Actually, two very good articles by Randy Newberg in the latest issue on some of the history and background on why the states allot tags and fees differently for residents and non-residents. Thanks Randy.

Randy:

I always thought that variations in resident vs nonresident costs for hunting licenses was simply a way of giving residents a preference over nonresidents, because residents pay a lot more local taxes than nonresidents do on their short stays. Sort of like nonresident vs resident tuition costs at colleges. It must be more complicated than that. Splain it to me please.

KC

Didn't read article, but to be fair we should make sure illegals pay resident fees like we just did for them on tuition rates in this great state.

I can't speak for Randy but I can tell you what I took away from the articles.

First, state and local tax dollars don't fund wildlife management (at least in most western states), license sales fund most of it and Pittman-Roberston funds plus Dingell-Johnson funds (excise tax on firearms/ammo. and fishing gear, respectively) pay a fair amount. These are federal excise taxes that are disbursed to the states. Zero state or local tax dollars go to CP&W in Colorado for example. So local taxes are a non-issue. Randy cites some other reasons residents get a break also.

Court cases have decided that wildlife is a public trust resource to be managed by the states, and the states can basically charge what they want and allot tags as they see fit. Because state politicians are beholden to their voters, they do what their voters want is what it boils down to.

I thought Randy made a really good case for outdoor users besides hunters and fishermen paying some of the freight (currently they don't by and large) and also that state residents should be willing to share more of the load in license fees. He pointed out that in most states, non-residents pay roughly 10X more for an elk tag than residents, and in Montana that's 29X. He also points out that states sell many more resident tags than non-resident tags, so a small increase in resident fees would go a long ways.

The first article appeared in the "Hunting is Conservation" column, which is something all hunters should be reminding their non-hunting friends of.

I would like to see the year over year growth of the wildlife management budgets during the worst economic period we have had as a country in the last 60 years. If that growth is far exceeding inflation, then I would like to see that growth curbed. Only after knowing that number would I be up for increased fees.

I would first expand the Pittman Robertson tax to cover bikes, running shoes, cameras, binoculars, atv's, cycles, and ski equipment. Let's see how the other consumers of the great outdoors feel about carrying a bit of the load.

But basically, after Colorado DOW misdirected over $32 million in funds over 4 years, I want to know what accountability there is for the inept bureaucracy they obviously are. I have no sympathy for this state whining about not enough funds for wildlife management. Can't speak for other states, this is just my opinion about Colorado DOW.

http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2012/jun/06/how-cos-wildlife-division-overspent-32-million/

Well, why don't you dig out the budget numbers and see for yourself? Randy cited a pending cut in the Wyoming budget of $8-10MM in operating costs as background for the article. I just looked up the budget for CDOW in 2011 and 2012 and it looked like it decreased from 2011-2012 to me.

I have a big problem with the other laws that WY and MT instituted that favor the outfitting business. The requirement that hunters must have a guide on wilderness land in WY and nonresidents that have a contract with a outfitter gets preference over those that do. Because of those, I have serious doubts of the fiscal spending of those two states in regards to hunting and how much lobbyist are playing in these fees.

Then you look at Colorado and see the tremendous lobby efforts that the AG community exert on the CPW and other doubts come in to play.

I think resident fees that Colorado has right now are exactly appropriate as are NR fees, which are among some of the cheapest in the west. Whereas the NR fees in WY ,MT and NM are absurd. Probably because they have less elk but the a bloated number of DOW employees that other state have like CO, but not enough tags to pay for them.

Generally I have found that those that are more financially affluent back resident tag fee increases as it won't impact their pocket book as much as those with less discretionary funds.

I don't known Randy Newberg at all and he seems like a nice guy, but certainly if he can travel all over the west to hunt and film those DIY hunts, he probably has more funds than I.

Smoke, Looked up US gov spending info on Colorado's state budget. In 2006 our budget was $37.1 billion. In 2013 our budget was $54 billion. I have a hard time being sympathetic when the state government has grown by 45% during that time.

Don't have a bone to pick with you, just not feeling a lot of sympathy when gas prices, food prices, energy prices and healthcare prices have all skyrocketed along with government spending and these agencies still claim to not have enough money from the private sector.

With the huge amount of Pittman Robertson taxes being collected due to the massive sales of ammo and guns in the last year, where did those funds go? Talk about a windfall amount. Sorry, not buying the need for fee increases. If and when they do need them, the granola crunchers need to get to the front of the line.

Funding wildlife agencies has been a hot topic for years. As a former wildlife manager I have a good idea how it works and how funding occurs. First of all, those who advocate for bird watchers, ATV'ers and other non- consumptive users to pay part of the load must realize that "money in the game" also means "voice in the game". Hunters don't show up for management meetings now; USFS and wildlife agency planning/public meetings are overwhelmingly dominated by the anti-hunting/logging/fishing/management types. When they actually have to PAY, they'll show up even more.

Then there is the general ignorance of HOW and WHO funds wildlife management agencies. A prior poster mentioned Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs; these are federal excise-tax programs which have been in effect since 1937 (in the case of P-R). Funds are allocated on a 3:1 matching basis to states for qualifying wildlife management activities. Most of the work I did in my career was funded by P-R funds - habitat work like timber sales for aspen regeneration, food/cover plantings, area signs, populations surveys...lots of things. So for every dollar spent, the state wildlife funds paid 25 cents and P-R paid 75 cents.

I only mention this because I had a lot of folks that would come and talk to me before and after hunting seasons and, if there was a recent license increase, many would make comments like "must have gotten a nice raise with the recent fee increases, huh?" (Or something to that effect) - like somehow fee increases ended up in our pockets! Many of these folks would pull up in front of my field office with $40k trucks pulling $40k campers and $30k worth of four wheelers...

I still think hunting and fishing licenses are bargains when you consider how much time they allow you to recreate with that license. Just my .02...

I'm sure not one of them. I run a 15 yr old truck a 10 yr old stock trailer, and one sorry mule. My gun is a 1952 model and most of my gear is 20+ years old.

Then I see the CO CPW spending $50K per bird for a sage grouse study, and taking 10+ years to figure out that we were shooting too many deer being the cause of mule deer decline after they spent thousands on various studies.

I totally agree.

Should the Federal government stand up to these states on behalf of nonresidents' access to hunting Federal lands? It seems like the Feds are failing their mission: "The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation�s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." It doesn't say "present and future generations of state residents".

No worries Kurt, but I think quoting the entire Colorado budget in reference to the CP&W budget is apples and oranges. Although I understand where you're coming from.

To be fair to Randy, he wasn't talking about Colorado in his articles. He did mention that Colorado provides more non-resident tags than most other western states combined, and also mentioned that the Colorado Parks and Wildlife budget is tied to the CPI so any increases will not exceed the inflation rate. He was really talking about Wyoming, which is facing an $8-10 million cut because the legislature won't allow license fees to be raised, and Montana, where the cost of a non-res. combination elk/deer license has risen to the point ($945) that the price has affected the demand and they're not selling all their non-res. licenses. As one who'd like to hunt Montana, I kind of agree with his point; no way I'd shell out that kind of cash for a license.

A couple other points regarding Pittman-Robertson and the windfall you mentioned. It's there, but not as much as you may think. In 2013 P-R generated a record $555 million in excise tax revenue; in 2012 the number was $388 million. The previous record was in 2009, attributed to Obama's first election. But Colorado only gets a small portion of that. Out of the roughly $100 milllion annual budget for the DOW part of CP&W, in 2012 Colorado received $9.3 million in P-R funds, and in 2013 due to the surge in gun/ammo sales, that will rise to $13.1 million. Most of the CP&W budget comes from license sales.

Another little-known fact is that since its inception, P-R has generated around $14 billion in funding for management of wildlife.

A couple problems with this, as explained in the referenced articles. First, the federal government doesn't have a leg to stand on because the legal precedents Randy cited are unequivocally in favor of the states on this.

Second, do you really want the federal government stepping in and dictating to states in these matters, or others? If you're like 99% of the people who post on this forum, you're for smaller federal government and less federal government intrusion. Is that correct?

I haven't read the article but I would like hear the legal precedents cited. Hunting Federal land, like all hunting, is a privilege that can be revoked. It seems like the Feds could stand up the states over their failure to share permits but I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_v._Fish_and_Game_Commission_of_Montana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_conservation

In the second link, scroll down to "Public Trust Doctrine" to see the case Martin v Waddell cited.

Whiptail,

The first thing you need to realize is that the ownership of land DOES NOT matter in regard to who controls the wildlife. The Federal Government can control access to their lands, thats where their authority begins, and ends.

Its not a good idea...do you remember the USO fiasco in Arizona regarding the commerce clause?

Following that mess, S. 339 was placed into law, to further the ability of the States to manage the game/fish within their borders. It also strengthens the Public Trust Doctrine, IMO.


S.339

The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:


Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.



Protecting the public interest of individual states� conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.



Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state�s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

Until you get to AK you are mostly right, but the Feds took over management of fish and game on Fed lands some years back. Their rules supercede AK rules and our State Supreme Court rulings...

We had a decent shot at righting the issue until a former Gov POS named Knowles dropped a lawsuit after it had been accepted by SCOTUS. The Court said only the Executive branch had standing and would not allow it to be continued by the legislative branch...

"Most of the CP&W budget comes from license sales".

And I bet most of the budget comes from non-resident license sales!

Thanks for the links.

Buzz, while you are correct that land ownership doesn't determine who controls and manages wildlife, it does determine who has access and hunting privileges. I'm not convinced that the states are doing a fair and balanced job of managing the federal land hunting permit distribution and the only legal way I can think of to challenge them is with the checks and balances between the federal and state governments. The feds own the land and the states manage the wildlife so there is room for compromise. It seems like the feds are turning a blind eye to these states' policies and maybe that should change. I hear that you think it's a bad idea, but I wonder if you are biased because you benefit from these policies.

I can understand where you're coming from, like I said, I'd like to hunt Montana but not for those prices.

The thing I really appreciated about Randy's article was that he explained why the tag allocations and prices won't change unless the people of Montana (or any other state) want them to. And when I look at the way the federal government operates, my conclusion is, that's as it should be. It's not perfect but then few things are.

Whiptail,

You still dont get it...the states are not responsible for any kind of land management decisions on Federal Lands. The states can work in cooperation with the Feds to fund and conduct habitat improvements on Federal Lands. However, the feds are under NO obligation to the State to allow those things to happen.

Further, what you're driving at is a huge mistake. You're wanting to see all U.S. Citizens pay the same fees to hunt Federal Land. Wont happen, and the existing case law, as well as a couple hundred years of legal precedent says so.

You absolutely should have unfettered access, as a U.S. Citizen, to use federal lands...but not unfettered access or even equal access to State controlled wildlife.

Thats the point your missing.

BTW, every one in the U.S. is a recipient of the way the system works regarding states controlling the wildlife. I pay around $400 a year to hunt Texas as a NR, while you likely pay a lot less as a resident.

Just because you choose to hunt on Federal Land in other Western States, does not mean you should pay the same license fees as Residents. The land ownership has NO bearing on the price of the tag...its the same across the board no matter where that wildlife lives.

For the record, I shell out close to 1k a year just in license/application fees across the West. I suspect in an average year, drawing 3-4 states a year, I probably spend 1.5-4k a year in license fees. If you call that a recipient of some great deal...well I guess I'm guilty.

Like smokepole said, the management of wildlife is best left to the States for a whole host of great reasons. Its worked well for at least the last 100 years.

Buzz,

I disagree. Any tags issued for units that are mostly federal land should be the same price and everyone should have the same chance to draw.

States can set the number of tags but everyone should get a fair chance.

States should only be allowed to charge more for tags on private land only.

Dink

Dink,

Disagree all you want...the current laws, case law, and precedent is done.

You can chit in one hand and hope for cheap NR fees in the other...and see which one fills up first.

The States are under NO obligation to treat NR fairly...did you read s. 339?

You, like whiptail, dont comprehend that land ownership has NOTHING to do with who controls the wildlife.

That wont change...ever.

Dam, we didn't even make 6 months from the last time.

ETA; Now we start the argument that every state in the West would go broke without the taxes of the other states.

You know, I didn't post this to revive that tired old argument, just to point out what I thought was a good article explaining why things are the way they are. The thought being, if people are interested in understanding why things are the way they are, they might read the article.

There's really no point in arguing about something that's not gonna change.

Wasn't directed towards you at all.

No worries, my post wasn't directed at you either.

I never said they should be cheap tags but everyone should pay the same price.

The fight over non-residents tags is coming and I believe change will happen. The new generation is not going to go along with the "good ol'boy" system forever. Non-residents are tired of paying taxes and then getting fleeced to hunt federal land because they live across some imaginary line on a map. Game and fish departments had it good for a long time but they could not control their greed. People have had enough.

Change is coming. We will see it.

Dink

Wanna bet?

Dink - I'm the guy who wrote the article that started this thread.

Gotta ask, who are the "good ol' boys" you are talking about; the Colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence, or the guys who drafted and ratified the United States Constitution, the 10th Amendment of which specifically and wisely provides that the states retained all rights not specifically granted to the Republic?

It is the 10th Amendment that allows states this right to manage wildlife, regardless if it lives on private land, State land, or Federal land, as the states have never granted that right to the Republic. The United States Supreme Court, going back to 1842, has held that principle to apply and the USSC has ruled that the 10th Amendment principle of state's rights still has applicability to many issues, even today.

The change you are talking about would require an Amendment of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. I suspect I am not the only person, or the only hunter, who strongly believes in states rights as granted under the 10th Amendment, whether related to wildlife, gun control, or any of the other many rights the states hold as a result of the "good ol' boy" club of the late 1770s.

I understand the frustration some may have. But, that frustration is usually due to lack of understanding of the history of how/why we got here.

The system we have today is not because BuzzH says so, or because I wrote some article about it. It is that way because some smart people who founded this country, trusted the state much more than they trusted the Republic, so they kept all rights they could at the state level.

At the time these Founding Fathers were crafting these ideas, they were only a generation or two removed from those who left Europe to flee the tyranny of Kings. They came here for many reasons. One thing still fresh in their minds, was the fact that in Europe, it was the "King's Deer." By having the states retain many rights, the right in wildlife would never again be attached to the land, as was the case in Europe. If these colonists did not want to retain this right, they would have granted it to the Republic, as they did with some other rights.

In this country, never again would anyone be hanged for killing the "King's Deer" to feed his family, as had happened in Europe.e Wildlife would be one of the many rights kept at the state level and opportunity to enjoy such would be managed primarily for the citizens of that state and secondarily for others the state chooses to share opportunity with, in this case, non-resident hunters/anglers. And for those of us who are a hunters, thank God for that.

Big fin,

The good old boy system I was referring to is that the new generation of guys is not going to do what their dads did and just pay up. They have been priced out. The new generation would continue to pay but they simply can't afford to pay up anymore.

I think the state will still be able to manage the wildlife. But the way tags are issued and priced is going to change I believe. There are only so many guys with money that hunt and can continue to pay the price. The average blue collar worker is getting poorer and poorer by the day.

The new generation is not going to be happy with 10% of the tags at 29x (or more) the price of a resident in a unit where the land belongs to everyone.

Laws/case law are always changing. It will happen with this too. No one thought they would be required to buy health insurance ever...but that has also changed.

Dink

Pretty sure you don't need any kind of permit at all to go and enjoy all of this federal land you're talking about DINK. You will need a license/permit if you want to shoot an animal that belongs to the people of MT however. Not that hard to understand, you just refuse to do so.

Dear "dink" and other non-residents whose state isn't 40% + federal lands. Sounds great, yeah screw those Montana residents anyone should be able to hunt federal lands for the same price as those greedy idiot residents. OK, fine. FIRST lets just randomly select 40% of Missouri to be turned over to the feds... oh, not happy about that I'll bet.

Also the bit about outfitter clients getting preference in tags, not any more, I-161 took care of that. I-161 was not about raising tag prices it was about slowing the growth of privatization of wildlife by uncontrolled growth of the outfitting industry. Unfortunately it also raised prices for non-residents, lowering demand and thus insuring that outfitter clients will have no trouble getting licenses*, except maybe the deer only outfitters, probably making everything worse in the mean time. It could also just make the possibility that as Montana becomes more urban and less people see the outfitting industry as something worth having it could be massively curtailed, it will take years to shake out I suppose.

* Reality check here: Do you actually think someone who can lay out $4K to $10K for a hunt actually thinks twice about whether a tag for that hunt is $400 or $750 and bases their decision to hunt on $350? Please. As for the DIY hunter, I can see that being a factor. Which is why the price increase won't actually help the problem it was designed to fix.

The guys who know the price of everything, but fail to grasp the concept of value never ceases to amaze me.
It would be great if MT raised NR fees by another $500. More money for managment and less areas overran with hunters. And even if the price went up to $1500 for a combo tag it would still be a good value.

I think the concept of supply and demand is more in play here than the concept of value. The point being, Montana is already failing to sell all of its non-resident tags so another increase of $500 could just drive the demand down further and make that situation worse by reducing non-resident tag revenues.

I think your point applies more to resident tag fees. Since so many more resident tags are sold, a modest increase there would not affect demand and would raise revenues. Personally, I'd be willing ot pay $10-20 more for an elk tag in my home state if that meant we could cut the number of tags sold and/or cut the number of split seasons and increase the length of the seasons we have. Even at $20 more a resident tag is still a great value.

Statements like this is the reason things are going to change. Bird watchers, bikers, campers all pay the same whether they are residents or non-residents to use federal lands. Why not hunters? The animals may be managed by the state but without the federal lands there would be no animals to manage. The states will still get to set tag quota's but they way they are given out and priced is going to change.

States have finally priced a lot of average people out. Most guys won't/can't give a $1,000 for a elk tag. Guys like Buzz have done a great job for resident western hunters for years by keeping most of the tags for resident hunters and keeping non-resident tag prices high but it can't go on for ever.

By far non-resident guys are tired of paying taxes and then having to pay 29x for a tag. Non-resident guys are no longer going to say "to heck with it just pay it" because they no longer can afford to.

Things are going change.

Dink

So your solution, rather than let the free markets dictate is to have the federal government step in? What's wrong with the free market supply/demand approach?

Is that your solution to other problems too? I'd be willing to bet not. I'd be willing to bet that on health care and a whole host of other issues you'd rather have the feds stay out of it.

You can't have it both ways.

This is far from true. Most of the winter forage grounds are on private land which is why the AG community has so much lobbying strength with the CO CPW

Holy [bleep] Dink, how many times does it need to be spelled out to you???

" The average blue collar worker is getting poorer and poorer by the day."

Well then get active and quit letting Unions and Dems get elected. Go to school, etc. and move to a Western state if you want to hunt at resident fees. For the last time I will rant that to all the Texans, etc who say a western state will die without NR fees, well I can guarantee I spend more every year than what your occasional trip brings. Randy is spot on! Good luck in your hunts this year.

He just likes to bitch, instead of moving to Montana or Wyoming or Colorado where he could buy an over-the-counter tag. Which is he would if hunting was actually more important to him than bitching.

no chit my wife turned down a 6 figure job in Washington DC cause we didnt want to leave our hunting and fishing.....money aint everything....make lots of money or spend all our free time with easy access to hunting and fishing....wasnt a hard decision to make....

Not much of a job field for meter maids here..

If the meth, humidity, bugs, low paying jobs, and whitetrash doesn't motivate him to move out of MO, then I doubt cheaper elk hunting will either.

MT Residence voted out the outfitter preference tags 2 years ago. Now every nonresident is on an even playing field. I think there maybe landowner tags though. Also, if you look at the cost for licenses in most if not all western states MT is comparable and sometimes cheaper.

Best move I ever made. Now if I could just convince CP&W to cut down the number of split seasons and make our seasons longer....it's coming, I can see it, there's a new breed of hunter who won't take "no" for an answer......

True that that they have a shortage of drawing applications, but they end up selling most if the leftovers and at a higher price than if you go through the drawing. Further, volume selling a consumable resource isn't a great idea.

Buzz, I never said nonresidents should pay the same fees as residents. I can also see the point that residents should have more permits allocated. What I'm referring to is some of the extreme cases like New Mexico where 84% of permits are guaranteed to residents, 10% to guided hunters, and 6% to DIY nonresidents when most of this hunting is being done on federal land. Do you think it's fair for a nonresident to pay 29 times what a resident pays to hunt federal land in Montana? Should guides be required for hunting federal land in Alaska even for someone like you with your extensive hunting and outdoor experience? If these rules were being made for state lands I'd keep my mouth shut.

Do you think that states should dictate to private land owners how many residents and nonresidents can hunt on their land? I get that the states manage the wildlife on ALL land. However, in some cases their permit distribution process has passed the fair mark and the most slippery slope is a government process that has no checks and balances.

Yeah I should just up and move for a overgrown goat.

I should leave my aging parents, my wife's aging parents and my wife's 90 year old grandparents. I should leave good schools and the best medical care in country my kids have access to for that big old goat.

There is plenty of meth and trash here but What does that sign painted on the sheriffs office in Round up say? I have a pic somewhere.

I guess I would not have to worry about job. If Rancho can find one I am sure anyone can.

I do wish I could live in the west but I ain't trading yet. I also ain't giving up that things are going change. Everyone told me I was wrong about Montana having left over muledeer tags too.



Dink

Wow you passed up a six figure job to hunt and fish. How long has it been since you hunted a non-fenced animal?

Dink

Dear Dink,

You have failed miserably to make any friends here. Shut your pie hole and keep your Missouri ass out of Montana. You want everything to your advantage, to Hell with everyone else.

Whine whine whine, snivel snivel. If you had any access to a computer that you could manipulate yourself, you could look up the cost of hunting Alaska. Have your mom help you with that and check those tags. You would be even more upset at their costs.

You might also note you could move to Alaska, become a resident and get $1000.00/year from oil dividends, pay less than Montana and stay away from Montana and all it's backwoods regulations.

BYE

18 hours if you count varmints.....hasnt been a big game season open "out my back door" since i got back from Tennessee cause taking the 2 weeks off to go there meant i couldnt take off for a week to go track down a yogi this spring......have caught a mess of walleye and northers so far aswell....WTF have you done in the last month?....

Whined and bitched.....

...and puled and sniveled.

Maybe we should take up a Campfire Collection to help poor Dink defray the cost of a non-resident deer tag to the state of his choice--with the stipulation that it can only be used on Federal land for something bigger than a forkhorn.

How many more trips could Dink have made to MT to hunt for deer had he taken advantage of all that freely accessible public land instead of paying for a lease?

I don't like all the rules implemented by various states, but I fully support their right to make them.

I'm not sure of your point on "volume selling?" Hopefully you didn't get the idea that I was advocating increased volume of tag sales? One of the other tenets of the North American model of wildlife management (besides public trust doctrine) is science-based decisions on tag numbers and I support that. If Montana allots a certain number of tags including res and non-res, that means their wildlife managers have determined that the herd can support those numbers.

States don't do that, all they do is regulate the numbers of tags within a given management area. If a landowner wanted to allow all (or none) of those hunters to hunt his property, he could do that.

But, the questions remains:

Should the states dictate how many residents and on-residents allowed on private land?

And to further that question:

When private ownership supersedes pubic access, would you then want the state to intercede on your behalf, as a resident?

Why does this subject always bring out the stupid in some??

Yup, I'd love to see the state regulation that tells landowners how many residents and nonresidents can hunt on their property. Should be a good read.

I think the simple act of getting out of bed in the morning brings the stupid out in some.

Nothing "stupid" about the series of questions. actually, because they'll be coming ton you jurisdiction, soon enough. Burying your head in the sand doesn't help the process, in your regard.. Legislation happens.

Maybe states could auction non resident tags. List the number available (say 1,000), we all submit a bid, and the top 1,000 bidders each score a tag.

I'm sure residents would support something like that, for obvious reasons -- financially and otherwise.

Am I reading right that you think there will be legislation telling a LO how many NR's can hunt there deeded ground?

Considering how things are projected on the national level and how states are ever more starving for assistance, I see a day. I mean, thirty years ago when I started in politics it was conceivable. Nowadays it's almost certain.

Ok, you're right.

And your point???

That you think the Gov. can/will tell a LO who he can or can not have on his property might just be the craziest thing I've read.

Dink's head will probably explode when he reads that now the Gov. will limit him on private ground as well as public.

Then your point is ill advised.

not sure why some think allowing separating the state and federal land is gonna wind up saving them money on tags cause if that happens then your gonna need a new agency/expand an existing for game management on federal land so the license prices are going to go up......though now they will be controlled by DC where the anti-hunters out number the hunters...

All you need to do is look to Alaska and see how that's turned out over the last thirty years since federal oversight and consequential court proceedings took control --- Not good for the visiting non-resident hunter.

I highly recommend that consumptive users become active on a localized level and to make it personally by BEING INVOLVED and to appoint a lead that can carry the cry to Washington DC. I had to do it alone. That's the hard way and God forbid you find yourself in that position [though IT IS coming]. Become active now!!!!

.gov already limits how many people can be on private land by controlling how many tags are issued in each unit.

If states wanted to charge $5,000 for muledeer tag on private land thats between land owners and their .gov. If private land owners could not get any hunters it's easy enough for them to vote .gov into and out of office until they get to the price land owners want.

Dink

WOW, you really don't get it, do you?

Unless enrolled in some sort of state program, the LO can chose to let every tag holder or none on the property.

That will not change.

Classic Dink
How much did you pay that rancher to slay his forkies again?

Your exactly right but...There are ranches in places like Oregon that have good numbers of sheep and charge big trespass fees to hunt them. I bet they sure would like to see more than one tag issued for the unit so they could charge more hunters. There are also ranches in Wyoming that sure wish more of hunters could draw antelope tags so they could charge more hunters. What is the limiting factor? Oh yeah .gov.

Dink

just for [bleep] and giggles, I googled Missouri's resident v. non-resident license fees.

Turns out they only have one *real* big game species (white-tails) and one "kinda" BG species (turkeys):

white-tail
res: $17
non-res $225

turkey

res: $17
non-res $195. for a turkey mind you !

both running 17x non-res surcharge, which seems to be in line with other states.

considering you get about 8-10# off a turkey ($24/pound), charging the equivalent for an elk would be $8,000 per tag.

Dink,

Montana's rates per pound are a frickin' bargain compared to your own state's fees

Been reading this whole thread with interest. Not saying anything because what other states do with the land and game that belongs to them and their people it ain't my place to say.

One thing I do see mentioned time after time though that does trouble me is land locking public land. I mean yeah, there is public ground but short of a helicopter there ain't no way you can get to it. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

As I said I can only comment on what I know so I know this. In Texas you can not land lock a place now. Used to be you could but not now. If it is private you must provide access to the landowner. Doesn't have to be the easiest route but they must have access.

If it is state land you must grant public access, again doesn't have to be the easiest way but access must be there.

How does this apply to you boys out west?

Read Randy's piece and been following this thread. I understand the issues but don't find the cost of out of state tags all that unreasonable. I objected to the way Montana used to handle their landowner deer/elk tags but voted with my feet and hunted other States. There are elk outside of Montana.

As to the cost, if a guy can afford to spend $1500, he can hunt elk out west. He'll need a couple buddies, some basic camping equipment, and alot of boot leather on the ground. I do it every year in Colorado and manage to kill elk. I recently put together an estimated cost to hunt both Colorado and Wyoming in 2014 as DIY for 2. We'd spend most/all of October hunting. Total cost: $3172 each. We have all the equipment but the point being a little planning and sharing with friends makes for a very affordable hunt. In the end, don't look at the absolute cost of the tag, look at the return on investment of the memories. I guarantee the memories will outweigh the cost of a tag. Especially after your hunting days are over.

I can understand those that see the perceived discrepancy in resident/non-resident tag costs and the claim of the animals belonging to citizens of the US. I don't think they are seeing the whole picture - it is the State that do the day-day managing of the wildlife. It is the citizens of that state that fund/support the State agencies. So in actuality, the actual resident tag cost is alot more than the price of the tag. Non-residents don't pay the state taxes that manage their out of state wildlife therefore I'd guesstimate the effective cost is very similar.

Secondly, I can accept the cost difference very simply - if I lived there I wouldn't want a bunch of out-of-staters over running my hunting areas. I applied that logic to every state I've lived in.

At the end of the day, the free market condition is way better than government controlled anything - even with all its perceived inequities. When was the last time the government ran something and it turned out exactly as it was intended? I'd submit never. I'll take free market and simply spend my money on what I can afford.

The only access to public land ,at least in CO, is if a public road goes along or thru private land to get to it. IF it is completely surrounded by private land, there is no access.

It is the same in NM.

Have run into landlocked public land alot in CO. The work arounds require 2-3 miles extra walking - which always ends with running into people that have access.

While we're talking about access issues - any hope of ever getting the WY law prohibiting non-residents in wilderness areas w/o a guide overturned? Anyone know the history of how that came to be? I'd conjecture the WY guide association was behind the law. A little enlightenment would help.

You pretty much have it summarized, someone wanted a handout so they lobbied for it. Hard to get it overturned since non-residents don't have a vote. We can only hope our in-state brethren and local business owners would step up for us.

Correct. IIRC having to grant access to federal lands through private went to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the private landowner does not have to grant that access.

Again, I can understand why folks would want to keep it that way but to be consistent with the argument on free markets, this seems a bit arbitrary. And looks alot like a lobbied interest. For my deal, I'd like to hunt the fringes of the wilderness area - just like I've done in a couple other western states. The interior sections will always belong to the outfitter and residents. I'd even be cool with a 5 mile buffer for non-residents. Anything is better than what it is now...........

MT has a ton of landlocked public land. Add to this a very large amount of land that is only landlocked by the fact that it's illegal to "corner hop". You can't legally step from one piece of land to another at adjoining corners. There was recently a bill introduced that would have fixed this stupidity, but it was defeated by the likes of MOGA and other anti-hunting without a babysitter types.

yeah but remember Nate we only dislike MOGA because we dont like nonresident hunters and want to [bleep] them over.....has nothing to do with the actions of MOGA

Thats purty funny.

I've mentioned this before and it's quite logical. If one can't deliver a product capable of surviving in the market place, get the government to mandate its use.

My local representative, Ted Washburn, voted against public access on this bill.
I will lobby against him in the next primary, and have been telling everyone who hunts to do so as well.
Is there anyone putting together a voter initiative on the subject?

+1

Plus we get all manner of 'great' unintended consequences to go with gov intervention.

Thanks saddlesore and slm for your answers.
That is one of them things that while it may be legal by God it just ain't right seems to me.

But like I said it is you alls state and not mine.

Those ranchers want ALL the antelope gone, and they don't want 'em back. Which goes against a couple of the basic tenets of the North American model of wildlife conservation/management. You do understsand that, don't you?

In this case, the "limiting factor" is the population of animals. And the annual take that the population will sustain without declining.

It's not "government."

Bwinters, good post, but I highlighted a couple of your points that need clarification, hope you don't mind. As far as state residents paying state taxes that support the managemnet of wildlife, at least in Colorado no local or state tax money goes to CP&W, the agency charged with managing our wildlife. Most of the money comes from license sales so state/local taxes are a non-issue.

And as far as the claim that the wildlife belongs to the citizens of the US, that is incorrect. Wildlife belongs to the citizens of each state. So it's the citizens of each state, through their elected representatives, who control and set tag fees for residents and non-residents.

The ranches that I know do not want all the antelope gone. Why would they? They charge from $250-$500 for a buck antelope and $100ish for doe antelope. Some places are trying to get $1,000 for a buck antelope.

I am not sure how much cattle feed antelope eat but I am thinking you probably would not have to sell to many hunts to start making money.

I have often heard of the rancher that wants all the antelope killed off but I have yet to run into one that would let me kill any for free.

Dink

"Rancher" and "consistent - logical behavior" are often mutually exclusive.

Take for example the problems with wild hogs in Texas, rancher/farmers hate them and scream bloody murder about wanting them gone and yet many insist on trophy and access fees for anyone wanting to hunt hogs...

I grew up around a couple of ranchers that did noting but bitch about the #@%^&*! deer eating everything and yet leased their ranch out to some outfitter that only shot a couple of bucks every year. All the while the doe population increased geometrically while they refused access to locals even to just shoot does...

My favorite is a nice rancher out east that did nothing but complain about all the bloody antelope/deer that would winter on his property then lease the hunting to an outfitter whose out-of-state clients never shot a doe anything for decades. Then came EHD and the worst winter in a century, 90% of the antelope died along with most of the whitetails. The lease money ceased and now all he does is whine about the lack of antelope/deer and how this is somehow all FWP's fault...

The corner-crossing thing will eventually end up as a ballot initiative, it will pass and the ranchers will scream bloody murder, hold their breath until they turn blue (like they did when the public gained access to School Trust Lands), then learn to live with it. Of course there will be several law suits and half-hearted attempts to overturn it in the legislature like they did I-161.

Has anyone mentioned the costs incurred by F&G depts that aren't offset by tag fees...like wolves? A few states now can sell tags but others are forced to manage the wolves with no income to show for it. I can't say whether wolf tag fee are enough to offset the enormous loss of elk & deer tag sales in states like ID or MT plus the cost of managing them. These wolves were forced on us by out-of-state groups, not by Idahoans.

add grizzlies to that where no hunting in the lower 48 occurs....Montana spends a fair amount dealing with our ever increasing and expanding griz population.....

smoke - not a problem.

A clarification on my part with respect to taxes - I meant taxes in a more global sense, especially State taxes/fees. I was not aware that Colorado recd no funding outside of license sales. Does that apply to vehicles, equipment, and other seemingly generic State expenses? License sales are a big part of most Fish and Game budgets but thought a percentage (25%?) came from general State coffers, hence my statement on the effective cost of resident licenses.

I'm not so sure on the State's animal thing on Fed land. In many State Regulatory schemes, the Fed gives the right to implement regulatory control. So, I understand why the State sets seasons/bags but am still of the opinion that US citizens own the animals contained within Fed lands. State derived money (r.e. license fees, etc) manages the animals but I believe everything else is owned by the Feds. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thought on animals on Fed land - if the State owns the animals - how could the woof have been re-introduced on Fed land? I'd be curious how many State F&G programs wanted the woof re-introduced. I'm betting most of Idaho and Montana didn't want them but the Fed (USFWS) did it anyway under the guise of ESA. Any thoughts?

There is a huge difference in managing for max opportunity vs quality.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My home state does both, depending on the GMU.

Oh, I don't know, maybe something to do with the antelope eating their crops and grass? Just a guess.

I was talking to one last weekend in NE CO. He told me to bring all my friends when I come back to hunt and said he'd prefer that I shoot more than one.

I hear stories such as this all the time but I never seem to run into it.

A lot of trespass fees are $500 or more. That's half a beef and they don't have to do anything. No shots, wormer, hay, etc. Some of these ranches take more than a 100 hunters per season if tags are drawn. Do the math. No one want antelope to be killed off.

Dink

Right. And they'd let every Tom Dick and Harry shoot a buck for $500. Just the guys you want making decisions on kill quotas.

This doesn't surprise me. Dink you need to talk to more people - in addition, work on your approach.

That is the truth. I don't even hunt antelope very much, this year will be my second year hunting them in the last 15. But it's been no problem finding landowners who will let me hunt for free. It does take a little legwork though.

I took a few days off, went fishing and golfing. Come back here and it is like a Soap Opera, Dink is still whining about not being able to go hunting.

Everyone is against him, no one will let him hunt for free, no state that he wants to hunt will let him do it for free and on and on and on.

There is a pattern that seems to be developing here and it isn't with Montana or ranchers.

$500 plus tag will get you a doe but you will need &1500 plus for a buck in NM! The greedy outfitters and land owners just shoot them and let me rot if G&F doesn't' give them enough vouchers to sell. It is a law the crooked demos protect here. $500 I would hunt them every year!

you have to be full of chit cause Montana is the only state that rips hunters off

No one owes me anything. Just like I owe them nothing. I do think its funny how resident of western states sure don't like their way of doing things questioned though. Its fun to see the arguments turn to name calling when they no longer have good responses to questions/statements. They sure don't like their golden goose questioned.

Guys like me are tired of paying for everyone else (this includes a lot of things). Western residents are to lazy/selfish to even pay for their own game and fish departments. The only thought they have when they need money is charge non-residents more. Cause residents can not even think of coughing up a dollar for resources they use/benefit from. I live cheap and don't owe much money. What little money I do have I did not save to give to some game fish department because people think I should. Western states always slid by and were not challenged because they never really priced the working man out until now. Game and fish can not get away from the "wants" and "someone should pay" attitude.

I am tired of the shut and pay it or stay at home crowd. I shouldn't have to stay home or pay 29 times the price of tag on a piece of ground that everyone pays for. Of course one of the pay it or shut crowd that posted in this thread stated that he was fine with giving more than a $1,000 for a elk tag in a earlier thread about tag prices. This same member sold his FoxPro on another forum for gas money last year so he could hunt. I would think that a guy that was fine with giving more than a $1,000 for a elk tag would have a couple hundred dollars for gas money. I bet the majority of the shut and pay it crowd is like him.

I am tired of paying for the all the Federal land and the upkeep on it. Then being told you can only have 10% or less of the tags at 29 times the price in the unit. Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, etc. are not foreign countries they are still part of the USA. Those states are splitting 376 million dollars from the Robertson-Pittman tax just like the rest of rest of the states are. Where is that money going and what are they doing with it?

I seen posted that states want to study the worm that kills some moose when they get it and some moose live when they get it. Guess what the study will find after they spend millions on it. Some moose that get the worm die and some live. Baaaaaad Worm.

The main argument for voting in I161 was no one should be guaranteed a job. As soon as Montana started talking about buffalo all you hear is ranchers going out business because they won't be able to lease grazing rights....Hmm thought no one should be guaranteed a job.

I think its a shame that Missouri is giving its tags away for $225 to non-residents that are charging Missouri residents $500 to $700 for the very same whitetail tag to hunt their state. I bring this up to every Conservation worker I come across. They all say that they are funded through sales tax and not non-resident tag fee's. My response is wouldn't you like more money to study CWD? You should see the light bulb come on. Its just a matter of time before I run into someone that will run with it.

Just like this taking advantage of non-residents to hunt federal land. I will keep poking around until I finally find someone ornery enough or someone who thinks they can make a dollar somehow from it to run with it. It may never fly but the pot will be stirred with a big spoon.

Dink

dont know any nonresident hunter that hunts eastern Montana that only hunts federal land.....they all hunt a mix of BLM, private BMA's and state school trust....what your after wont result in cheaper tags caus its gonna cost a hell of alot more in enforcement agencies cause in alot of places its a checkerboard of state, federal and private land and the only thing that usually marked worth a chit is private land and it isnt always....so your cheap tags are gonna go up quick to pay for game rangers to monitor federal land aswell as new fencing/signage of huge tracks of land....

and still with the "western states" stuff. Your own "eastern" state charges 13X for non-residents, and that's for unlimited OTC whitetails.

what state doesn't charge more for non-residents, especially for limited-quota species?

fix this in your own home state, then we'll talk.

Dinky still thinks paying federal taxes means he should be able to get state game tags for free?

I know writing parking tickets doesn't take much brain power, but come the [bleep] on.. how many times does it have to be explained to you?

Have someone you know re-write Randy's post above in crayon. Maybe that will help.

Now Western state residents are "lazy and selfish"?

Dink, if nothing else you're cheap entertainment.

It costs money to a lazy hunter.

I have to apologize to this thread. I may be responsible for the whining ramblings of Dink. He is the kind of kid I used to beat up on the playground in school and it has a negative effect on them when they get older. (Even though they were teenagers at the time)

DINK, changing the world one complaint at a time. All he has to do is complain enough and eventually somebody will do something about it. Sounds a lot like some of the junior high kids that I know.



Did you know that DINK has some Swaro binoculars and a Sako rifle with a Leupold scope on it?? Pretty nice stuff. One day I'm going to save up for the same stuff so I can shoot bucks like this on leased land.

It's Pittman-Robertson, and it's actually more than that this year. All states get a share, and Colorado's share funds roughly 10% of the wildlife part of the Parks & Wildlife budget.



Wow. Interesting that on the one hand you're whining that other states should make their non-res. tags cheaper, while at the same time whining that your state should make yours more expensive, when they're already at a 17:1 ratio and most western states are around 10:1. I think there's a word for that.

Colorado's elk tags are only at a 10:1 ratio. And I guarantee there's much more demand for them than there is for a Missouri whitetail tag. And you could say the same for the other western states you whine about.



All states have a huge disparity between res. and non-res. tag fees, not just western states. So you're questioning your own state's way of doing things too. Your home state charges proportionally more than most of the western states you're whining about, as has already been pointed out.

You can keep telling people you own that stuff.

Hey you got gas money this year?. Or I guess a better question is what are you selling. I might be interested...laffin.

Dink

Most western states are not 10 to 1. We haven't even started on stamps and other chit that go along with tag purchase.

Iowa, Il., and Ks. Like Mo do not have much federal ground. Most public ground is state owned. Ks., Il, and Iowa are charging Mo residents $500-$700 for a tag we should return the favor and charge them accordingly. If they want to charge us $200 a tag then ours should also be $200 a tag.

The 376 million is supposed to be this years number. Up something like 12.5 million from last year. I can't find anywhere that states how much each state gets of that money.

Dink

Poor guy cannot even afford to buy tape for the barrel on his rifle.

FYI MOntana is hiring LEO's now Dink

My friend just interviewed with Great Falls and Missoula.

Those that want it bad enough and work hard enough can move to MT, WY , ID, CO to experience Res hunting lifestyle. The there are the whiners...

This same conversation has come up many times, but I can't remember Dink ever mentioning any of his hunts on Federal land out in the Wild West.

Well, I can see this is not getting through. I'm gonna have to do something more productive with my time. There's a fence post in the back yard that's looking lonely, I think I'll go talk to it for a while.

But first, let me try one more time......



You're right, most western states are less than 10 to 1. If you read Randy's article (no surprise you haven't) you'd see that. Ratios of res/non-res tag fees for elk:

AZ=1:5; CO=1:10; ID=1:13; MT=1:29; NV=1:8; NM=1:5; OR=1:9; UT=1:6; WA=1:10; WY=1.9.

So before you go spouting off again, try to have some facts straight. Mind you, these are for ELK tags, something your state has none of. Maybe that's why they're in such high demand and can command a higher tag fee than a whitetail. Did you ever consider that?

One other thing Randy's article points out in support of lower resident tag fees (vs non-res) is that a lot of grass-roots conservation effort is expended by local residents, and not nearly as much by non-residents. So it's not surprising that you haven't read the article and don't support organizations like RMEF. I'm a life member, look up the fee for that and figure it into your calculations. I've also volunteered my time to roll up old barbed-wire fence strung across winter range, build fence to keep ATVs off critical riparian winter range, and built trails in the NF by hand. Put that into your equation. And I've volunteered my time with CP&W to teach their hunter education class for the past 6 years. Four nights every month from March through September.

Figure that into your tag costs. How much have you done to help with conservation in the western states you hunt, Dink? Done anything at all other than piss and moan?



Not surprising. I had to search far and wide, all the way back to the beginning of this thread to get the correct figures:

I just came across an interesting statistic: When I was in high school in the late 1960's, the cost of a non-resident Montana combination license was $150. I know this because I found one of the Montana Fish & Game Department pamphlets from back then at a yard sale a few years ago. Right now this same basic deal costs $959, one of DINK's examples of pricing the average non-resident hunter out of Montana.

I just ran $150 in 1969 through a couple of inflation calculation programs, found by Googling the Internet, and in 2013 dollars it would be worth around $950.

So now I'm wondering exactly which year in the past 40-some Montana crossed the line from "affordable" to "unaffordable."

DINK- what would it cost me as a nonresident to come hunt bullfrogs for a week in MO?

I really wish would move here to Montana, despite the lack of meter maid jobs..

It would be interesting to see how long he would last.

And how much should I expect to spend in sales tax in that week, unlike nonresident hunters that come to MT to hunt?

Hahahaha! You're such a homo DINK. I sold that FoxPro and decided to buy a Firestorm to replace it, turns out that one was just as big a POS as the FX5. While I don't generally guage my worth or abilities on the amount of money that I spend on gear, I have a pretty sizeable collection of outdoor gear. Far more than most of the people that I know. Now if you'd like to compare photos of dead game, small groups shot from your rifles, or gear in total, I'll put a couple bricks of .22 LR on me winning by vote of forum members. Now since you are obviously suffering from a bad case of short pecker syndrome, I don't expect that you'll pass this opportunity to show all of us just how accomplished you are. As to me being hard up for cash, I'm no doctor or attorney, but I get by just fine. Probably make a bit more than a cop in MO even.

I bet that year and a half old deer was a tough hunt....

Haha! He says he shot it on the last day. Not sure why since he also said that he gave it away.

That trophy shot cracks me up.. I bet it wasn't easy keeping the pole barn and haystack out of the picture.

Hey, that's typical Forest Service country!

I have hunted the mountains of Region G in Wyoming. Its been a few years but the last time I checked it was all federal ground.

Dink

Oh that FoxPro was a POS so you passed it onto a forum member.

Everyone has rifles that chrono faster than mine, shoot better groups than mine and everyone makes more money than I do. That's all common knowledge.

As to whether you have better hunting equipment than I do. I Guess it would depend on if you need a tank of gas or not.

If the FoxPro was a POS why did you put in your ad you needed to sell it for gas money?

Dink

Actually Missouri does have elk. They gave something like $34,000 a piece for them. They were suppose to cost $1500 each. Another case of pissing away money.

If elk tags were is such high demand why are there left overs? Think about it. Montana used to sell all of its non-resident tags in one day. Then they went to a draw system. Now they can't sell them out in nine months. What has changed.

As to the 376 Million that is the number B&C club is throwing out for this year on there TV show.

I am not a member of RMEF and have not read the article. I wonder what percentage of RMEF members live in states with no elk. Just due to population difference I bet more members live in states with no elk.

I see the 100 Million dollar number thrown out for Colorado budget but is that all for the wildlife department? I see where they merged were with the parks and now everything is thrown together. I also see where there is a 34.2 Million dollar mess up that is requiring a audit to see where the money went to.

Dink

OMG, don't even suggest that Dink take a job as an LEO in MT. Ponder this, Dink pulls you over for speeding. You tender your license, registration and insurance papers as required. He does the obligatory wants and warrants checks. Next comes the two hour complaint about how he is being discriminated in regards to hunting some other state. At this point I ask him to PLEASE just write me the blasted ticket so I can be on my way. NO, he continues his diatribe about how he should be afforded resident privileges in blah, blah state as he is entitled to such. God, just shoot me! Then, just for the sake of argument he continues, his normal, without the actual facts and a full grasp of reality. So, Dink, please do not take a LEO job in MT. What type of whine do have at dinner? Rage on Dink! If nothing else, you are entertaining due to your lack of a grasp on reality. MTG

He's a meter maid in KC.. not much need for those in Montana.

I said elk tags, not elk. How many tags can I get? How many does Missouri have?



None from MO, you've got elk, right?

Again, no surprise that you don't personally participate. And no surprise that you wonder about facts but don't have any. Why don't you look up the numbers and come back with some facts? I wonder why you keep arguing with no facts.

Here is what I can say with 100% certainty: Counting all the habitat restoration projects I've worked on, and all the hunter ed. classes I've volunteered for, there hasn't been a single Missouri resident there helping out. Every last volunteer was from Colorado. That is my point, and also one of the points raised in Randy's article (the one you didn't read) which is the subject of this thread.



"I wonder" where you come up with these gems, I really do. So there's a "mess-up" that "requires an audit" to "see where the money went?" It's already been audited dink, and contrary to your assertion above, they know where the money went. Once again, if you'd take the time to get some basic facts before spouting off, you'd know what you were talking about. Then again, maybe not.

The auditors determined that all the money went for legitimate purposes. The problem was not "where the money went," the problem was that some of the expenditures weren't recorded, and the agency's cash reserves dipped below the 10% of the annual budget that they're supposed to keep on hand. What they need to do is tighten up their accounting practices, not see "where the money went," which you would know if you bothered to get some facts. Took me all of 2 minutes to find the audit report on-line:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/DCB452FDAC5D046687257A0F006BF51F/$FILE/2187%20DOW%20Perf%20Audit%20May%202012%20Final.pdf

Besides which dink, it's really none of your business how the state of Colorado manages its budget. Unless you want to move here and start paying taxes.




Dink, you're confusing the issue here. Lots of states have leftovers, but that doesn't mean demand is low. If Montana can sell thousands of tags for the price they want, then the demand is high. Montana sets its non-resident fees as it sees fit. Then Montana puts the licenses up for sale. If their price is high enough to drive down demand to the point that it cuts the number of tags sold and hurts revenues, then Montana has a decision to make--lower the tags fees to sell more, or keep the prices where they're at. So far, Montana has elected to keep the prices where they're at. So Montana must be happy with the number of tags it's selling.

Nothing has changed, and nothing will until the people of Montana want it to.

Good God, you're a tool. I would explain being facetious, but like the whole NA model of wildlife management thing, it would go right over your head. As for FoxPro, I'm no longer a fan, some guys are, they're welcome to buy them.

Hey, I am waiting to see the game harvest pictures of Ranger1 vs DINK. DINK, you are taking him up on that arent you? I think if you could smoke him with a lot of pics of bigger and more picturesque bucks and bulls compared to his, it would aid in your credibility.

Frankly, I think a bunch of pictures would go a long way in determining whether or not either of you are truly good outdoorsmen or not and have the credibility to back your talk.

+1 I want to see this too.

No need to do this. Dink has proven over and over again he is a d i ckhead.

I am not sure what posting pics of hunting gear and dead animals has to do with non-resident tag price. It sounds very 3rd grade to me.

I have posted bunches of pics here and can again. I guess after the gear and animals we can see who has the best looking wife and cutest kids. Maybe then move onto the best looking dog or who made the best grade in schools. Maybe who has the biggest/most expensive house. And then....

Dink

You forgot the biggest deck. mtmuley

Can't wait till fall.. so cheap for such amazing places to hunt with amazing wildlife. Sure glad I live here and can enjoy it every day.

Sure you cant be tempted to move to Missouri?

I've been to Montana several times to shoot prairie dogs, but have never hunted big game in the state. That changes this year -- I bought a left over big game combo.

The cost has never deterred my desire. Time is my major constraint. It takes a while for those of us east of the Mississippi to get there, hunt and return home. The meat is my goal and flying won't allow me to do what I want to do. I have a young family and its a sacrifice for me to be away.

I have a cousin that lives outside of Columbus and I'll be hunting with him in 570. My elk tag isn't valid for a bull in that district, but I'll gladly enjoy the opportunity at a cow. Maybe a Mulie buck too...

My point is that I don't mind to pay non-resident fees, even if a cow is all thats on the menu. It's about the hunt and experience. I expect to pay more when hunting another state. I'd love the opportunity at a bull, but that won't happen this year...maybe someday? I don't have the equipment or knowledge of the area for a DIY hunt. If a guy like me is going to play, I'm forced to pay....and that's fine with me.

Pronghorn and cattle diets are only remotely similar on open range, with pronghorn favoring forbs and shrubs with just a few grasses in the earliest weeks of spring.

Given a choice, cattle go after grasses and some forbs and shrubs when diet quality goes down the toilet.

Everything is off, however, in an alfalfa pivot. The downside to pronghorn in a pivot is that they never leave. At least deer and elk will wander off during daylight and trail back in about dusk. Pronghorn move in and live there.

The best hunting in the GMU where I'll be this fall is on or near private irrigated crop land. Wheat, corn, millet. The pronghorns have already hammered some of the young corn.

The reason behing the pictures is simply this....do either of you have outdoors credibility or not? If one or both of you can show us through pictures that you have btdt, I believe that people will believe what you are selling.

in other words, prove that you arent a 30 year old guy who works at the Pizza Pit, drives an old Hyundai, still lives at home, and your mom still fixes you a snack. Cuz quite frankly, I think there are more of those around here than we all probably realize....well at least the kind that have no outdoor experience and are telling others how to do something.

I'm 6 foot 5, and look damn good.....

You want fries with that?

going by the pic in your sig, your about 3 inches tall.....

The comment earlier made laugh. Someone said ranchers want all the antelope killed off because they eat the "cow's grass".

Yeah right, like an herd of antelope is in competition will cattle. Given healthy, properly managed range, antelope are the least of worries. I know a few ranchers and can't remember hearing a one bitch about antelope or mule deer for that matter.


And someone told me two years ago(during a tough Winter..) that antelope will die next to a haystack because they can't digest straight alfalfa. Deer do quite well off the stack but antelope apparently don't. Of course these are Federally funded haystacks so maybe that makes a difference.





Darrik, have a good hunt, looking forward to hearing how it goes!

Thats a tough sell on both counts!

Mav, is that you?

No. but I'm so much cooler, online.......

These are the 'other words' that berrettaman spoke of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ

The comment was actually "his crops and grass." The last two places I hunted on, both owners wanted the antelope gone. That's a fact.

Not the situation anywhere I know of around here.

Plenty of room and grass. Even during dry years antelope do well. Winter is what gets them.



Of course very little pivot alfalfa in local antelope country. I guess I have heard farmers complain that a herd was camped on a wheat field. They do love green wheat.

Loads of feed in the hills, ironically few lopes which sucks.

I talked to the district wildlife manager for the unit, he lives there and knows the ranchers, which ones allow hunting, which charge fees, and so forth. Not all want the antelope gone, some don't even allow hunting. He told me the antelope would tend to concentrate on the crop land, eating whatever was there. He also told me to be prepared to have the landowners tell me that they'd let me hunt but would prefer that I killed more than one. Which I can't do with only one tag.

He wasn't wrong about that.

In NM, most LO's will jump up and down publicly that they want the antelope gone because of how we issue authorizations, but no rancher I know personally really wants them gone.

How does NM issue authorizations? And what exactly is an authorization?

Since most of the core antelope land is private, NM G&F gives tags to the land owner to sell. In return they allow 80/20 to draw hunters. We are real nice to outfitters in this state. I have been drawn twice and usually it is 10-paid with outfitters and 2-NM draw hunters. It is more confusing than this but I tried to paraphrase it. When the LO's do not get as manay as they feel they deserve they go out and shoot them legally to rot. I am serieous, google it or the Jenning's Law.