New bill will greatly impact DIY nonresident hunters in Montana

[Stein]

For sure, even 10% would impact the odds quite a bit, especially considering applicants goes up every year anyway.

For me, it would actually be a good thing as it would likely pull hunters off public land I hunt and concentrate them on leased land and much better areas where outfitters are more likely to hunt.  I still oppose it 100% because taking tags from the public to give to your rich buddies isn't the way things should be done.  Plenty of places for them to use that model, MT shouldn't be one of them.

[vandeman17]

For sure, even 10% would impact the odds quite a bit, especially considering applicants goes up every year anyway.

For me, it would actually be a good thing as it would likely pull hunters off public land I hunt and concentrate them on leased land and much better areas where outfitters are more likely to hunt.  I still oppose it 100% because taking tags from the public to give to your rich buddies isn't the way things should be done.  Plenty of places for them to use that model, MT shouldn't be one of them.

A good thing for those years you actually get lucky enough to draw a tag 

[greenhead_killer]

If it’s about being able to hunt every year, nothing is stopping the rich from buying outfitter tags now.
 If it comes out the outfitters are selling tags at cost to family friends etc, they ought to lose their guide license.

[Stein]

Montana doesn't have outfitter tags now, the rich have to join the draw like everyone else.  They did up until 2010 and they were dropped.

[Skyvalhunter]

Well from what I understand that many of outfitters are really hurting. If you don't have a Turner Ranch lease or some other kind of lease it might be tough. Joe blow that lives in Trout Creek and takes his clients on public land seems to be the ones hurting. When people look at public land outfitters with crummy success rates they are going to think twice about hunting with them

[greenhead_killer]

Montana doesn't have outfitter tags now, the rich have to join the draw like everyone else.  They did up until 2010 and they were dropped.

I see. I could see landowner tags being issued per so many acres, but having to stay on that property.  taking gen nr tags strictly for outfitters seems insane.

[greenhead_killer]

Well from what I understand that many of outfitters are really hurting. If you don't have a Turner Ranch lease or some other kind of lease it might be tough. Joe blow that lives in Trout Creek and takes his clients on public land seems to be the ones hurting.

with all of the tools available to anyone hunting anywhere now, there’s not an overly abundant need for guide services. I am not opposed to guided hunts, I’ve been on one or two, but with all the information we have access to, I don’t think there’s such a driving need as there used to be. Most guys hunting out of state are taking it pretty serious, planning year(s) in advance.

[meatwhack]

I am guessing the gentleman who is putting this forward has family and , or friends who are outfitters. Montana's did away with outfitter sponsored tags quite a few years back, I doubt there is more support today for it then back then, political suicide in most areas of Montana. I do wish the state would give landowners some support by offering them landowner sponsored tags for elk and antelope like they do for deer. Everybody thinks farmers and ranchers are rich, but way to many struggle like so many others in this country. I know the ranch we lease for hunting has a terrible problem with elk destroying fencing, hay stacks, they deserve to have some relief. Landowner tags in other states have been very successful it seems.

Sounds like they should charge more for the lease to hunt rather than asking for money from F&G.

How about those ranches that are not fortunate to have a lease that have animal concerns? What is wrong with letting ranchers and farmers have some skin in the game?

The only way I’d support any F&G money going towards depredation is if that land is open for everyone to hunt. If ranchers want to keep it locked up for themselves or paying clients then they’re on their own as far as I’m concerned.

[Skyvalhunter]

This measure passed in 2010
https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/2010-2/i-161/

[MADMAX]

11 years later............................................... so much for the last best place

[cbond3318]

I really don’t see the benefit for the state or the game if this passes. Seems especially odd to want to allocate so many tags when the hunting culture Today is all about the public land , DIY experience. Vastly different from 10 yrs ago with access to info online, who needs a guide.  I think Stein is on to something.

I’m only interested because I was going to jump into Montana this year as the start of an annual hunt destination for myself and my 3 up and coming sons. Guess we’ll see.

Not that I had much hope of being able to get a second leftover tag in Idaho, this will definitely keep that from happening. Getting tighter and tighter as each year passes.

[huntnphool]

This measure passed in 2010
https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/2010-2/i-161/

 https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,257474.msg3493827.html#msg3493827

 

[dreamingbig]

They didn’t vote during the meeting.  There was a hefty turnout by outfitters but also a decent amount in support of ending the nonsense.  Sen Ellsworth is a dum dum (my observation) and is bought by the outfitters.  He really has no clue about the issues.  He kept saying it would have no impact on the non resident hunters.  Whatever dum dum... we aren’t dumb!

Here are some interesting stats from the latest bugle magazine.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stein]

Is RMEF for or against it this time?  They were on the wrong side in 2010 when the outfitter tags were put in the general pool.

[dreamingbig]

Very silent on the issue.  Newberg (former board member but still business partner) has been very vocal against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk