Montana Nonres elk/deer $$$912.00

[RockyMtnMT]

It will be interesting to see how it comes down. I think the good outfitters will still get their business. It will definitely make outfitters compete for their business. I think the competition will create a better quality outfitted hunt for those that want to be outfitted. I think also on the flip side that the outfitters that do not do a good job will not make it. Sounds just like any other business, if you can't compete in a free market you don't make it.

Some one earlier in the thread said that they knew of ranches that were previously outfitted and now will not allow any hunting. Does that mean that they will just give up the income? That they did not need or want the income? They just liked the outfitter? If I understand the program, they are going to use the extra generated funds to increase the block management program. The change in the law does not stop land owners from charging outrageous trespass fees. So the guy that has deep pockets can still get exclusive hunting opportunities, he just has to draw like the average guy.

My final thought... When there is a guarantee of clients for my business then perhaps I could agree that outfitters should have guaranteed income.

Steve

 

[sp6x6]

Last I hunted ID, FEW years ago elk only was about $500, was on fourth yr. I was about 1 mile from MT, NATURALLY I walk up on a 180 type muley 50 yrds, no tag. Do my loop and on way back to camp I pick up a hunter. He is talking,MT THIS MT that , he is from out of state, elk hunting. Pointing out drainages, finally I have to tell him, YOU ARE IN IDAHO, big blank look comes across his face, OPPS sorry and his buddy is still in drainage huntinglightbulb

 

[redstater]

Here in the mid west (Ohio) we are getting lots of western hunters due to the easy hunting, mild weather, easy access, and high trophy potential. I am glad non resident tags here are affordable, but if you come from a state that gouges me $600, I don't think you should be able to hunt here for $130.
I'd like to see our non-resident tag be $75, or what your state would charge an Ohio resident whichever is greater

 

[gr8whyt]

Seems like this is an anti outfitter/business bill. Now outfitters will be going back to over booking clients in order to cover themselves on the draw odds.

I do feel that Fish and Game have some responsibilty in letting this happen and not supporting their outfitters .

I-161 (the bill we're talking about here) was a ballot initiative on the general election ballot last November. The main supporters of the bill are a group called Montana Public Wildlife. Their web site can be found at : Main Page

This is the mission statement for MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks:

"Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, through its employees and citizen commission, provides for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks, and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations."

Where exactly in there does it say anything about "supporting their outfitters"?

 

[ATH]

Well, I've hunter Montana as a NR the last 3 years. I love the state and the people I have met there. Whatever the reason, this was really a kick in the pants. I will apply one more year, since I have a friend who wants to go and helped me get my first elk there and spent the next year away from his family serving in Iraq so I owe him.

In future years, however, I am really going to look at Colorado and other states. I am fortunate with my job and can sort of (SORT OF) justify the cost but it makes me sick to see this become a rich-man-only sport. If my kids were old enough to hunt, I would certainly not be able to bring them into the fold at these prices.

I watched the places I grew up in the midwest go from ask-and-hunt to lease-only. I really wonder for the future of our sport. The average Joe can no longer participate.

 

[bigngreen]

ATH, what areas are you applying for? Three years and no elk, you should have better luck than that! Hopefully MT will not turn into a rich only hunting state, this bill was to fight that though on the face of it, it may not appear that way. The majority of outfitter licenses in my area are held or under control of uber rich owners that are changing it into exactly what it is back east.

I really agree with RockyMtnMt !!! I did not vote on this to get rid of outfitters, quite the contrary I have friends and family that are involved in outfitting. There is a small group of us that are fairly hard core hunters and try to stay involved with FWP and game management in our area and at first we were all against this because we thought it would hurt the good outfitters that we know but after talking to them on their take we got behind it. The outfitters that do a good job in our area very clearly explained this bill will not hurt them but in contrast the crook, hack jobs were fighting this tooth and nail in my area, these guys are so bad they have been run of the NF or BLM by average Joe and FWP, they can only operate via private property to cover there actions. Made the vote perty easy contrasting these two type of outfitter, though this is based only on what I see in my area.
In no way did anyone I know make this a vote against NR hunters or good outfitters, I've ran into quite a few great guys from out of state and we will usually try to help you guys out since we can get an elk anytime but for the NR you have a week or so usually, best day is if everyone gets into elk!
Hunting has changed in the last decade and locals are trying to fight it, not all ways in the best ways but in politics things rarely turn out how you wanted it to.
Blockland is absolutely critical in my area, it is about the only way to get across the narrows of private land that until recently has been access to NF or BLM. We have had millions of acres of great elk hunting locked down by uber rich owners that understand that they can land lock the NF and BLM and have private access to it for themselves then they buy an outfitter and charge big dollars or gift MT wildlife to the elect. You end up with the same kind of hunting as what has happened back east, you have to have the money and be in with the guy who can get you access to the land locked public ground. No problem what a guy does on his land but when using it to control public ground it changes. Hard issues in MT!!!
In my area the FWP has little love for outfitters, there are a couple good ones but the majority operate very shady camps but the FWP can't do anything about them since they are outfitters and on private ground. FWP is (should be) non political, they take what their given and work with it.
Non residents wanting to hunt in MT have bigger things to worry about like the wolves, at the rate this is going there won't be any non resident tags some time in the future!!
Sorry got a little long winded

 

[RMulhern]

All the 'Public Land' aka National Forest/BLM is kept/maintained by US TAXPAYER $$$$$ from the giant pool of taxpayers from all the states....yet a non-resident takes it up the cuzoo from many states! Trouble is....when you're asked to take the 'bend-over'....they don't even supply any KY jelly!!

 

[rooster740]

My final thought... When there is a guarantee of clients for my business then perhaps I could agree that outfitters should have guaranteed income.

Steve

I am not trying to start a fight here but in defense of the outfitters, I will say that the above quote is a missconception.

I have worked as a guide, and I own a second generation seasonal business, so I am not just yapping here. In my line of work I have to "book" clients. I have to advertise, meet with, and convince clients to choose me over the competing businesses in my line of work. This is the same for Outfitters. I can say, that after an individual chooses my services, and I go to my reputable parts supply distributer, I am garanteed the materials I need to complete the job my client hired me to do.

Oh ya, to stay on topic, it sucks that these tags are outrageously over priced. It sucks that most the money goes to a bunch of spineless bureaucratic yahoos.

 

[trueblue]

Bigngreen,
I agree with you about the wolves.
in 5 days of hunting down by West Yellowstone last year, 3 of those days we ran into pack of wolves. Had a hard time finding the elk that week.

 

[bigngreen]

The problems hunting in MT are slowly coming to a head for locals, I believe there are three major issues that are at hand and will be difficult to deal with.
The most recent is the wolf issue, whatever your view point on wolves in general the Canadian wolf is not native to this area and the game animal types can not sustain them over all of the MT landscape, in some areas like mine the elk can get down and get some relief, in others they have been nearly wiped out. As a non native specie I think they should be removed but that just is not going to happen so we need management!!!
The second issue is that MT is turning into Federal wilderness with no access. Every year it seems like there are more people hunting but that not the case, what has happened is the roads are being closed down and access is being pushed onto one ore two roads for an area with a parking lot at the end of them. This is big country, in my area I used to be able to access every drainage with a truck, not road hunting but accessing and area. The same area now has two access points that dead end, there is three miles between them and the north end is the only access for 8+ miles, this is effectively wilderness area. This pushes all the same hunters into a smaller area causing tension and pushing game farther back from it so that your average hunter without horses or $$$ can not access the elk on public ground that we all own!!
The third issue is the private ground vs wildlife access issue that has kinda come up from the first two. I own a small piece of MT so I understand and fully support land owner rights but that said in MT it has become a way to control access to public land and game and to horde game on private ground. Wildlife in MT is like the wind it is a resource that is for everyone and not owned, this is how it is legally and just how it has all ways been. But now you have large land owners who have no interest in cattle, which is what pushes our economy, but want to create massive private shooting preserves for themselves, I'm fine with that on private ground! All of the ranches here are in the bottom ground and so is the road, so to access the NF or BLM you have to cross private land at some point, many times this amounts to 100yrds in some cases or maybe a mile and these have been unwritten access point since the late 1800's and have been maintained as such with the original land owner. But now we have land owners that do not care how it has been for 100+years and they close of access and land lock millions of acres of NF and BLM, all the while they access it though their private ground and treat the public ground as their own. One simple solution that has been tried is to just punch in an access road via public ground, but then you have the issue of the land owner then becoming very uncooperative with the BLM and NF and in this small a community strings can be pulled so access is still denied and the NF and BLM can not wade through the red tape and law suites of putting in a road anymore. These guys love MT for the wildlife and access to it, unlike the areas most are from back east but then they buy a piece of MT and turn into exactly what has ruined their hunting back east. MT is slowly turning into what they fled from. The only solution that has worked is Block land dollars for access across, not to but across the private.

This is in my area, other areas of MT have other issues and are different but in my area is where 75% of MT elk are and most of the cattle ranches so this is the issues I see. Sorry for being long winded but I really want you non resident guys to know the issues aren't with you coming and hunting, it goes way deeper than that!!

 

[gr8whyt]

bigngreen,

Amen on everything you said!

Some landowners have opened good hunting lands to the Block Management Program. And for the most part hunters are very respectful of the land and and rules specified. The Block Management program was paid for the Outfitter Sponsored Non-resident licenses. With the elimination of these licenses by I-161, prices of all remaining non-resident licenses have been raised and a percentage of those increases devoted to pay for the Block Management and other access enhancement programs. These private land access programs are good for both residents and non-residents alike and good for landowner/sportsman relations.

It wasn't too many years ago that there were no Outfitter Sponsored licenses, so in a sense, Montana is returning to the way it was for non-resident licenses. What has changed, however, is the need to pay for the private land access programs (like Block Management), hence the need to increase prices.

-- gr8whyt

 

[Buffalobob]

There is a small group of us that are fairly hard core hunters and try to stay involved with FWP and game management in our area and at first we were all against this because we thought it would hurt the good outfitters that we know but after talking to them on their take we got behind it.

Whatever your opinion, it is important to stay engaged with the gov't. So many people want to complain but don't want to take the time to be involved.

 

[zkodiak]

the price sucks but if it opens more land for the average joe like me that cant aford to go with outfitters with my boys i will suck up the cost if it opens more land for us like block management area's. the thing i fear is we are starting to make this sport a rich man's game and my boy's will not be able to hunt and not care or back hunters for they cant hunt why should they care if some else can or not. also they more we take away the less hunters we have to back are fight for hunting.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I am not trying to start a fight here but in defense of the outfitters, I will say that the above quote is a missconception.

I have worked as a guide, and I own a second generation seasonal business, so I am not just yapping here. In my line of work I have to "book" clients. I have to advertise, meet with, and convince clients to choose me over the competing businesses in my line of work. This is the same for Outfitters. I can say, that after an individual chooses my services, and I go to my reputable parts supply distributer, I am garanteed the materials I need to complete the job my client hired me to do.

Oh ya, to stay on topic, it sucks that these tags are outrageously over priced. It sucks that most the money goes to a bunch of spineless bureaucratic yahoos.

No fight here. But I have to say that when an outfitter is guaranteed out of state tags in a system that has a waiting list to get a tag, there is no trouble in selling the tag for the outfitter. Sounds like the outfitter will always have a guaranteed amount of work, no matter how poor he is at his job. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not recall a time that out of state tags did not sell out. All out fitters would get business simply by existing because they had the tags.

Now, as Green had stated, the good outfitters will continue to get their business and grow their business. The poor quality outfitters will have a tough time getting clients.

The average price of the tag has increased, but the odds of drawing have also increased. As far as the price of the tags, I think that MT is in line with all the other Western States. I also do not think that the money from the sale of tags is lining any individuals pockets. If it is then there should be criminal charges. I do not always agree with how the fish and game uses money, but the sale of out of state tags is the funding for the block management program.

As far as out of state hunters should be able to hunt on Fed land the same as the in stater, move here and take your lumps in the local economy. I never left MT because I did not want to leave the wilds. I also have struggled to make a living. Whether it is fair or not I can't say. Hind sight, I should have left MT to make better money, and paid the out of state hunting rates. I would more than likely been very far ahead.

Steve