I agree it shouldn't be. But why would they cut the hand off that feeds them funding wise?
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
MT Elk Regulations Should Change!
- Thread starter Troutslayer2
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Because its the right thing to do.
Basically you wanna bribe them?
Like I said funding shouldn't have anything to do with decisions on how to structure hunting seasons and tags do the right thing then figure out how to fund it.
Does it costs money to pick your weapon?
Would you not be willing to pay more for your general deer and elk tag? I guess I don't see it as bribing. I just feel we are still paying tag prices that are not reflective of todays value. If residents pay more to close the 76/24 gap we may have just a touch more pull when saying quit selling all these B tags.
Untill i see some changes for the better thats a HELL NO!!
Why pay more if your not getting anything in return?
You keep talking about money and value take that out of the equation and start talking what is right for management, that should be #1
The value is in the toilet.
You wanna see some **** good Bulls go hunt Nevada, if montana would manage for bulls like that I'd be on board for drawing as a resident.
I saw more more 350-380 bulls in 10 days there hunting than I have 30+ years in Montana and I was deer hunting.
Wyoming does a good job on there elk but they screwed the pooch on the MD in western wyoming after last winter they shouldn't have even had a season.
I do not know much about Nevada. Draw only is what I heard without any research. So is it safe to assume that your looking for quality over opportunity and has that always been your approach or just something that has evolved with time?
Troutslayer2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 776
I think if we cut the NR opportunity maybe 65-80% of what it is now, raise the cost to make up the dollar shortfall and require all NRs hunting big game to be with an outfitter- everyone wins. I don't really care if it's inaccessible to average Joe hunter who wants to drive across the country and do a DIY elk hunt. That guy is more of the problem and less of the benefit.
birddog 68
Well-Known Member
So you're saying screw the average Joe because they are a NR? I believe everyone's tax dollars purchased and maintained federal property.
Members are making suggestions to you about being overrun with NR and you are calling a average Joe like myself and many others a problem? You sound like a spoiled child saying it's my elk and you can't have any!
Average Joes always gets the shaft so at this stage in life this average Joe is used to it.
nksmfamjp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,466
Nobody wins with this.
You as a R will have less access due to ranches locking up land with outfitters trying to get a piece of those outfitter profits. This is already an issue as Montana ranches sell daily to people buying scenery.
Many NR's will be unable to pay that cost and quit, but outfitters will still hold all the private and that will block a lot of public. There will be an increase in guided hunters, but fewer NR overall.
Take vacation and go hunt?
Not many, as evidenced by the state of hunting in the West today.
Missouri has done a good job of separating some of the politics by funding MDC with a 3/8ths of a percent sales tax.
Do not lose sight of the funding from Pitman-Robertson. Predicated on license sales.
The undeniable fact is demand exceeds supply by a huge amount. No one involved wants to reduce their "rice bowl."
Not the politicians, not the wildlife managers, not the hunters - resident or non-resident.
(Note to LSherm: the figurative "you")
How about split the alphabet in half and allow first half to hunt even years and second half to hunt odd years.
One of the problems I believe is prevalent is license fees etc drives their budget. Why? What other state agency has to survive like this?
If they are going to run it like a business, then go all in.
1) Develop and implement a standard five year business plan based upon a budget issued from the state budget and not based off the incoming monies from sportsmen.
2) Plan must include management goals for all species.
3) Steps to achieve goals for each species with contingencies for known variables such as winter kills, disease, and other wildlife related issues etc. In other words be prepared with contingency actions to keep programs moving forward to goals. Plan must include mandates to address these potential contingencies without interference from political inputs.
4) The plan must not be economic nor politically motivated.
Sorry bad joke.
If they are going to run it like a business, then go all in.
1) Develop and implement a standard five year business plan based upon a budget issued from the state budget and not based off the incoming monies from sportsmen.
2) Plan must include management goals for all species.
3) Steps to achieve goals for each species with contingencies for known variables such as winter kills, disease, and other wildlife related issues etc. In other words be prepared with contingency actions to keep programs moving forward to goals. Plan must include mandates to address these potential contingencies without interference from political inputs.
4) The plan must not be economic nor politically motivated.
Sorry bad joke.
