

I think it was pretty chitty of Montana residents to do away with the outfitter tags. Why would a resident care how a non-resident got tags? Residents are over the counter why would they care if some non-residents paid more for the outfitter tag? Guys like me never paid for the outfitter tag and took our chances with the lower price tags. Residents passed that law only thinking of themselves and let the average guy like me pay for it. Pisses me off because I like to hunt montana but a deer tag is not worth $542 in my opinion.

Guys like Ranger dream of hunting these big ranches for free due to making the tags cost out of reach for the average guy. Even though he says he has thousand upon thousand of private acres to hunt he wants more. Simple resident greed and jealousy.

Now the new tag prices have pissed off everyone that has family that has moved from Montana so they make a law that they only have to pay $144 instead of the $912. Thats pretty chitty. I look at as montana has given the average guy the finger and said they will take care of their own and piss on everyone else.

Dink

DINK - What you don't get is that I don't dream of hunting schit, I get to live it. What I don't want is for leasing to stop me and others from living that lifestyle.

Dink also forgets that many other states offer lifetime hunting licenses including Missouri. But apparently he is only pissed because Montana does it for free.

Cue the crying baby photo again.

Many MT forkies are breathing a sigh of relief.

Dink, it is what it is. You merely want your cake and eat it too. As long as it benefits you personally you are for it. If not, it is a personal issue against what you think should be. Get over it. Hunt Missouri and keep the hell out of the states that piss you off and don't cater to your personal needs. Don't care for Montana laws and policies? Hunt elsewhere! Or, is this just a piss and moan opportunity to you? MTG

Anyone taking odds on if he hunts there this year?

No dog in this fight other than to say that Missouri's lifetime hunting licenses do not cover deer and turkey hunting.

He'll put in at least, he's proven that. Then continue his bitchfest next year. Had he shot a big one this year I've no doubt he'd have posted it all over the place on here and talked a bunch of schit.

LMAO.


Travis

Nicely said...

Won't put in for several years if ever again.

I know everyone kills 180+ inch deer every year. Problem is there are only two or three guys on this board that prove they kill big deer every year.

For most people (myself included) killing big bucks is simply luck. Just like killing this one.

[img:center]http://[/img]

I know all you trophy hunters would have passed that one too. You guys are full of yourselves.

Dink

You said you were putting last year. Did you?

Dink

That's a hell of a deer. I'm no trophy hunter, I shoot the first decent buck I see. Bad habits, and the last couple of years bear that out. I'm not ragging on you for shooting a forky, I'm just responding to all the bullschit you put up here about how you are "owed" something by MT. Don't like the regs? Don't [bleep] come back.

Montana does not owe me anything but they should not be allowed to [bleep] me either. We all pay taxes that montana gets more than their share of and then they want non-residents to pay more and more while giving people that were born there breaks so no one gets mad.

The residents were basically given the go ahead to [bleep] non-residents because residents were butt hurt over the outfitter tag. No one has ever given me one good reason why they gave a chit if some non-residents paid more for a tag? 161 did not limit the number of non-resident tags or give residents more control of tag numbers. It simply was a excuse to [bleep] every non-resident so residents might gain private land that is/was off limits because non-residents hunted it. I put this in same crap as Alaska. You can black bear hunt anywhere there are brown bears but if you want to kill a brown bear you must hire a "master" guide. WTF for? I guess brown bears won't eat you if you only have a black bear tag in your pocket.

Think about this. I have two boys that if I wanted to take them to Montana to hunt (once they are 18) the tags alone would cost me almost $3,000 before anythig else. Very few average guys can afford that. Just want residents wanted.

We will never agree but that does not mean I will not post my opinion of what I think is pure bullchit.

Dink

If it means that much to you, move here.

I did.

Some reason this movie clip comes to mind-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9MxTRspXpQ

Dink, dry your tears and hunt some other western state. Quit whining! MTG

It ain't whining and I damn sure ain't shedding no tears. Unlike most people I just don't go with the flow and keep paying and paying.

Rancho are even a resident?

They must have a different definition of "whining" in Missouri.

I guess when the boys from Montana don't have any valid reasons for what is going or can even provide something for discussion someone is whining and crying.

Dink

We beat back a bill in this year's legislature that, among other things, would have reduced nonresident fees for juniors by half or more. The bill's sponsor has a son who lives in another state and hunts with him in New Mexico, but that probably had nothing to do with it...

I want to know where the Obama birth certificate came from. I bet that they can do Montana, too!

Don't let the facts get in your way- SB136 licenses for birthers was requested in March 2010. Months before 161 ever obtained enough signatures for the ballot or was passed by the citizens of Montana in November.

Huh?

Good to know you can write as sensibly as you whine.

Huh? Are you having a stroke?

I see Mr. Gunwriter is full of himself tonight. Must be in the good juice.

Let me see if I can explain this better for you.

Not one person has provided a legitimate reason for someone that has a Montana birth certificate but does not live in Montana to get a reduced license.

Everyone that voted for 161 has never gave a valid reason for voting for it other than they wanted more private ground to hunt for free which is nothing more than greed on their part.

When I mention these things everyone wants to call names but no one wants to have a discussion or say this is why they did what they did.

I think the last time we had this discussion you took some middle of road ground about seeing both sides because you have friends that are outfitters. Not even you would pick a side.

Dink

No. I thought you are there for work and mention that you are living in a rental. Just wondering if you were resident.

Dink

Yup..

And don't you just hate it?

OK DINK, I'll play. The residents of MT voted for I161 because they had grown tired of outfitters/leasers hording land/game. I think that the message was rather clear although the bill was rather ineffective in curtailing widespread leasing, at least for the time being. If you'd like to enjoy the benefits of our game and quality hunting for a song, move here. Otherwise you can pay up and enjoy our game as the people of MT decide is appropriate for NR hunters. Same thing I have to do when I hunt another state. Not that hard to comprehend... No idea and don't really care on the whole MT born thing, minimal #'s of people I would think.

Nope.

Dink
Do what I have done- Vow to never buy another non resident Montana hunting license.

Fred

Dink doesn't care about the actual facts for which the residents of Montana have decided upon. His position is that he feels slighted and this forum provides a platform for him to sob, whine and complain. He did this months back. He will do again. Regardless of Montanans decision, he feels that he should have the right to legislate as a non resident. Why else would he piss and moan about Montana as a state and their laws? Must be taking a page out of the current DC administrations book. Well, good luck with that! MTG

Dink -- piss on you!! Quit your whining and crying and hunt in your own state. We don't need your kind up here, and we certainly don't need your money. Just STFU.

I understand why you voted for it. What I don't get is you have posted that you have more ground to hunt than you ever could. What does/would it help you any if more ground opened up to hunt?

Everyone says how much free ground there is to hunt and then complains that outfitters lease to much.

Dink

I see the boys from Montana are mouthy today...lol.

Yet none, other than ranger, will post their reasons for passing 161 or the new birth certificate law.

That leaves me to believe that either you are jealous that some non-residents could pay more for a tag or your jealous that a outfitter was making a dollar or two.

Dink

You bragged you going to put in for a tag because the new prices did not bother you. Why didn't you put in?

Dink

Dink..go choke on it! Montana has no use or need for you or your out of state money. Grab a tweeter account and spew your beliefs and woes there.
A MONTANA NATIVE..

I-161 was a mistake and will do nothing to change the access issue. Additionally, I-161 had the opposite effect as FWP has announced a budget shortfall. Non residents are not the problem....unless one comes with an attitude.

Friend in Idaho didn't draw a tag he thought he might, so invited to me to go elk hunting with him, so I did. I did that in October, went to WY for pronghorns in September, and hunted Indiana in November. So it was a timing issue and not a price issue.

Not true...a complete and total lie.

Montana made more money this last year from NR license sales than it did prior to I-161.

Get your facts straight.

Lets give it 10 years or so and see if access improves or not.
FWP's budget shortfall has nothing to do with I-161, and everything to do with FWP.

Buzz,

A lie? Here are some facts for you to ponder:

1. Montana's block management is nearly bankrupt. Discussions are to cut over 2 million acres due to loss of revenue. Do you know how this revenue is generated?

2. 900+ non-resident licenses went unsold (approximately 230 elk/deer combos and the balance elk only).

3. I-161 was sold as reducing leased land. Outfitters gained 20% after I-161 passed.

4. Here is the real eye opener - prior to I-161 there were approximately 1300 alternates. This year, a total of 230. Seems the non-residents had other options.

Yes, FWP is also the problem as they forecasted a budget surplus with the passage of I-161.

Let me know if you need more facts and I will put you in touch with FWP.

Buzz was right, a complete lie.

A law that slipped through the cracks last year ( HB 607) allowed NR hunters to send in their tags if not drawn for a special permit. 800 (not 900) turned in their ELK tag and went unsold. I don't know how many turned in everything but I know 800 turned in the elk portion. When they did that, the money they had paid, went into the general FW&P's fund. Even the if they kept a portion of the entire NR licence. Any tags that were resold went into that fund also. So money was channeled away from Habitat, and block because of this new law.

Even with those 800 tags being turned back in, they made several million dollars more than they would under the old system. Do the math.

...and resold.

Quite sure the tags were never sold as that is where the alternate list comes in. There were no takers.

FWP keeps the data close but if you ask Sue Daly, you might get the facts. I-161 struck out and FWP is scrambling to cover the loss. Should be interesting if they don't get the resident tag increase (how will they pay for the salary increases?).

My mistake on the alternate list - the actual number was 120.

Yeah, we're jealous that you paid out the ass to shoot that forkie.

Does being this stupid come natural to you, or do you have to work at it?

Dink fixates on any MT bill/law that would in any way affect NR hunters. Anything that would adversely affect him personally. Not other NR hunters. By what I have read, of his rambling and confusing posts, it seems that he has deep enough pockets to pay a trespass fee for an entire MT ranch for the purpose of shooting a small deer that he does not consume himself. This, I have contemplated and asked myself "Why does this dumba$$" hunt in the first place? I have come to the conclusion that he merely stirs the pot for the sake of argument only. Nothing more! Encite other NR's and backs away to watch the carnage. This is the goal of the anti hunting society and he is their instrument. Wail on and wring your hands Dink! Your arguments hold little water. MTG

I do pay to hunt. I usually kill little deer unlike everyone else. BUT I do it all while living in my own home not someone elses.

Dink

Again, proving how stupid you are...

I hunt because I like to kill chit. I like to fill tags.

I only care about laws/bills that concern me. If they decided that anyone from missouri got tags for $144 probaly would not bother me much.

Its not that I can not afford the new tag price. Its the priniciple of the idea that I should not have to because residents decided that was they way it was going to be due to thier jealousy/hatred.

I bet if they were going to let non-resident set the tag price for residents there would be some b$tching take place.

I am not afraid to stir the pot but I damn sure ain't backing away from anything.

Dink

You can say alot of things about me but paying for someone elses house is pretty damn stupid. Don't you think? I pay to hunt for a week you pay someone every month.

Did you even fill a buck tag this year?

Of course you would buy a house in 2008, instead of now, at the bottom of the market (with a 3.75% fixed)...

Hint - Educate yourself on buying houses.

You might sound a little LESS stupid..

Please don't ever move to MT.


Most people here have outgrown chit like that by the time they graduate high school. Or at least they smart enough not to mention it.


Stay the [bleep] home actually.

Once again, 'bye.

Sue came to a meeting we had last month. She never claimed even close to your statement. Sorry! She blamed the shortfall on a cycle of the system that goes broke every so often if they don't increase tag prices and sales. She's the one that brought up HB 607 that diverted funds from where they should be.

The "TRUTH" is that the winters have been terrible resulting in the loss of thousands of tags for antelope, and deer over east. In the West predators have taken their toll. Tag sales are less for a lot of reasons, but I-161 isn't one of them. Have you done the math yet? They made more money off the new system than the old one. Several million. IMO, the biggest reason Elk hunters are buying less is because the elk numbers are being reduced State wide under the law our state legislature passed in 2003. We are at or over elk objectives in 66% of the HD statewide, and people are screaming the elk are gone. Just wait to see how loud they scream when we get those other areas down to those low objectives. Less Elk means less opportunity, and less tag sales. The resource has been squandered to sell tags, and now we're going to pay the price of that. Take care of the resource first and sales will take care of themselves.

MTFWP is in sort of a jam.


Winter, wolves, BMA, chit economy, no animals left.

Yes, I have done the math and 800 unsold non-resident tags can't be a good thing for FWP's budget. During that meeting, did you catch the part about where the funding from HB607 goes? FWP has the discretion so it could be used to fund block management or "diverted" to other programs. A system that "goes broke every so often" does not sound like a fiscally sound program. The fact is FWP supported I-161 and it backfired in more ways than just revenue (leased land is another indication). I would be very interested in any data that shows the real numbers generated by non-resident license sales comparing 2011 with years past.

Didn't mean to hijack this thread but would like to know the truth about I-161's effect on FWP revenue.

No one hi jacked this thread. This is what I call a discussion..grin.

Dink

Everything is overpriced not to mention already dead.

No you dont...you've already been told. Since passing revenue has increased via NR license sales.

Gee thanks but was hoping for a credible source. I don't suppose you have some facts to back up being told?

Dink,

You should have somebody read this out loud, so you can hear how ridiculous you sound.

And after that, you should write a formal apology to that buck's family.


Travis

Snowing like a mofo here.


Travis

Very unlikely... The stupid is strong in this one.

True...


Travis

I did catch where the money goes. It goes into the general FW&P's account. Where payroll, vehicles, building costs, and day to day operational money comes from. It was a way to make sure MTFW&P's couldn't acquire any more land with the money. If you had been involved the the last legislative session you would have known that there was a big right wing attempt to stop MTFW&P's from purchasing land for sportsman. That is partially what this is about.

800 tags unsold and still they made almost $2 million dollars more, is a good thing. Less kill, less pressure on a dwindling big game population. Sure MTFW&P's could have used the money for the tags but the game needed a break. So it's good for the game. I don't give a chit about the money.

Sue never said that the money could be put back into Block or habitat. I think that would be a stretch to assume they can.

MTFW&P's is the only State agency that is self sufficient. They need to add 15% to the cost of the resident tags to get by again for awhile. I think we can afford that.



They made more money, with less hunters. How could that not be good?

some seem to forget that in eastern Montana last winter was really [bleep] bad and knocked our speed goat population down hard...know the area i hunt had nearly no goat tags last fall.....deer numbers were down aswell....

lot of this sorta stuff contributed to less sales last year, MUCH more so than I-161.....know i had fewer tags in my pocket and im a resident....

Hunting in this day and time is only about the kill. If it was not about the kill everyone would pack a camera and compare pics. If people only hunted for the meat no big bucks, big bulls or 16 inch antelope would ever be killed because usually they are not fit to eat. The money it cost to hunt it would be cheaper to go buy meat if you really needed it. I know everyone eats venison three times aday but throw a good beef steak on the table with some deer steaks and see which one gets eaten first.

Why would anyone ever kill coyotes, foxes, prairie dogs, crows, or rock chucks? Its not about helping the rancher, keeping population down or whatever else bullchit someone tells themselves. Its about the kill.

I know some guys just want hang out and drink beer. If it was not about the kill why don't they just play cards?

You can tell yourself you hunt for whatever reason. I hunt to kill stuff.

Dink

Keeping making that payment for someone else and telling yourself how smart you are. You know there are reasons people own rental property and its just to help people out. Unless the goverment is paying part of your rent.

Dink

DINK, clean the sand out of your crotch, you sound like a whiny teenage girl....once r twice makes a point, at this point you just whining like a lil b!tch....

Good for you.

Now have them read the rest of your post.


Travis

After reading his rants about how bad Montana and its people are why would you invite him to live here. Even as a jest. He might take you up on it. Then we will have to deal with one more out of state whiner living here thinking he knows better than we do of what is good for MT.

Dink, I am convinced that you are certifiably stupid and uninformed. Think what you please. Hunting encompasses so much more than the kill. If you have not figured this out by now you will not in the future. You "Kill"! We hunt! There isn't enough time to fix your lacking grey matter. Step back and consider the entire aspect of the hunt. Take a hunter education course and actually listen. Don't come back to Montana. Find another state that will allow your infant ramblings of granduer. There is so much more to our sport that you cannot and do not participate, enjoy, consider and practice. MTG

There is a lot more to it than just the kill. The hunt and all that it encompasses is outlined in many many threads on here in many forums. I'm sorry that you are not able to experience what it should be truly about. It's unfortunate that this is your approach to hunting, and I honestly hope you don't pass this mindset on.

What if you lived in an area where you couldn't hunt and you didn't have the resources to travel somewhere else to get your "kill" drive sated. What would you do then?

Truth be told I pity you, and hope someday you grow up and are able to enjoy all the aspects to our hunting heritage.

I can understand those who approach it as a way of simply acquiring meat. I've met guys like that, who don't give a fig about cartridges, rifles, ballistic gack, or horns. No real enjoyment, simply filling tags and getting meat.

I can understand guys who don't like the meat, and only care about the horns. The challenge of pitting themselves against a tough opponent, and having a trophy to hang on the wall, or picture to frame. I've known guys like that.

I can understand guys who just like being in the woods. They want to kill a nice buck/bull/ram, but are fine either way. I've known guys like that too.

I can also understand the guys who don't hunt big game or edible game. They only shoot varmints and enjoy all the ballistic gack, and rifle looniness. I've also known these kinds of fellows.

You however are different. I really don't get your mindset. You'd like to think that deep down we're all like you. But you're wrong, and I for one will never share a camp with the likes of you.

There's people laughing at you right now.

HINT..

In all my years of hunting I have met one guy that it did matter to him if he killed anything or not. He is from wyoming and has killed alot of game. He is the only person I have met that just wanted to be in the mountains.

Everyone else I have ever met or known has been about the kill. Now they may go on about sunrises and sunsets but they all wanted to kill something. I have seen it time and time again someone blow smoke about just being in the woods and then kill a yearling at daylight on opening day. I have seen "trophy" hunters brag about passing up deer after deer during season year after year. I have seen these same guys kill a 18 month old 8 pointer opening day of season every three or four years and then all of a sudden they "mis-judged" him and made a mistake.

I have made out west trips with guys that always make fun of me for killing alot of deer. To the man as soon as season opens they start killing whatever is legal and then make excuses why they killed it. I make no excuses I like to stack critters and will continue to do so.

If I did not hunt I would still like guns. I like all guns from Winchesters 37's to Ar-15's to fine custom rifles. I can talk ballistic gack with the best of them. I have literally owned hundreds of rifles through the years that I have got to shoot/test. This really has little to do with hunting.

We probaly won't share a camp because I am very honest about what I do and how I do it. Some guys would just rather sit around and listen to people brag about what they won't or can't do.

Dink

Here's a hint for you. If you have lived four years in someone elses house and rent there is anything like it is here you have given someone between $40k and $50k with no return. That is money that is gone. That is dumb anyway you look at it unless the goverment is paying part of your rent. I know you want to throw your chest out and play big money man but if your renting your losing.

Makes paying to hunt for a week a downright bargain.

I'm more than willing to drink a beer or talk guns with lots of folks, but I don't hunt with many people, and very few more than once. This thread wasn't about guns, or the like/dislike of them, or even gun culture. It was about hunting.

I can tell you haven't bought a house in the last 4 years..

The more you post, whether about hunting, or buying a house, the more your stupid comes out.

Here's a little something for you, dinkle.. But frankly, with your 4th grade level of grammar and spelling, I don't think it's going to have much impact..

You're just too stupid.

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/renting-vs--buying--detailed-analysis?topic=core-finance

I was just answering your question about if I could not afford to hunt anywhere.

Dink

Rancho keep telling yourself your doing the right thing by making payments to someone elses net worth. Everyone I know that has rental property only has it so the tennants will become wealthy...lol.

I guess I should just sell my new house and go rent a apartment.

Dink

I can tell you didn't check out the link.

Your stupid comes through again..

Late to this party....but do you realize how stupid you sound...if you really believe what you say ..how stupid you are? You need to be culled from the hunting community.

If you don't like what I post stay the [bleep] away Spitter. I know your here trying to get a cyber butt rub from one your cyber friends but I really don't give a [bleep] what you think.

Dink

Thanks teacher. I will keep in mind.

Dink

impossible.

because you are stupid.

hugely stupid.

you are one [bleep] up [bleep] you know that...of course you do..swallower....sucks to be as wrong as you are....but apparently you like suckin....

are you and 1960 touch hole twins? you sure act twin like....and are a worthless piece of schit.

Talk about being worthless. You are. All you have is the Campfire and cooking forums to post in because you need a support group of nameless, faceless people to make you feel worthy. Once a thread goes a certain way you jump in to post whatever side the thread has taken. You are spineless even on the internet.

Now go and try get a cyber butt rub from someone that thinks your worth more than a cup of cold piss.

Dink

If the only reason a person went outdoors was to kill, why would they also backpack in the backcountry in the summer? Or camp in National Forest? Or day hike to catch and release trout all day?

Your entire premise is illogical and completely [bleep] ridiculous.


Travis

I have to somewhat align with Dink on this. I've been guiding hunters for several decades. Hunters hunt because they want to kill something. It's pretty much the sole driving force behind their endeavor. I hunt because I like to kill stuff. It's pretty much the sole instigator behind my endeavor to hunt. Anyone who says they hunt purely for other reasons is lying to themselves and everyone else. We hunt because we like to kill animals. We fish because we like to kill fish. End of story.

You're full of bullshit.

Just like dinkleberry..

Ranch of the Psychologically Impaired:

Your opinion is misguided, for obvious reasons.

Maverick

Then why do I catch and release 90% of the time?


Travis

Because you're looking for an excuse?

An excuse to what?

Try not to communicate like a chick if you're capable.

Thanks.


Travis

Baaaaaahaaaaaahaaaa!!!!

Is this you telling yourself that your own opinion is misguided?


Travis

I had to put it on ignore.

Oh really?

I'll give it a little more time. I bet she gives great head. The dumb ones usually do.


Travis

If you get your enjoyment from hiking and camping why would you ever pack a rifle? In my opinion there is only one reason.

There are a lot of people that camp and hike that do not hunt.

Fishing and trapping are different. A trapper really does not do it for the kill. He does it to prove that he can make a animal, that can walk anywhere he wants to on this earth, stick his foot in a four inch circle.

Fishing you can be successfull with out killing anything.

Dink

You can also have a successful hunt without killing anything.

The wheels on the bus go round and round..............

I'll admit I like to fill tags. However, I pass up shootable deer, elk and bear nearly every year in order to prolong my hunting season. I don't mind ending the season with tags unfilled. I enjoy being out there hunting (I feel we call it hunting season instead of killing season for this reason) in nature, testing myself and my abilities - in fair chase, of course and almost always on public land. I hunt at least 30 days each year and try to fish more days than that, by the way I haven't killed a fish in years.

I wasn't born here, but I think allowing those who were to hunt here on the cheap is great.

No one is arguing that. At present, the debate is why we hunt.

I'm afraid Dink has argued that point, and more than once.

No wonder, it's a good question.

Yes sweetheart, somebody is trying to argue that. Try and keep up. Ok?


Travis

? Not really. Maybe I wasn't clear. Dink has stated his sole purpose in going out is to kill things, no more no less. Many on here, myself included, find that abhorrent. That was the crux of the matter. This conversation is making less sense as it goes along.

Well genius, I pack the rifle to bring home meat. The hunting season is the time I get to spend time outdoors, and put red meat in my freezer.

Coyote season is the time of year I am able to spend time outdoors, and make money on fur.

They're called renewable resources. Google it if you must.


Travis

If killing is abhorrent for you, then don't kill. If someone else kills and that's abhorrent for you, then see a psychiatrist. Those are the options.

Of course it does.

Maverick and DINK main line a healthy dose of dumb [bleep] before they ever start typing.

What do you expect?


Travis

Ma'am, I don't want to be rude, but you're not following the conversation very well. Maybe you should go make us some coffee or something?


Travis

Dink, stay out of Montana. You are not a sportsman or a hunter. You argue only for argument sake. On top of that you are an ignorant bore! MTG

Wow! This has gone on a long time. All this is giving Dink (appropriate name) his 15 minutes and everyone here is buying into it. After reading his rants for awhile it is best to just put him on ignore.

Even as a resident if red meat is what you are after it's cheaper to buy at the store.

You ever figure up what fuel, rifles, bullets, powder and your time to skin, flesh and stretch furs? Unless fur prices are really up you are not even breaking even. You hunt/kill coyotes because it's fun.

Dink

Oh you are so tough...not.....mouthy.. yes...and so full of schit. Apparently a cyber stalker too....

I just saw the thread. I just called you on your stupid inane bullschit. You can't handle it..you are wrong but too stupid to admit it.

Keep posting your ignorant views so everyone can see. You are doing a good job puke.

Your insecurity is evident.

Really? Tell me DINK. How much fuel do I have to expend to put a deer in my freezer? How much does my ammo cost? Enlighten us all with your incredible knowledge.

While you're at it. What did fleshed, stretched dogs go for this season? And how long does it take me to skin, stretch and flesh a dog?

Thanks,
Travis

Montana FWP is broke due to their assinine budget directors up in Helena. They now say they're going to have to raise the price of all licenses, resident and non-resident to make up for budget shortfalls. In the very next breath, while all other State of Montana employees have been on a pay freeze for four years now, FWP announces that their employees will all be getting raises, with the upper tier positions getting as much as $10,000 in raises each. I guess the Montana FWP is trying to emulate the Obama economic plan. Just spend, spend, spend. Someone has to pull the reins in on these people. It's outrageous what the FWP gestapo gets away with.

I might hunt MO next year.


Travis

Do they sell Dink tags in Mo? Maverick should have an answer on that I am guessing.

And you're obviously not afraid of letting everyone know that you're simply a narcissist. If you want to just kill szchit and fill tags, save yourself the trip and expense, stay home and shoot baldies until you're blue in the face.

It's greedy phuggers like you that want to show up and use the place and its resources like an out-of-state amusement park � trust me, that pi$$es a lot of folks off in Montana. I don't have to live there to understand some of their angst against non-residents.

BuzzH,

You might want to review the following article from the Billings Gazette, January 19, 2012. In fact, I have saved you the search. Now maybe you can tell us "what you know"?

Montana hunters and anglers could pay higher fees in the future, including senior citizens and youngsters who now receive licenses at a discount.
Those ideas were among the possible ways to increase funding for the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks as revenues have declined steadily over the past two years due to a
"perfect storm" of events.
They include a national economic downturn, a severe winter that reduced the number of licenses
for sale in much of Eastern Montana, high water in the spring that cut the number of fishing
licenses sold, high fuel costs, the perception of a statewide decline in game numbers from wolf
depredation, high unemployment and a decrease in the number of nonresident license sales.
Perhaps most important, there are fewer hunters and anglers buying licenses in Montana and
nationally.
The decline has averaged around $2 million a year for the past two years and the loss is projected
to continue into 2012, according to Sue Daly, the department's finance division administrator, who
broached the subject with the FWP Commission at its monthly meeting Thursday in Helena.
"We're now at the point where we need to deal with this," Daly said.
Residents last saw license fee increases in 2005. Nonresident fees were raised in 2001, except for
hunters who saw an increase after passage of Initiative 161 in 2011. Nonresident fees pay for
about two-thirds of FWP's $35 million in annual operating costs; the rest comes from resident
licenses. Another $11 million in license sales is earmarked for specific funds.
"We need to make a substantial move to equalize that (nonresident vs. resident) equation,"
Commissioner Ron Moody said. "I'm just putting the cards on the table."
Daly said that by 2015, the department's savings account will be drained, but that's no surprise.
The department has slowed the expected decline by a couple of years with conservative fiscal
management including more video conferencing and using fewer three-quarter-ton pickup trucks
that gulp fuel.
In all, the department will have to come up with a projected $10 million a year in savings and
revenue increases.
The reason for bringing up the issue now is that legislation will be crafted this spring to present to
the 2013 Legislature. If fee increases are proposed and eventually passed, they won't show up in
FWP's coffers until 2015.
One possible revenue increase is easy to find. Daly noted that the state gives away about $3
million worth of licenses a year through discounts to senior citizens, youths, former Montana
residents and veterans. Although they are all worthy causes, there is an expense involved, she said.
Bob Gilbert, executive director of Walleyes Unlimited, told the commissioners that as a senior
citizen, he'd be willing to pay more.
"There's something really wrong with this picture," he said. "It's nice to be generous, but you can't
give away money you don't have."
Gilbert said he's also concerned that sportsmen's money is going to manage predators like grizzly
bears and wolves -- programs that don't pay for themselves.
"The bison plan -- who the hell is paying for that?" he asked.

If it bothers you, lobby your legislature.

I don't know. My buddies hunt Scotland County and they kill some dandies. I think a N/R tag is only like $150.00. Then I could hunt here AND Missouri! Win/win!

People like DINK sure are dumb.


Travis

Big game tags will rise in cost. I love to hunt. Therefore I will pay the cost of the tags that I desire. I am very fortunate to live in the great state of Montana. I consider it a privilege to live in "Big Sky Country". To contribute to my community of Ronan and the state of Montana is an honor. I also believe we all live in the best country in the world. Politics aside. The directors of MT FW&P will change tag fees as they deem necessary. I will voice my opinion in Montana. Others states will deal with their game management without my thoughts and opinions. MTG

Well written.


Travis

Very well said. Thank you. Nice to know that there are rational and logical people out there in the game fields of North America.

Tool, thanks for posting supporting evidence to my posts. I would still like to add, that although, NR licences were down, they still made close to $2 million more than if it had stayed with the old Outfitter sponsored tags type of system.

So, is this really going to happen? Or is it an internet myth?

4100,

Not sure where you are getting your information but according to FWP, there is no way to know at this point of the exact revenue stream and the exact cause(s). The situation is very dynamic due to many factors - I-161 and HB607 might have the largest impact but that is yet to be determined (throw in predators, weather and economy to confuse even more). Additionally, the license sales and fiscal year do not match up which provides additional confusion. FWP is now starting to sort out all the data and will hope to have a better handle once this is complete. HB607 really threw a monkey wrench into the works since it mandated all funds are now deposited into the general license account. One thing is for sure though, in years past, demand was greater than supply. In 2011, this was not the case.

So I will wait for the data before making anymore statements concerning I-161's effect on revenue. However, I still stand by my statement concerning a backfire as 20% increase of outfitter leased land was not forecasted.

I wonder if anyone is paying attention to the automatic increase in non-resident licenses - this is now tied to the urban cost of living index.

If I recall correctly all the NR tags available were sold out for the 2011 season. So how can anyone claim the demand was less. Sure maybe you had fewer people applying, but the money those people sent in has to be returned anyway for not getting drawn; less the drawing fee. The # of NR tags didn't change.

Yes, the NR tags initially sold out but nearly 1000 were returned. HB607 allowed a "split off" and refund policy. In addition, Montana has a policy that allows refunds due to unforseen circumstances. The telltale is the alternate list, this year it was approximately 120. As mentioned, FWP is number crunching in an effort to provide salient data. As a side note, FWP supported HB607.

Thread has gone to hell, but I consider the "kill" a bonus. Worked my ass off hunting/fishing a "few" times. Kill or not, great memories. Wouldn't change a thing.

If my "sole instigator" is to kill...guess I am doing wrong.

carry on....

Well stated. Can't say I can remember the kill but surely remember the hunt.

Tool, you certainly have changed your position sense the begging of this thread. Kudos for admitting you were wrong. I also get the feeling that you have talked with someone you trust on this subject to have done that. Your last post is right in line with my original one. Do you have a link, or somewhere else we can go to get proof of the 20% increase in leased lands?

Obviously .....

4100,

My position and opinion remains the same - I believe I-161 was a poorly crafted bill that would have the opposite effect of the stated intentions. I am also of the opinion that the real reasons for I-161 were never transparent. I still think I-161 caused NR to hunt elsewhere but willing to wait for the published data (the outfitter sponsored license funded hunter access so this directly effects resident hunters). The opponents of I-161 warned that leased land would increase, funding of hunter access would decrease and non-residents would spend thier dollars in other states. Many applaud I-161 as non-residents and outfitters are seen as some kind of enemy. My own theory - as hunters, we are already on an island and pushing off our friends will seal our fate. In Montana, the outfitting community has been unfairly branded while they have acted as ambassadors for our glorious state. They also have given back so much more through their Big Hearts Under the Big Sky program.

I don't have a link to the leased land numbers as that is also being looked at by FWP. However, as you guessed, the information does come from a trusted source. I also don't think the resident license price will increase but that is a guess based on rumors.

Tool said:
Wrong
I've proven that I-161 made almost $2 million more in revenue than the old "outfitter sponsored" system. You blamed I-161 as a reason for the shortfall.


The purpose of the bill was to stop an unfair subsidy to a small segment of our hunting society. One that feeds off of the public resource. Uncontrolled growth occurred in that industry, and they were given a blank check to do so with what ever they wanted. The system was being abused badly. More "guides" were hired to fill in under outfitter's licences. Thousands of acres were off limits to general public because the land owner, became a guide, and let NR in to hunt. Those lands weren't under lease because of this. They may be now and be part of the 20% increase in leased land you claim . I don't know.


You have got to be kidding me. I had to clean the puke off my mouth before finishing this.

Big Hearts Under the Big Sky program has been in existence for 4 short years. Great PR for the industry. [b]BUT[/b] there are only 16 participating outfitters out of 600. Don't paint a picture of what great ambassadors they are for our glorious state with that small percentage of good doers. I can give you way more clippings of outfitters that have been busted for illegal activities than you want.

Which one of the 16 outfitters are you?

In a free market system it only makes sense that the logical conclusion to leasing is that every available acre of land that holds game is leased at whatever price the market will bear at some point in the future. The areas that are good or have the potential to be good will be the most expensive, BMA will disappear because it will not be able to compete with the market price, and public land will start to become overrrun with those unable or unwilling to pay to hunt. We'll begin to see people buying ranchland as investment property, with the sole intent of farming the wildlife to the point that they can get pics of some big ones and then sell the land for a premium. Hunting as a tradition in MT will cease to exist within the bulk of the general population. Token efforts like "Big Hearts..." will do nothing to change any of this. There are two possible solutions to this as I see it: Make leasing of hunting rights illegal or severely limit the number of outfitters and the acreage that they can control. The second option would not serve to fix the problem nearly as well as the first, too many folks out there like DINK and worse.

Afraid I missed HB607.

As far as the refund polcy goes the longer one waits to return the tag the lower the refund.

Farming animals just to lease property is already happening.

With tags costing almost a thousand dollars now as time goes on and tag prices increase further only people with money will hunt. Those people will not hunt public land or pay a trespass fee to hunt. They will want fully guided hunts with gourmet chefs. Outfitters will able to lease all the ground because their clients will not have to compete with the average guy for tags.

Dink

well....I do not know why I am stupid enough to weigh in on a subject like this...glutton for punishment I guess.

Toolelk is correct...161 was poorly thought out, whether by accident or design.(be sure to thank those who voted in 161 for your increase in RESIDENT license fees, part of the FWP shortfall aforementioned).

161 opened (some of you will need to google this)Pandora's Box. When we had the outfitter set-aside license(OSL) we had a lot of rules/regulations to deal with. We were going backward in numbers of hunting outfitters and acres leased(part of the give/take w/ the OSL)...now those conditions are gone, and I am willing to wager that the acres leased by outfitters is way up since 161 passed. Unintended consequences I warned about, and there are many more that I did not forsee(like res. license fees going up).

Let's talk about the percieved issue. Access. If we are all honest(some will not be able), there really is no access issue. There are plenty of places to access(for free) and hunt. I have checked, there is not a city/town in Montana that is less than a 30 minute drive to free public hunting. So access can not be the issue. There are 30 million acres of public lands w/ adequate access, and another 8.5M acres of Block Management...and at time of passage of 161 outfitters were leasing 6.2m acres...and we caused an access issue? Give me a break. We can not track the number of acres leased by resident or non-resident hunters...we also have no way of knowing if a landowner is just using "leased out" as an easy way out of telling you "Nope, you can't hunt here"....so before throwing the entire blame of "access" onto the outfitter think about it a little.

Now, let's shift gears...to the real issue, which is not one of access, but one of quality. The public is tired of no quality. I can read it in the above posts. If you think things are bad now just wait a year or two when there are an additional 100-200K people living in Montana because of the oil boom...we can not keep a 5 week long rut encompassing general firearms season and have any game left. If you want quality demand wildlife be managed biologically.

If you are going to get personal or disrespectful, have the wherewithal to sign your real name.
Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter

If outfitters/leasers and access are not an issue and it is the hunting public that is being dishonest, answer me this: If you were leasing a ranch and an adjacent ranch became available for you to lease which would allow you to lock up access to several thousand acres of public, would you do it? If you could lease every single acre of land in the county(s) you work in would you? The idea is for the outfitter to make money, the more land you control the more money you can make. This is counter to the enjoyment of every hunter, resident and NR, that hunts without a babysitter or a lease.

As to the 5 week season and increasing pressure on the resource, you have a good point. Instead of shortening the season (I live in a 3 week deer season area - 640) I think putting the tags on a draw would be a better route to more quality. Shorter, non-rut seasons only prompt the average hunter to shoot smaller bucks, not no buck at all. This decreases quality. A draw only season in large portions of the state would also serve to reduce the # of leasers, as it would be tough to lease year to year without any way of knowing if you would get to hunt the next year.

**I seriously doubt that 100-200k more people will hit MT as a part of the forecast boom. None of the wells in this part of the Bakken have hit anything even approaching the quantity of oil that has been found in ND. It's all speculative for the time being. Now all bets are off if a big well comes in, even then drilling in MT is less lucrative and more cumbersome (regs) than it is in ND.

Projections for Bainville, Plentywood, Culbertson are over 50K people in the next 5 years....the drilling has commenced in Shelby, supposedly the next big boom area. Don't know either if it will happen, even if it does not, Montana is growing in population....

Leasor's of land (whether it's an outfitter/resident sportsman/non-res. sportsman are all contributing to access issues)...never said they were not...I just said it is not solely the outfitters who are leasing. Still, w/ 30 million acres of public land and 8.5M acres of BMA's there is plenty of access...just not to much in the way of quality most (not all) places.

As to the permits, I agree. It is where we will eventually wind up. I for one would like to start w/ less restrictive measures first. Why don't we work on re-structuring our hunting seasons? Like Sept. 1 thru Sept 30 archery only season. Then Oct. 5 thru Oct. 20(or 25) any weapon general season, then Oct. 30-Nov 8 muzzleloader(no in-lines no scopes), followed by another archery season Nov. 10-Nov 30. Now we have just created more opportunity w/ less impact on the resource. As time goes on the system would undoubtly need changed, like maybe a person would have to pick which season(s) they wanted to hunt. This is a better solution than going to a permit situation right at the start.

Nov. is the best month of the year!! I'd hate to lose the opportunity to rifle hunt for big game at that time of year. To my way of thinking, fewer people in the field (permit system) and a 5 week season would make for outstanding hunts. Those that hunt exclusively for meat could shoot cows and does on over the counter tags. No reason that resident kids 18 and under couldn't have either sex tags every year.

Ranger if they are short on budget now how will they make it selling less tag?

no they wont see 50K ppl.....be surprised if Roosevelt County(culbertson, Bainville, Poplar and Wolf Point) gains even 20% of that, granted the population has been around 10,500 so 5,000 is a huge increase.....gotta rememberby the time you hit the west end of Roosevelt the Bakken is pretty thin.....we are and will continue to see an increase but its not gonna be anywhere close to what your thinking mainly cause while we are sitting on oil, it doesnt look like we are sitting on as much as Williston........

He11 DINK, how do you think? Raise the price of the NR tags some more!!! MT tags are still FAR cheaper than WY when you look at the value you get in a combo license.

I throw up in my mouth a little every time I see Jackie Bushman and the Realtree boys on their MT hunts. It's pretty sad when wealthy out of state interests are allowed to rape the game resources that belong to the people of MT and leave us the scraps. Make it all permits and then give a max of 10% of them to NR hunters and see how fast those boys bail out on MT. I bet there are plenty of deer in GA and AL for those fellas to exploit on their little TV shows.

I read that Bushmans ranch is 25k acres. If that is true I don't think he is raping anything. He paid his way.

If they limit tags to 10% what will the price have to be for them? 4k apiece? What kind of people will be able to afford them?

It will still be people with lots of money coming to hunt.

Dink

Spoken like a true outfitter. What part of the fact that MTFW&P's made $2,000,000 dollars more with the new system (I-161) than the old (outfitter sponsored tag) don't you and Tool understand? The shortfall has nothing to do with I-161. It has helped bring in more money though. The push from the right in Montana to stop MTFW&P's from acquiring any more lands has done a larger part. HB 607 did that.

Good luck with your attempt to add a muzzy season, and a late archery.

Outfitters hate permit season structures for the fact that when you limit a resident hunter, you can only give up to 10% of those tags to a Non resident hunter.

Big +1.

Bushman bought a ranch (those are things that are supposed to be for raising cattle) so that he could have his own private little hunting empire in another state. He did this with money that he earned by selling a service to other hunters. Now I don't have a problem with him having a place in MT, I just figure as a fella from AL (or whatever southern state he hails from) he ought not have more (not equal either) hunting opportunities than a MT resident. If he could hunt that place every five years or so that would be about right. Under the OSL he hunted it every year - One more reason that I voted for I161.

Exactly +1.

We also need to rein in landowner preference limited entry tags. Right now a landowner has a huge advantage over the rest of us on those sought after tags.

I agree w/ you on the permits, I just hate to go to the most restrictive and limiting type of season structure first. I really believe that going to a structure like I outlined above would help quality, and increase participation. Eventually we will have to go to a limited permit type of situation...but that should only be as a last resort.

Eric, I live in the Root, we have been dealing with poor mule deer herds for a lone time now. Many things have been tried, and failed. The only way to bring the herds back to a healthy balance to to control how many deer die. Unlimited hunting pressure has caused this imbalance. The Root is under limited entry for deer now except for one area, and it's by unlimited permit 1st choice only. 2 districts have been limited for some time, and are the most sought after tags in the state. We went to limited entry in one of the other districts that had buck to doe ratios of 1/100 2 years ago to 20/100 in one year. Their young but alive. We still have lots of predators but the only thing that changed was not letting the human hunters kill everything they could. Mule deer just aren't willey enough until they get older. Problem was, none where getting to live long enough.

4100,

It appears I hit a nerve. Obvouisly, we disagree and surely will not find too much common ground on the I-161 issue. However, I think it only fair to point out a few facts:

1. I am not sure how you have proven your point concerning $2,000,000 additional revenue. I spoke directly to FWP and they don't know yet. The price increase of NR licenses will help but the returns will subtract. Again, FWP stated that they do not know how this will shake out.

2. Also not sure how you can have it both ways - you claim that a few bad outfitters tarnish the entire industry but a few good ones do little as ambassadors. You might also want to check your "facts" as there are many more than 16 involved in BHUBS. Additionally, all outfitters are not represented by MOGA (the organization that funds BHUBS). I think the number is closer to 350.

3. The outfitting industry is one of the most regulated industries in the state. In reality, I-161 removed many of those regulations. If I remember correctly, the outfitter sponsored license was a product of sportsmen, landowners and outfitters. There was minimal confidence in that these groups would agree on anything. Hardly a subsidy, it was hailed as an economic achievement.

4. Block Management had nearly a $2,000,000 trust fund prior to I-161. That fund is now gone.

I am not an outfitter. I am a hunter that is concerned with the future of our hunting privilege. As I stated previously, it is my hope that we could start some dialog that would unite the hunting community....not divide us.

Toole, the nerve you hit is your insistence upon spreading BS.

1). MTFW&P's knows full well how much money they have made. It is record. I've done the math, and they made almost $2,000,000 more with the new system. Anybody with a calculator can add this up in no time.

2). I'm not the one claiming a few bad outfitters tarnish the image for all, or are a majority. Your the one that came out gloating about the new organization, and how great outfitters are. I tried to make sure you knew that I could come up just as many bad ones (If you like). Of the ones I know, I wouldn't hunt with very many. Just saying!

3). The outfitter sponsored tags came out of the whining from the industry, claiming they needed a stable number of tags to keep running their businesses. The also claimed if they got this, then they would self police themselves and keep the number of outfitters statewide to 600. They did that, but, the growth came in the number of guides they hired or worked under their licence. For example. Landowners had a outfitter front the "sponsored tags" for them. A NR would come to hunt on the landowners property. The landowner would basically do the outfitting under the outfitters licence. They would be working under the guides licence. Then they would toss the outfitter a bone to take a couple of other clients on the landowners property for the tag's bought. Last I checked licenced guides had gone up over 2000 in the same time frame.

A subsidy is anything given to an industry to help it out monetarily. Tags set aside by the government,for the outfitting industry, could only be purchased if they intended to use the outfitters services. That my friend is the definition of a subsidy. Jackie Bushman, would buy his tags through an outfitter every year, He might toss him some sort of bone for that service. He was guaranteed to hunt, given preferential treatment over the average NR hunter. Their odds were about 50% on draw. I think all should be equal. If they want to hire a guide then go for it.

4). Where did you get your information on the loss of that fund? Got a link? How about somebody I can call?

As stated, I doubt we will agree on much concerning the outfittig industry. So I suggest you call FWP as I did and ask the experts about the revenue generated by NR license sales and the Block Management account. I surely couldn't find any data posted concerning NR license revenue because it is not complete. I suspect it will be difficult to get a straight answer on the Block Management account but as you noted the other day, I did speak to someone that is privy. If you can prove my statements BS, I will apologize publicly.

I do know a bit about BHUBS and the group is not new. I suggest you discuss the BHUBS program with the wounded warriors, children with life threatening illness and cancer survivors (and their families) that have had life changing experiences via BHUBS.

MOGA does police their own as does the Board of Outfitters. It is indeed sad that you have such a low opinion of the outfitting industry. I know many and on balance, find most to be hard working and dedicated sportsmen/women.

Boggy- wish it were so!

Maybe in MT and TX- but that's BS in Alaska. The Feds are on us like flies on stink. There are State F&G regulations, and there are Fed "subsistence" regulations - which are often incompatible, so the state, in the interest of conservative game management, always folds in deference.

Pesonally, I'm enjoying my time in this "subsistence" area, which is mostly under Fed regs due to Parks, Reserves, Monuments, and BLM areas - but it still ain't right. Alaska was guaranteed wildlife management in our Statehood Act - and the Feds reneged! (If one party breaks the contract, doesn't that null the contract? Ha! Fat chance!) All "Fed lands", are administered first by the Feds, then by the state regs. Sometimes they are in agreement. But the Fed bullies take dominence.

toolelk is correct about the FWP shortfall. There were 800+ elk license returned and 120+ elk/deer combos returned...those license were refunded(and remained unsold), hence the shortfall.

The license was not a subsidy. Define for me in what way it "assisted the outfitting industry monetarily". The example laid out above is not showing subsidation. The outfitters who went out of business on account of the high priced OSL would argue. They were unable to market their hunts along w/ a high priced license.


Hunting outfitter numbers are roughly 450 total, w/ about 300 belonging to MOGA.

Sounds like a refund policy change is needed.
Can a resident get refunds for tags too?
If you can't see how a certain number of people receiving guaranteed tags for the sole purpose of resale for profit is not a subsidy, you must have a different dictionary than most.
If an outfitter can not operate their business without government aid they should not be in business.
No matter who they are related to.

Backroads,

The old system provided no profit to the outfitter. All license monies went to Montana FWP and was earmarked for the Block Management Program (private land access). The program was developed by an ad hoc group of hunters, landowners and outfitters and was designed to stabalize the industry. Hunting supports many more industries than outfitters. The outfitters still had to market their services and compete for clients.

A guaranteed source of tags, when everyone else had to win a draw, is damn sure providing profit for outfitters.

The amount of tags did not change. If one wanted to participate in the draw and not use an outfitter (or use an outfitter), they had that option. The old system allowed the NR to plan a hunt. Moot point since I-161.

If the license that I as an outfitter sold for the state provided me profit I ask you to prove it.

The only guarantee was that of a license(which the state pocketed 100% of)....me, as an outfitter, had to find a person willing to contract my services....then I had to convince them to buy a license that was to high priced....personally I am glad that the OSL is gone....I am better off without it...talk about a tough sell...try convincing a hunter to buy a $995 deer license? I had a lot of folks who wanted to hunt w/ me not do it on principle alone w/ a $995 deer tag....life is much easier w/ that license gone..a $540 deer tag is half as hard to sell.

Now everyone has to draw. Even the entitled few that just bought their way in before.
Some folks just don't like to play fair.

Wow, I never thought contracting the services of an outfitter would be labled entitled. I have found it the best use of my time as it is much more valuable than the few extra dollars the state required for that service.

Buying your way out of a lottery is what is entitled.
Book with outfitters all you want.

You never made a profit on hunts using an OSL?
I agree with the rest of your statement BTW.

The system was setup to fund Block Management which benefitted the resident hunter. It was a win-win-win.

And FWIW, people are getting fed up with the latest buff 'plan'.

BMA leases won't be renewed on a few places.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/ar...bison-from-Yellowstone-Neighbors-opposed

I think the old system worked well. The guys that could afford a outfitter and pay the 1k for deer tag got them.

Guys like me that can not/won't pay for a outfitter had the option of payin the $360 ish dollars for a tag. Sometimes it took a few years to draw but that was a better option for me than paying almost $600 for a deer tag now. The difference in tag money paid my part of the fuel to go hunt. At some point you have to ask yourself what is a deer worth?

Dink

MTFWP stuck it's snout in that chit and is trying to root around with the Tribes.


TFF.

A dink I didn't even eat.

Somehow, that union just can't have a happy ending.

the profit made on a hunt had nothing to do w/ the OSL....that license was no different than a couch on a showroom floor, or a car sitting at a dealership.......

Now the "playing field is level" and everyone has to draw. I am not wanting to go back.... 161 was the best thing that ever happened. Had it not been for my being on the MOGA board I would have voted for it...in fact I know of several outfitters who did vote yes on 161...fewer rules and regulations to deal with...and that is a good thing.

The outfitters sure complained loudly while it was being debated though.

Who cares if it was a little buck? Who cares that I did not eat it? The food bank we give the deer to was sure damn happy to get them.

Dink

Did MTFW&P's make as much money as they could have? NO! Did they make more money than the year before I-161? YES! Because of I-161 they made close to $2,000,000 more than the OSL days. Wonder why I have a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to outfitters? Twisting the data to fit your argument is an indication. Laffin!



5500 OSL combo tags could only be used if they hired a guide.2300 OSL for the deer combo. Forcing people to use your services if they wanted to get a guaranteed tag WAS the subsidy.

I'm a general contractor. If they put a limit on the building permits in a certain area,(just like NR tags), of 600 for a given area, and the demand was around 1200 wanting to build, then said, that 200 of those could be given a guarantee of building this year if they purchase a tag set aside for contractors, even though it cost more, many would do that.

That would mean that 600 people not willing to use a contractor wouldn't be building this year.

Is that not a subsidy, and wrong?

Until recently, the odds for getting a NR tag in Montana was close to 50% was it not.



They didn't have to have the OSL to hunt with you. Many waited to see if they didn't draw the cheaper tags first. Then came to you and bought the OSL tags. It was a gamble in some years though. If the OSL sold out first, then those that missed the draw were SOL.

If you love the new system so much why the bitching and twisting of facts?

According to FWP's folks they are 2M short... and are raising the price of resident license this year to help w/ the shortfall....I do not blame the shortfall on 161, personally I think a tough economy along w/ our poor public hunting is to blame. I have not done the math on the subject at hand...but take 5500 OSL @ $1100 and 2300 deer @ $995(then factor in the remaining deer at $350 and elk/deer combos @ $540).....Now for this year take 17000 license, find out how many were "deer only @$512" and how many were elk/deer @ $942....then take away the returned 800 elk, and the 150 elk/deer that were refunded and you will have the approx. number that FWP generated last year compared to the last year of the OSL....

Back to the subsidy...you must be kidding me...Nobody was forced to use my services. And for more facts, the number of license we could sell in those days was actually UNLIMITED...those numbers were the soft-cap numbers and if outfitters sold more license than the 5500&2300 the price of the license went up the following year...which is why it was called a "variable priced license"...oversell, price goes up..undersell price goes down, hit soft-cap price stays same...a true supply and demand situation, not a subsidy as you try to spin it.

Contractor holding a building permit is not a subsidy, first they have to find a willing party to hire them. If they are a poor contractor nobody hires...they can have all the permits they want...just like poor outfitters who had all the NCHU in the world, and could have sold 200 hunts...but holding those NCHU(OSL) made no difference, and they went out of business...hence no subsidy.

I am neither "bitching or twisting fact"....merely pointing out the facts.

Why does it gall you to here me say that I am better off?

Lets look at the FACTS then:

OSL Tags sales:

Elk Combo's OSL 5500 X $1100 = $6,050,000
Deer combo OSL 2300 X $995 = $2,288.500
NR draw Elk combo 11500 X $540 = $6,210,000
NR draw Deer combo 2300 X $350 = $805,000

Total: $15,353,500

New system Elk combo's 16,200 X $942 = $15,260,400
New system Deer combo's 4600 X $512 = $2,355,200

Total: $17,615,600

Total increase in revenue: $2,262,100

Now, those returned some kept the deer, and I didn't add that in. Also, we had come home to hunt tags, not figured in. I think there's also landowner sponsored tags of 2000. I didn't figure them in either.

You need to re- read my post concerning the contractor guaranteed building permit post. Your comprehension skills are poor.

During the I-161 campaign, outfitters cried the whole time about how bad it would make their lives, and little towns would dry up. I always claimed that was BS. I new you would be alright. I could care less if your better or worse off because of I-161's passage. It was the right thing to do. Getting rid of a subsidy to a special interest group.

How's that for facts outfitter?

16k elk combos and 4600 deer combo's add up to a few more than the 17,000 that are SUPPOSED to be sold to Non-residents. I have not run the numbers, I just know what I have been told by FWP, that they are short...hence the increase in resident fees...in my opinion the increase is not be substantial enough.

It is not my comprehesion skills that are lacking. I understand perfectly what you are attempting to incorrectly point out. The OSL was in no way a subsidy...if it were there would not have been 70+ outfitters go out of business during its tenure. The outfitting industry recieved no "monetary assistance" from the state. If you want to know who was subsidized it was the resident hunter....my clients whom purchased the high priced OSL funded the majority ofBlock Management. I had to market my services(at my expense) and sell a license for the state...there was no subsidy, no matter how you wish to twist it.

You could argue that it was not equitable for all, as it was very expensive. Pandering to the wealthy or those willing to make a sacrifice and save for the license...valid arguements. Subsidy no.

Really dude, you need to be a little more informed on your FACTS before you come on here looking to spew chit.

NR hunters receive 17,000 Elk combo tags, 4600 deer combo's, 2000 landowner sponsored, and relative of a resident born in Montana tags. Check this link out, so your FACTS are better represented. http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html



We're close to agreement here. Resident hunters are subsidised by NR hunters licences. Not just the ones that use outfitters. We need to pay our fair share, for lots of reasons. None of which are good for you and your clients.


One other FACTs you had wrong. NR Elk comb's are $944 not $942, and the deer Combo's are $561, not $512. So the money made by the new system is every higher.

$32,400 on the Elk combo
$225,400 on the Deer combo
$98,000 on the landowner sponsored tags.

Grand Total: $2,617,900 more generated with last years sales than previous year.

Nobody is spewing BS....I merely pointed at what the dept. is SUPPOSED to sell vs. what it is selling. Couple that w/ unlimited resident pressure, wolves, coyotes, bears, mountain lions and we have very little in the way of quality left.

We need to stop acting like school children and begin working on a viable solution to our wildlife problem here in Montana.

You can start your healing process by admitting that you were wrong about I-161 causing the "Shortfall" that we will show up in 2015 without a licence increase.

I've been working on Montana's wildlife problem for quite a few years. Outfitters seem to be in the way of progress most of the time. Many of your piers aren't concerned about the resource, they just don't want the opportunity reduced. That's a problem.

So you might brush up on the "Elk Management Plan" in conjunction with HB 43 that was passed in 2003 by Debbie Barret of Dillon, and see what it has done to hurt Montana's Elk hunting.

How can one admit being wrong about something that even FWP claims is an unknown?

Eric has been completely transparent concerning his feelings and willingness to work on solid wildlife management rather than devisive bomb throwing. You continue to paint all outfitters with a broad brush. Care to name names?

OK. Getting back to SB 136. Is it a done deal, did it not pass or what is its status? It seems the "Come home to Hunt" price is still up there at $561 for deer and $944 for the Combo. So what is all the hoopla about?

Tool, you and Eric, are great ambassadors for the Industry. Keep it up. Your showing great colors with your rhetoric.

See post above for how much money they raised. It is final. They do know how much money they made off of the tags in question. What they haven't added up are all tag sales. Antelope, both resident and NR. All the B-tags etc. Those numbers I have ran, are real, and fixed. Keep coming back with more fear mongering though. You fellas are controlling the brush. I'm Pointing out the FACTS.

Yes, SB 136 became law. So a Native born, relative of a resident, that jumps through a few hoops can buy NR licences for 4 times that of a resident. This law needs repealed.

I almost agree w/ you on 136, but I say let it slide one year..if the number sold is greater than 500 then either cap it and have a draw, or repeal it.



In what way do outfitters seem to stand in the way of progress? Name one of my "piers"(correctly spelled "peers") that is not concerned about the resource? I do not care about the "rape and pillage outfitter"---i know there are a few, but they are not my peers--- All the outfitters with whom I associate and consider "peers" all care about the resource first and foremost. If I(or they) did not care about the resource we would hunt our properties until they looked like most BMA's.

You may take good care of private land leases, but I doubt you have the same care on lands owned by the public. We went to limited entry permits in the Root for mule deer many years ago. Those that fought us were the local outfitters and guides. I only knew of one that was Ok with it. Many of them have sold their businesses since then.

I'm a contractor, Piers is what I work with. I'm use to spelling it that way. My bad!

Now how about admitting your wrong on the loss of revenue part of this thread.

Once again you paint the industry w/ a broad brush. I grew up right here in Reg. 6, a 4th generation rancher/farmer/hunter. I got in on the last of the good hunting here on public land, and was fortunate enough to take a handful of mule deer that were mature and score in the hi 180's, lo 190's...all on public land. I (as most outfitters) have a deep respect for the wildlife. I have cut the number of public land and private land hunts we do here at home to near nothing. The resource should come first.

If I am proven wrong on the loss I will happliy admit I was wrong....

Hey I was born in Montana...

somehow tho, my Birth Certificate got lost at the same time they lost the Birth Certificate as the President..

Think Hussein will vouche for me?

Think the State of Montana would take his vouching for me??

I guess you can't read then. I even did the math for you. If your not totally wrong, then please tell me where my FACTS are off. Surely if your not wrong about I-161's shortfall you can point out where I erred.

Your hunting up there is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better for sure. Wait until all the mature deer die off.

BTW, I'm a 5Th generation Bitterrooter, and my kids are 6TH, my family came to the Root before Chief Joseph came through on his epic journey. Not sure what difference it makes though concerning this conversation.

Eric, I'm sure your better guy, than most outfitters, you seem to be a nice person, (For an Oufitter) but you must realize that your fed a lot of BS from people in MOGA. The results of I-161 will be close to what they were before OSL were set up. (The sky hasn't fallen) Leasing will be a problem, as well as harboring game on private lands. I-161 isn't going to cure that, nore enhance it. That will be a whole other topic though.

Yeah, I'm also not sure about what being a 3rd or 17th generation Montanan has to do with this discussion. What I do know is that this issue involves a lot more than "the resource."

The reason for the conflicts over Montana's outfitting industry really don't have anything to do with Montana. They're arising because hunting all over America has changed vastly over the past few decades. There are a lot more people and a lot less land to hunt.

One of my hunting mentors grew up in New York City, and whil in high school in the 1950's would hitch-hike to the Catskill Mountains (because the legal driving age was 18) with his Savage 99 to hunt deer. That's simply impossible today, for a bunch of reasons--and the same sort of thing is happening all over the U.S. Our cities and towns are no longer surrounded by huntable country; instead they're surrounded by subdivisions, which may stretch to the next town. This is even happening in some parts of Montana. I grew up in Bozeman and hunted all around town when I was a kid. Now the suburbs stretch almost unbroken to the mountains and Belgrade. Oh, and did anyone notice Montana finally passed a million in population in 2011? When I started hunting our population was about 600,000.

We've become an urban nation, and the few rural areas left have been getting the overflow from super-urban states. People in super-urban states tend to make more money--or at least a lot more of them do. They can pay for their hunting in Montana, whether by hiring an outfitter or buying/leasing land. Thus the conflict here.

It's great to care about "the resource," but who is getting to use the resource? Not the average Montanan, the sort of person who lived here 50 years ago--and not because of anything unique to Montana. The cost of hunting goes up anywhere humans become more urban, through the simple law of supply and demand. This is why most European hunters are in the top 1% (or even less) of their country's income level--and like Europe, America is becoming more urban with each generation.

This is also why I-161 was very much like trying to stop a flood by sticking a finger in a dike. Probably a more effective solution to the "outfitting problem" (meaning more and more land unavailable to the average hunter) would be something similar to Alberta's law against leasing ANY land for hunting. Even outfitters have to go knock on doors up there, unless they're operating on public land. But that ain't the American way.

In the end we're going to see exactly what's happened all over the rest of the world: Only the well-off will be able to afford to hunt, and only the kids from well-off families will be able to learn to hunt. Oh, there'll always be a few kids who grow up and move to Alaska, just to find the same sort of freedom to hunt we used to have here, but hunting in Alaska is also pretty expensive, even for rural folks.

As time goes by, fewer and fewer people will hunt, and those that do will have more money. This won't affect the outfitting industry as much as the rest of us, though ultimately there will be fewer hunters even among the well-off, simply because their kids would rather play video games than be out in the woods.

Sorry to be so gloomy, but I've seen it happening everywhere, and arguing about what's happening in Montana is just a symptom, not a search for a real solution.

Well spoken JB. Time to leave this thread alone as I doubt Obama will help with birth certificates and there will be those that think bashing others associated with hunting is the answer.

+1!

Couldn't agree more. I think anybody who has more than a few decades under their hunting belt has seen exactly what Mr. Barsness has described.

I agree with Mule Deers post for the most part. There will always be those who will try and privatise, and commercialize our natural resources. THAT is where we have lost the most IMO.

John,

Answer me this, "In a state with over 30 million acres of public lands(w/ adequate access, according to the controlling agencies), another 8.5+million acres enrolled in Block Managment, can there be an access issue? Prior to 161 outfitters were leasing 6.3m acres....how can it be the fault of the outfitter there is an access issue?

Respectfully,
Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter

We got our ass in a little trouble several years ago. Buddy was looking at his map and it showed access right up and into the public. Turns out the landowner had actually taken over the last mile or so of county road just to make it private(no access).
The next week buddy called the county just to make sure the bastard was telling the truth and sure enough he was.

Anyway he chewed our ass when he 'caught' us driving out after an overnight/day hunt. Went on about how he was an outfitter and we were stealing his deer.
Hell, we shot the deer on the BLM! Really rubbed me the wrong way, especially being that's the only time I've ever been in the 'wrong'.

[bleep] charged us like $150(all the money we had) for the trouble. We should have just kicked his old ass but that would have been a real stupid thing to do out in that country.

There's my major bitch with outfitters, they can and do block off access anyway they can.

Sam
You just expressed one of my pet peeves better than I could have.
Another part of the same peeve, is that when outfitters do stuff they that, they get off scott free. If we set foot on one square foot of their land, we are liable to get fined for tresspassing.
Two years ago, I drove by some state owned land that I used to hunt and found bright red paint on the gate. Called it to the attention of the warden in that area and he said he'd look into it. And he did, way after hunting season.

Fred

Fred-
I've seen the same problem many times - the illegal flagging of federal lands / state school trust lands with blaze orange paint. The best course of action is to file a written complaint with DNRC, specifically noting the location of the illegal posting. Due to the number of complaints, they may not address the problem right away but the documentation will be in their files for future enforcement actions. Next, get yourself a GPS with some extra memory, and purchase/download the property ownership/mapping software from MT Mapping in Missoula ([b][color:#3333FF]HuntingGPSMaps.com[/color][/b]). They have taken info from the MT Cadastral property database and other sources, and developed software that uses the locational data from your GPS to identify the property ownership of the location shown on your GPS unit, in real time. Third, join and support the Public Land/Water Access Association ([b][color:#3333FF]PLWA.org[/color][/b]). Those folks are fighting hard to keep the historical access routes open in Montana.

Eric - As you stated earlier, access to ground is generally there. It's the quality of the ground wherein the disparity exists. With that said, and as I stated before, it only makes sense that the outfitter ties up as much ground as he possibly can. This often means that they find a way to prohibit access to public ground. Take away all of the individual hangups that people have and the obvious solution to these issues is a permit system and a law like that of Alberta that doesn't allow leasing of hunting rights. Quality goes way up and access is never again an issue.

**Maybe add section line access like ND has. No need to worry about whether or not a road is public or private, if it's on a section line it's public.

MT DD FAN
I am ashamed to say that I don't belong to PLWA but I will remedy that before the day is out.

Fred

Am now a paid up member- Thanks, MT DD FAN

Fred

Fred, I'm all for private property rights and understand that land owners don't want a quiet pasture trail turning into a highway come hunting season. Then access can and should be blocked, IMHO.

But this was a graveled county road and he was allowed to shut it down. Granted it was the last mile of the road but there were at least 2 other homes nearby that used the road. Maybe they were his kinfolk, hell if I know. Poor bastard must have been hurting to whine around for money.


Here's the good news(and you already know this), there are still a few old farmer/ranchers left who will let you hunt for free. And no offense to outfitters but for whatever reason they don't like the idea of selling wildlife, of course they don't hunt for horns either.

As I understand it her in Hill County the section line roads are public access. Which is good, in that it allows access to some public land that would otherwise be landlocked. But it is also bad in that even if that section line is surrounded by private on both sides and the end you can't stop anybody from driving it. So what ends up happening is road hunters with no permission to hunt the private land just cruise the section lines and as long as no one is looking shoot whatever pops up.

No doubt that there are schitt heads on both sides of the issue. There are plenty of guys in this area that have probably never killed an animal without the rifle rested on the door of a pickup.

BillyGoat, I would be interested to see how Hill county did it. The States to the east dedicated the section lines at statehood but I have not seen anything like this in Montana.

Like I said, that's what I've been told, and seen in practice. I'm not a warden or a lawyer, and as such can't quote the law that says it's so. If I'm wrong, please show me where. Not being argumentative, I'd really like to see it spelled out in writing either way.

I suggest you folks (BillyGoat & Krakmt) check with John Gibson of the Public Land/Water Access Association [b][color:#3333FF]PLWA.org link[/color][/b] . I've been told that John has addressed this very question in his public presentation.

Yeah, alot of farmland around here close to town in Roosevelt is divided up by county roads every mile or maybe every 2 miles. Of course that's not the case the farther from town and in rougher country. Public access as in you can drive on the road but don't get off.

I will admit to shooting the occasional sharptail or pheasant from the road. But of course growing up here I know where it's fine to do that and where it's not. Fun to putt around on those roads in the pickup.

Several of the section line two tracks in this area are gated and if you don't have permission you're out of luck. The general consensus is that section lines are private as far as the landowners in this area are concerned. Not really a problem here where the bulk of the land is private anyway. Sucks when you can't access a largs area of public land because of closed roads. Generally it does create better hunting to REDUCE access, it's when that access is removed entirely that I have a problem with it.

Oh yeah, if it's just a two track then it's off limits. Lock the gate.

Only time people travel section lines is on the actual county maintained road and there is zero public land here to access anyway.


Unless you're Tribal....grin

PLWA attorney was not aware of any special section line rules in Hill county when I spoke to him yesterday.

Ok thanks for the info. Good to know, next time I see a warden I'll see what he says. Didn't mean to imply any "special" rules were in play for Hill Cty, that's just how I've seen it play out and how it's been explained by other residents who've been here longer than me. There's access issues everywhere for sure. There's a guy near me who likes to keep all his gates up during hunting season even when the cows are nowhere near his lease, in hopes of blocking hunters from accessing some BLM ground. Good road, though not county maintained.

Billygoat
That reminds me of an outfitter/rancher in an area where I hunt- There is a section of state land bordering some of his land and every year he gets special posters from the state to put up saying that the land is "temporarily closed" for three days while he is working cattle. Then he doesn't date the posters and leaves them up indefinitely during hunting season.
When I talked to a warden about it, he looked at me as though I had asked him to write a formula for the orbit of the moon using Chinese calculus.

Fred

Fred-
I empathize with your *working cattle story*. I assume that when you use the term "state land" you are referring to trust lands which are managed to generate revenue for schools. If so, the use of trust lands in MT is administered by the lands division of the Dept of Natural Resources and Conservation. Here's the link to the DNRC web page for the lands division: [b][color:#3333FF]MT DNRC Lands Div[/color][/b]; and here is the link to DNRC's STATE LAND SURFACE MANAGEMENT RULES AND POLICIES document: [b][color:#000099]MT Trust Lands Rules/Policies Document[/color][/b].

The DNRC rules & policies document contains lots of good information; including approximately 35 pages covering issues related to the leasing of state lands. It also includes specific policies on the use of roads on state lands, and the illegal posting of state trust lands. The document also contains the phone numbers for all of the local DNRC management offices around the state.

I share your frustrations about the misuse of state trust lands in Montana. However, DNRC is the agency responsible for the enforcement of their trust lands rules, not FWP. Asking a fish and game warden to deal with violations of trust lands rules would be like asking them to write a ticket for drunken driving - it ain't gonna happen because they don't have the authority. And if you want FWP wardens to have that authority, then I suggest you contact your elected state representative and senator, and get them to change state law.

Good luck dealing with these trust lands issues. IMO, the more folks that file written complaints with DNRC, and that write letters to their elected officials, the sooner some of the problems will be dealt with!

Huh! Never even thought of that. I just assumed that all land posting issues would be handled by wardens. Thanks for the information-

Fred