Possible changes for Montana....

[huntnphool]

 I thought we were talking about the elimintation of the guaranteed tags, isn't that what you said would be the reason for losing 6-10 clients, not being able to know whether or not you can lease your ranches and the BMP?

 Rather than twist this around the subject just answer me one question. Since we were talking about you losing your 6-10 guaranteed clients, under the new initiative, would those clients pay more or less if it passes?

[bearpaw]

Here's your answer....

I wouldn't have any of those hunters who want to have a hunt for sure next year. Many of those guys who are willing to pay for the guaranteed tag will go to Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, or New mexico where they can get an outfitter or landowner tag.

I also get a lot of working class folks who choose to apply since it is only $343, I will most likely lose some of those hunters as well when the licenses cost more, they will go somewhere like Utah where they can hunt for $338 on a landowner permit.

Now answer this for me.....why are you so ademate to get rid of the whole program in Montana.

[huntnphool]

The whole program with the Outfitter License fees paying for the Block Management program is a win/win/win/win for the poor hunter, the wealthy hunter, all hunters wanting access to private land, the outfitting industry, and the outfitted hunter.

 Explain how the passing of the initiative will negatively impact the BMP. As I pointed out earlier, the passing of the initiative will actually increase revenue, not decrease it.

[bearpaw]

You didn't answer my question but I will answer yours....

I am not sure revenue will be increased since I have not done the math but it may, please keep in mind that any revenue increase is at the expense of the guys who used to get a license for $343.

Because the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license, so all the initiative may do is increase license fees for the folks who used to pay less money to hunt in Montana.

It is yet to be seen if it impacts BM or not....

A books is not always as it seems on the cover.

[huntnphool]

Now answer this for me.....why are you so ademate to get rid of the whole program in Montana.

 Its not getting rid of the program its making changes to it. Changes that I believe will be better for most of the non res hunters heading there. The people that were going with you will still apply, and although they may not all draw I believe you will likely increase the amount of people wanting to book a trip because in the long run for them it will be cheaper.

[bearpaw]

Well the biggest changes I see is that most non-res hunters will have to pay a lot more and have only a minutely better chance of drawing.  (not worth the extreme rise in price)

As stated more than once, the guys who want to hunt now, will hunt elsewhere, where they can hunt now. Almost every other western state has special outfitter or landowner licenses that will allow them to hunt now.

These guys are also the guys who likely leave the most money where they hunt, so economically Montana may actually lose money. As Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.

[huntnphool]

Because the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license,

 I'm betting those guys will still be applying except now they are only paying $527. If they draw, great, they just saved enough to pay for the rest of their hunt or help subsidize the cost of an additional out of state tag. If they don't draw then they can still apply in that other state you claim they were jumping ship for anyway.

[bearpaw]

What about the majority of Non-res hunters who used to only pay $343?

How is this better for them?

[bearpaw]

Because the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license,

 I'm betting those guys will still be applying except now they are only paying $527. If they draw, great, they just saved enough to pay for the rest of their hunt or help subsidize the cost of an additional out of state tag. If they don't draw then they can still apply in that other state you claim they were jumping ship for anyway.

I don't like betting on getting business when I don't have to. Those guys you are reffering to are looking for a hunt now, not a cheaper deal.

[Special T]

Basic law of economics... As price goes up demand goes down, or visa verse.... So if you increase  general out of state tags you are quite likely to have less hunters.... The challenge for a person like BP would be to SCRAMBLE for customers who have the tag.... That costs more because your target customer is harder to find..... and as BP said the 200 difference in tag cost willnot likely change someones mind in hiring an outfitter.  

[huntnphool]

As Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.

 True, and like you I seriously doubt it will pass. I can see them coming up with a compromise though in order to justify an increase in tag fees.

What about the majority of Non-res hunters who used to only pay $343?
How is this better for them?

 Maybe the increase in drawing odds has them drawing every other year on average rather than every 3rd year?

[huntnphool]

and as BP said the 200 difference in tag cost willnot likely change someones mind in hiring an outfitter.

 The combo would be a $600 savings, and I do believe that would be enough to tip the scales of someone on the fence.

[bearpaw]

As Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.

 True, and like you I seriously doubt it will pass. I can see them coming up with a compromise though in order to justify an increase in tag fees.

What about the majority of Non-res hunters who used to only pay $343?
How is this better for them?

 Maybe the increase in drawing odds has them drawing every other year on average rather than every 3rd year?

No, I don't think it will. Do the math, currently I believe about 10% of non-resident deer licenses are sold as Outfitter Licenses, so the odds should only improve by about 1/10th, in my book it's not even close to a bargain for that amount of gain in odds for the amount of increase in fees.

I am still curious why you are so adament to get rid of the Outfitter Licenses when the modest rewards are so costly to all the other non-res hunters.

There are numerous Montana politics involved here, so it will be interesting.

[Craig]

I still don't understand how no non res outfitters tags will help Montana residents gain access to hunting land? If anything it might piss off land owners and they will close down more land to no hunting.

[Skillet]

No, I don't think it will. Do the math, currently I believe about 10% of non-resident deer licenses are sold as Outfitter Licenses, so the odds should only improve by about 1/10th, in my book it's not even close to a bargain for that amount of gain in odds for the amount of increase in fees.

I am still curious why you are so adament to get rid of the Outfitter Licenses when the modest rewards are so costly to all the other non-res hunters.

There are numerous Montana politics involved here, so it will be interesting.

Based on the #'s presented so far in this thread, here are the #'s:

5500 outfitter tags are 10% of the total nonresident tags, so there's 55000 nonresident tags.  The 5500 outfitters at $1100 each will be placed in the general draw.

In the old system, 5500 tags at $1100 each nets Montana $6,050,000.
The remaining 90% (49,500) at $343 each, nets Montana $16,978,500.
Total nonresident revenue was $23,028,500.

If the initiative passes, all 55,000 tags go for $527, netting Montana $28,985,000.
That's almost EXACTLY a 25% increase in revenue for the state from out of state hunters.  Nice, round number state agencies love to deal with.  Coincidence?
Effectively, the state said to the outfitters - "We want a bigger piece of what you're getting"; and if it's true that most outfitters are from out of state, that makes sense they'd say that - the profits the outfitters were making from Montana public-owned game was going right back out of state.

I'd believe there is a major revenue grab going on here by the great state of Montana, but I'm ok with it if the additional 25% revenue is used for even more BM programs above and beyond what they have already.