Some Wa. Hunters in E. MT.

[bearpaw]

I lived in Wyoming 11 years and worked for the Game and Fish Department over 7 of those.  I can vouch that nonresident deer and antelope licenses run the Department financially, every other program including elk, fishing and resident hunting are subsidized by those revenues. 

Hunting and wildlife-related tourism are estimated to contribute 5% of the entire state economy.  By comparison, agriculture is 12% of the Washington state economy; apples, dairy and potatoes comprise about 4.85% of the Washington state economy.  Hunting and wildlife-related recreation are more important to Wyoming's economy than apples, dairy and potatoes are to Washington's.  That 5% is the highest of all 50 states, the importance of hunting and wildlife tourism to the state's economy can't be overstated.

In terms of who are bad apples, some of the wardens' jokes in Wyoming are instructive.  Cheeseheads (WI as well as Mi and MN, also known as pumpkinsuits for their preferences for head to toe orange) are party hunters.  TX and LA plates are probable cause in eastern WY, in western Wyoming UT, NV and CA.  The professions most likely to poach are teachers, preachers and cops. 

I checked hunters in eastern WY from every state except ID, they do turn up in the west.  The only MT hunters I ever checked were doe/fawn antelope hunters down for the opportunity to take doe/fawn antelope at $24/pop.

Washington hunters didn't hit the radar much as a standout - they were more likely to hunt hard, i.e., you could find their trucks and not find the hunters.  They were generally easy to please, not terribly picky about trophy quality and enthusiastic about opportunities to fill multiple tags.  They were maybe more likely than some to trespass, usually due to a lack of understanding of Wyoming trespass laws.  Other places they were likely to get tripped up was not carrying a hunter safety card if born after 1966, and shooting forest grouse without an upland bird license.

In rural areas with low populations, one bad group of repeat nonresident hunters can give a state a bad name (whereas resident bad actors were known by family names).  When I started in Casper, a lot of the landowners didn't like Michigan hunters, it was mainly due to one outlaw group that was notorious for running around in 4wd vans, sliding the door open and shooting from the vehicle, grabbing the critter and running.  We worked them hard for about 3 years, and I was proud of the time I was able to watch them shoot a mule deer doe from the van while trespassing on private land without permission.  After 3 years and many citations they quit coming back.  I suspect the situation described relates to one particular party who happened to be from Washington, one bad crew can definitely sour a region on hunters from that particular state.       

   This is the best answer in the whole topic, and from someone who has seen it!
All the Rocky Mountain states rely on non-res hunters, in fact non-res hunters subsidize cheaper hunting licenses and tags for residents. The reason WA resident hunters pay more in WA is because there are not as many non-res hunters buying expensive licenses, therefore resident licenses must cost more.

In every group of hunters there are good and bad just like any other group of people, it's just as several others have said, probably one particular group or two has made a bad name for WA hunters in that area. One of the ranchers I lease from in Montana says midwest hunters are the worst, that's because he's had bad experience with a couple groups from WI and MN. As individuals we each need to show respect and act with dignity whether we are hunting our own backyard or out of the area.

[bearpaw]

When you come to Colville you will see signs on many local businesses and even at the roundabout welcoming hunters, our town needs you, our chamber and our county commissioners understand that spring and fall hunting seasons are vital to our local economy! 

There are small towns all over the rocky mountain states in the same exact position. But in each small community there are locals who hate any competition, just remember, they aren't speaking for everyone so don't let them get to you.

[jstamp]

Being from wa and living in montana, I can tell you that the majority of the local hunters can't stand Washington hunters. Most of everyone i have talked to say that wa hunters are the worst. The common complaints are the lack of respect for land owners, shooting everything they see, wounding animals and not looking for them, and driving off roads with vehicles and atvs. Not saying it's just wa hunters that do that, but when you see more wa license plates then montana plates hunting some areas, I can see why the locals complain. Most land owners I know won't give permission to non resident hunters because in the past they've had nothing but problems with them. I have friends come and hunt with me from wa every year, they can attest to how things are. If I'm riding with them in their truck with wa plates, things are different then when I'm driving with montana plates. Now when I talk to other "local" hunters I never mention being from wa. I actually wish montana would go to a 4 pt minimum for deer. That would help with lots of people shooting spikes and 2pts.

[hunterofelk]

When I lived in Livingston, Montana from 1961 to 1987, Minnesota was the most often seen out-of-staters plate seen.

[jstamp]

Still alot of Minnesota plates around in hunting season. I'm sure they get lumped in to wa as well.

[pianoman9701]

Being from wa and living in montana, I can tell you that the majority of the local hunters can't stand Washington hunters. Most of everyone i have talked to say that wa hunters are the worst. The common complaints are the lack of respect for land owners, shooting everything they see, wounding animals and not looking for them, and driving off roads with vehicles and atvs. Not saying it's just wa hunters that do that, but when you see more wa license plates then montana plates hunting some areas, I can see why the locals complain. Most land owners I know won't give permission to non resident hunters because in the past they've had nothing but problems with them. I have friends come and hunt with me from wa every year, they can attest to how things are. If I'm riding with them in their truck with wa plates, things are different then when I'm driving with montana plates. Now when I talk to other "local" hunters I never mention being from wa. I actually wish montana would go to a 4 pt minimum for deer. That would help with lots of people shooting spikes and 2pts.

Out of state hunters are always going to be the target of unfounded BS. Every local thinks their opportunity is lessened by the presence of hunters "who don't belong there". Even hunters from E.WA do the same thing talking about W.WA hunters. What it boils down to is NIMBY. The locals all benefit from the money from out of state hunters but still badmouth them, and mostly without cause. The reality is that out of area and out of state hunters pay for a lot of goods and services which translate into jobs and a healthier economy, not to mention supplying the local F&G departments with big bucks for each license and tag. Your MT Dept of FWP couldn't operate without those dollars. If you see specific examples of wastage, littering, unethical or unsafe behavior, by all means report it and get those people cited. But making blanket statements about WA hunters "being the worst" is just plain ignorance. Most of the hunters I know in WA are ethical, law-abiding sportsmen and women. I doubt very seriously that lessens with people who spend extra thousands of dollars every year to hunt in MT.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I love how people think your gods greatest gift to a small town and keeping them all alive by buying gas on your 4 day weekend in October. That’s always the funniest comment  on these threads. “ boy oh boy they’d be hurtin if it weren’t for all my big out of state money for half a week” get over yourselves. those folks are out there for a reason and it’s not to cater to you for two weeks out of the year.

 Out of state tags should be straight draw only with full cost fronted. Cut down on the riff raff

Montana and Idaho wouldn't be able to support their fish and wildlife departments without all of the out of state money. It's not just about the small town economics for two weeks, so maybe you should get over yourself and thank out of state hunters for keeping your fish and game departments thriving from all of the out of state license sales.

Your delusional

Some basic math for you..... Idaho sold 15,500 non resident deer tags this year.  at 301.75 apiece, that comes to $4,677,125.  And they sold 12,815 nonresident elk tags at $416.75 each for a total of $5,340,651.25. So just between elk and deer tags, that is over $10,000,00 dollars. That doesn't include hunting licenses or fishing licenses or permit drawing fees or tags for other big game species, or hunters who just get a small game license and maybe do some bird hunting.  Out of state hunters provide about 50% of all license and tag fee revenue in Idaho. So basically, if you got rid of out of State hunters, resident hunters would have to pay double what they do now to keep the same revenue stream to the State.

[Odell]

I love how people think your gods greatest gift to a small town and keeping them all alive by buying gas on your 4 day weekend in October. That’s always the funniest comment  on these threads. “ boy oh boy they’d be hurtin if it weren’t for all my big out of state money for half a week” get over yourselves. those folks are out there for a reason and it’s not to cater to you for two weeks out of the year.

 Out of state tags should be straight draw only with full cost fronted. Cut down on the riff raff

Montana and Idaho wouldn't be able to support their fish and wildlife departments without all of the out of state money. It's not just about the small town economics for two weeks, so maybe you should get over yourself and thank out of state hunters for keeping your fish and game departments thriving from all of the out of state license sales.

Your delusional

Some basic math for you..... Idaho sold 15,500 non resident deer tags this year.  at 301.75 apiece, that comes to $4,677,125.  And they sold 12,815 nonresident elk tags at $416.75 each for a total of $5,340,651.25. So just between elk and deer tags, that is over $10,000,00 dollars. That doesn't include hunting licenses or fishing licenses or permit drawing fees or tags for other big game species, or hunters who just get a small game license and maybe do some bird hunting.  Out of state hunters provide about 50% of all license and tag fee revenue in Idaho. So basically, if you got rid of out of State hunters, resident hunters would have to pay double what they do now to keep the same revenue stream to the State.

Just to play devils advocate, it might be worth it to pay double to remove 15- 20 k hunters from a state

[jstamp]

First of all, I wasn't saying anything about the wa hunters, just stated what I hear from the locals. And yes, I'd pay more than double my license and tag fees to get rid of all the non resident hunters here. I'd gladly pay more money to hunt area with little pressure, whether it's montana or any other state. I get why hunting out of state is so popular if you live in wa, there's not much for game there. The general mule deer units are packed with people, the draw odds suck, the west side elk have all but died from hoof rot, and you spend almost the price of a non resident tag fee just to buy a license and apply for permits. As far as the non resident hunters affecting the economy, I'm sure some businesses would lose some money, but they are thriving the rest of the year and not just in hunting season.

[Stein]

I love how people think your gods greatest gift to a small town and keeping them all alive by buying gas on your 4 day weekend in October. That’s always the funniest comment  on these threads. “ boy oh boy they’d be hurtin if it weren’t for all my big out of state money for half a week” get over yourselves. those folks are out there for a reason and it’s not to cater to you for two weeks out of the year.

 Out of state tags should be straight draw only with full cost fronted. Cut down on the riff raff

Montana and Idaho wouldn't be able to support their fish and wildlife departments without all of the out of state money. It's not just about the small town economics for two weeks, so maybe you should get over yourself and thank out of state hunters for keeping your fish and game departments thriving from all of the out of state license sales.

Your delusional

Some basic math for you..... Idaho sold 15,500 non resident deer tags this year.  at 301.75 apiece, that comes to $4,677,125.  And they sold 12,815 nonresident elk tags at $416.75 each for a total of $5,340,651.25. So just between elk and deer tags, that is over $10,000,00 dollars. That doesn't include hunting licenses or fishing licenses or permit drawing fees or tags for other big game species, or hunters who just get a small game license and maybe do some bird hunting.  Out of state hunters provide about 50% of all license and tag fee revenue in Idaho. So basically, if you got rid of out of State hunters, resident hunters would have to pay double what they do now to keep the same revenue stream to the State.

Your numbers might be off, here is what I found from 2017.

From this report:  https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/directors-report-commission-2017.pdf

The numbers of NR tags sold were:

203,465 licenses (hunting, fishing, etc)
21,609 deer tags
1,395 turkey tags
15,438 elk tags
4,159 bear tags
659 lion tags
174 antelope tags
plus a few other things totaling 49,360 tags

The state took in $41M in tags and licenses.  If it's a 50-50 split, that's a $20M shortfall per year or about $70 for ever resident that buys a hunting or fishing license, probably more as the numbers would go down.  So, say $100 per person. 

It's the same in every western state except Washington.  NRs pay a huge chunk and absorb virtually all of the cost increases.  When a resident elk tag finally goes up $5, the pitchforks come out.  Each state has the right to kick all the NRs out if the residents were willing to pick up the bill.  I would think you could get a fair bit of support at the $100 level although I don't think the impact would be what most people expect.  From the sounds of this forum, the woods are loaded with NRs, but this article only puts NR hunters at 6% of the total license buyers (I think that lumps fishing in, but the number still is somewhat low).

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

He noted, “Remember, non-residents comprise only 30 percent of license buyers. Non-resident hunters are 6 percent of license buyers, but provide 37 percent of all license revenue.”

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I love how people think your gods greatest gift to a small town and keeping them all alive by buying gas on your 4 day weekend in October. That’s always the funniest comment  on these threads. “ boy oh boy they’d be hurtin if it weren’t for all my big out of state money for half a week” get over yourselves. those folks are out there for a reason and it’s not to cater to you for two weeks out of the year.

 Out of state tags should be straight draw only with full cost fronted. Cut down on the riff raff

Montana and Idaho wouldn't be able to support their fish and wildlife departments without all of the out of state money. It's not just about the small town economics for two weeks, so maybe you should get over yourself and thank out of state hunters for keeping your fish and game departments thriving from all of the out of state license sales.

Your delusional

Some basic math for you..... Idaho sold 15,500 non resident deer tags this year.  at 301.75 apiece, that comes to $4,677,125.  And they sold 12,815 nonresident elk tags at $416.75 each for a total of $5,340,651.25. So just between elk and deer tags, that is over $10,000,00 dollars. That doesn't include hunting licenses or fishing licenses or permit drawing fees or tags for other big game species, or hunters who just get a small game license and maybe do some bird hunting.  Out of state hunters provide about 50% of all license and tag fee revenue in Idaho. So basically, if you got rid of out of State hunters, resident hunters would have to pay double what they do now to keep the same revenue stream to the State.

Just to play devils advocate, it might be worth it to pay double to remove 15- 20 k hunters from a state

Go for it.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Your numbers might be off, here is what I found from 2017.

From this report:  https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/directors-report-commission-2017.pdf

The numbers of NR tags sold were:

203,465 licenses (hunting, fishing, etc)
21,609 deer tags
1,395 turkey tags
15,438 elk tags
4,159 bear tags
659 lion tags
174 antelope tags
plus a few other things totaling 49,360 tags

The state took in $41M in tags and licenses.  If it's a 50-50 split, that's a $20M shortfall per year or about $70 for ever resident that buys a hunting or fishing license, probably more as the numbers would go down.  So, say $100 per person. 

It's the same in every western state except Washington.  NRs pay a huge chunk and absorb virtually all of the cost increases.  When a resident elk tag finally goes up $5, the pitchforks come out.  Each state has the right to kick all the NRs out if the residents were willing to pick up the bill.  I would think you could get a fair bit of support at the $100 level although I don't think the impact would be what most people expect.  From the sounds of this forum, the woods are loaded with NRs, but this article only puts NR hunters at 6% of the total license buyers (I think that lumps fishing in, but the number still is somewhat low).

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/

He noted, “Remember, non-residents comprise only 30 percent of license buyers. Non-resident hunters are 6 percent of license buyers, but provide 37 percent of all license revenue.”

Here's where I got my numbers Stein.  https://idfg.idaho.gov/tag/quotas-nonresident

From this article, http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/jan/29/idaho-sees-drop-out-state-hunters/ , came this quote.

"“A decade ago … our non-resident license and tag sales were 54 percent of all license revenue, with the remainder, 46 percent, from residents,” Moore said. “Today, due to the great recession, perception of wolf impacts on our big game, and the non-resident fee increase in 2009, non-resident sales have declined since ’08 and now the split is closer to 50-50.”"

And here is a good article on the total amount of money non residents spend on hunting and fishing in Idaho.  It's not a drop in the bucket.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf

[Axle]

If WA would control predators properly, this state could possibly be the best trophy state in the west and make tens of millions on out-of-state tags sales.
We have, however, a very corrupt government in this state at the moment which prevents good people from managing properly.
The corrupt politicians are against making money in hopes of buying votes to stay in office.
Their putrid stench has been spreading to good states like Montana. Sad to see this!

[idaho guy]

If WA would control predators properly, this state could possibly be the best trophy state in the west and make tens of millions on out-of-state tags sales.
We have, however, a very corrupt government in this state at the moment which prevents good people from managing properly.
The corrupt politicians are against making money in hopes of buying votes to stay in office.
Their putrid stench has been spreading to good states like Montana. Sad to see this!

I agree especially that wa could be a true trophy hunting state if they managed things better especially predators. Then we could have a thread on Montana hunters being hated in Washington 

[blackveltbowhunter]

I am in the minority I am sure, having experienced out of staters on a couple different occasions in Blacktail and Rosie areas on the westside. A couple from Idaho and  a crew from Eastern Oregon both experiences were positive.  I guess I look at hunters as hunters and while I dont cherish the thought of them hunting the same spot I want to be, I also realize that for the most part out of staters are monetarily contributing more to the public coffers than I am and are in general not as big of a threat as locals who are much more familar with the animal habits, terrain and movement. I hope to receive the same courtesy when I am a guest in another state.