Possible changes for Montana....

[boneaddict]

NICE breakdown Whacker.  SOmeone should submit actual number to them and or our Washington WOLF SITE, to make a point how this will effect revenue.

[whacker1]

Thanks but I wasn't exactly sharing new information - more of stating the obvious.

This revenue on non-resident hunting is not rocket science - But for some reason these dumb***es we elect for the various state positions try to turn economics and science into their own magical and mystical wish list. 

OR maybe when you are elected your IQ is reverted to a primative level, which seems to be roughly 50.  And at a 50 IQ - I suppose this revenue thing would be rocket science.   

[huntnphool]

What economic sense would it be to block half of their potential customers that won't draw a tag?

MagnumWillys, the tags are not going to be eliminated, they will go into the general draw. There will still be the same amount of tags given out, the difference is the outfitters won't be guaranteed the amount they are used to. Instead they will have to entice successful applicants to hunt with them. If you are a quality outfitter and have a successful track record this should not be an issue.

[Magnum_Willys]

Yes there will be as many tags - but look at the number of applicants that will be drawn out of the "former outfitter" pool.  Many of these are DIY which will increase the odds of the DIY drawing tags ( hey thats very good ! ) but absolutely decrease the number of outfitter client tags ( remember that under the current system 100% of this outfitter pool is drawn for outfitter tags ).

Also the incentive to go with an outfitter for guaranteed tags is eliminated - this will also reduce outfitter business volume.   

Yes this sounds bad for outfitters, and bad for the rural montana economy.  But for the nonresident DIY hunter that wants to hunt Montana every year - if this passes that may be a possibility.   Hmmm....

[huntnphool]

We don't see eye to eye and thats okay. I actually see the local economy benefiting more from it. Rather than these guys staying with the outfitters in private cabins they will be staying in more motel rooms, eating in towns, shopping at grocery stores, buying more fuel etc. Doing all this and at the same time reducing their out of pocket expenses since they are not having to pay the outfitter fees and increased tag $ for the guarantee.

[whacker1]

huntphool makes a great point that the DIY while not spending as much money per person are more likely to spread it through the local businesses. 

But I believe the total number of applicants will go down based on the increase in fees as did Idaho.  But how much is the question.  Right now the deer /elk combo runs around 40-55% success in draw (higher the last couple of years based on fewer applicants).  Will the increase in cost actually deter the number of applicants down low enough that it turns to 100% success and possibly not fill all the tags?  We won't know until this passes and see the results from 2011. 

I know that I plan to apply for 2010, but feel that an extra $200 may price me out of the equation for 2011.  I would normally defer to Idaho in that case, but there will only be about $30 difference beteen the two stats in total cost.

[muleyguy]

whacker,

the wildlife of montana is not owned by individuals;  it is collectively owned by the citizens of Montana;  when the govt steps in, and by decree, grants one group of people a guaranteed "right" to limited tags over another group, you are conferring special priveleges on one group of people over another.

as phool stated, the issue of helping rural montana is moot;  DIY hunters will bring more resources to a wider group of people in montana then the guides will, so that argument does not carry the day.  In fact, many of the "Outfitters" do not even call Montana home, so the income that goes to them a lot of times ends up out of state anyway.

I agree 100% with magnumwilly that the days of hunting for free on private ground are over;  so what???  Programs like Block Management have sprung up to fill in the void;  with todays easy communication, it is also easier then ever for a small group of DIY's to lease the land themselves in place of  the outfitters.  There are also fledging "hunt club's" starting to arise, whereby for a small fee, you can access several ranches for a limited time, kind of like a privatized version of Block Management.  Just as the govt of montana should not confer special priveleges to outfitters, there should not be any restrictions on private landowners to allow hunting, not allow hunting,, etc.  There should be no infringement of private property rights either.  The good thing about Block Mangement, hunt clubs, etc is that they are market solutions to the problem without the govt getting in the way.

as far as raising the tag fees, the tag fees can be raised as high as the mkt is willing to take.  The reason Idaho is having so much trouble is not because they raised the fees, it is because the quality of the product the non-residents are getting does not justify the costs.  Montana does not have that problem.  Idaho has particular trouble because the majority of the public land in it is so steep and rugged, and much of it is wilderness, so that limits many people and their ability to hunt it.  And, Idaho has completely dropped the ball with their mule deer management, and, now they have wolves. 

  Contrast that with Eastern Montana;  high deer numbers, high buck to doe ratio, relatively good access for vehicles, easy walking.   The bulk of non-residents in montana are coming from WA, CA and eastern states;  to this group of people montana deer hunting is sheer paradise.  Montana will not have any trouble selling tags at those levels.

at the end of the day, Montana does not owe it to non-residents to provide them with reasonably priced tags;  their only mandate should be to maximize revenue.  That way, they can keep montana resident tags cheaper.

the guranteed tag confers special financial treatment to one class of people over another;  and, as usual when something like that happens, you get a whole lot of less then desirable characters showing up to the party.......and, that is exactly what has happened in montana.........

as phool said, good outfitters who provide a good service will have no problem's..........the problem's will come for the guys who have 3 sections of private ground leased in front of 10 sections of public ground, who never have owned a ranch in their life, and are charging $4000 to guys from pennsylvania to come drive around in a1994 suburban and shoot a 20" mule deer.......

[huntnphool]

Absolutely spot on MuleyGuy, that was explained pefectly.

[whacker1]

Muleguy - you said that very well.  And I think I agree with most of it.

To expand about your comment about the "collective ownership by citzens of Montana" - I also believe the reason that this is taking place on an initiative format is that the individual residents of Montana are the ones that are motivated to make this happen and not beauracrats trying to maximize revenue as they did in Idaho.

I do find it interesting that they have tied this "rights" based initiative to a budgetary move as well to raise the revenue via raising non-resident rates.  Non-residents do add a big chunk of money to the wildlife's overall budget through non-resident licenses, tags, etc.

The initiative does run the risk of making a decision that could account for less dollars brought in than in prior years should less folks apply.  Like you stated the market will determine what happens ultimately. 

You are also right that Idaho has other factors driving the non-resident purchases downward.  Economy, wolves, terrain, etc.  But you can't say that raising the price $150 didn't have an impact.  Wolves pressure on game and the price increase were two of the reasons I didn't hunt in Idaho last year.  Drawing a multi-season deer tag in WA was also a factor as I could spend more time hunting. 

I must say that I like this conversation over most topics that we have discussed.  I think I have a pretty good grasp on the various arguments, opinions, etc.  I know that it will be more difficult for me to hunt in Montana should the pricing go up by $200 per year, and this is the only decision I get to make in this process as I don't get a vote in this one.

It will be only a matter of time as the surrounding states all end up in that $800 - $1000 range for the deer / elk combination, and the playing field, so to speak, will be leveled. 

[muleyguy]

whacker,

I know it is tough spending the money for montana, especially if they raise it that high.  But, I would counter that you get a lot of bang for the buck in montana;  at the end of the day, it is a pretty good value.  You have to give montana a lot of credit for the Block Management program;  no other state even comes close to providing hunters with that kind of access to private ground.  If I can pay a couple of hundred dollars more, and get access to millions of acres of private ground, along with all the public ground, see good numbers of deer, good numbers of bucks, and be able to hunt in classic mule deer habitat, without the rat race of hunting in states like WA, that is a pretty good deal. 

the Block Management program isn't perfect, but this initiative would go along ways towards fixing it and making it stronger;  the BM program was really a concoction of the department of wildlife and the outfitters;  the outfitters wanted guaranteed tags so they would have a guranteed client base; MFWP knew that this would strengthen and the outiftter industry beyond what it would normally be and lock up more private ground then would have been locked up without it.  So, they said ok, we will gaurantee you tags, but, jack the price up, and we will use that money to start the BM program to counteract it.

at first, it seems like a good idea, and generally it is, but, in a perverse way.  What has happened is that the outfitter industry had become stronger then it would have, and, they lock up all the best hunting ground, and BM ends up with the leftovers.  This isn't the case in every situation, but generally holds true.   So, at the end of the day, you have a stronger outiffter industry and more ground locked up and less quality land in the BM program. 

This is happening because non-resident guided hunters are footing the bill........a much better way, would be for us non-guided hunters to foot the bill for Block Management.  That is what this initative is doing, it is shifting the funding burden from the guided hunters to all hunters.  This will have the effect of weakening the outfitter industry and strengthing the Block Management program, or allow other programs (private clubs, groups of DIY guys leasing land)  all of which is positve for the DIY hunter.

So, I think you have to look at it from a total value standpoint.  I can tell you what really stings, spending money on gas, tags, camping equipment, time off of work, in WA state to go hunting and have it be a sea of orange and a sea of stupidity, and few if any deer on public ground.  WA state is far worse for the average hunter to gain access to private ground then montana.  Skip the WA hunt, save the money for montana, and go have yourself a great time.

[Magnum_Willys]

Muleyguy lays out a pretty good case - for me I'd prefer to pay $600 to a $1000 for a DIY deer tag and more block management land to hunt than what it is now - $1000 for an outfitter tag and another $3000 for an outfitter just so I have a place to hunt that holds a chance of a decent buck.

[257 Wby Mag]

Skip the WA hunt, save the money for montana, and go have yourself a great time.


Thats the best piece of advice I've seen on this site...

[Ridgerunner]

Skip the WA hunt, save the money for montana, and go have yourself a great time.

My plans exactly in 2010! 

[huntnphool]

I guess this thread confused a lot of people. The changes have not been made yet, the tags are still the same at this point. I talked with several people that were under the impression that this was a done deal and the tag prices had increased.

[whacker1]

Don't educate them - that would mean there might be more people applying against me..... :chuckle

But seriously - the initiative hits the November 2010 ballot for 2011 changes if they have enough signatures.  Not sure exactly where this is at regarding signatures.