Montana Combo Licenses

[Tony 270]

Here we go again... is a priveledge, not a right blah blah blah

Like I said, MT might make the same on tag sales, but will lose a lot of revenue in everything else the non-residents come into the state and pay for. Shooting themselves in the foot in terms of the big picture.

I hope Idaho lowers their fees, I'd like to go hunt there again. Not going to spend $460 on a deer tag though. Thinking of going to Wyoming instead next year at $312 for a deer. Spending more in gas, yes, but is the principle of it.

[muleyguy]

Come on people are you that stupid? It will only get worse now! The state funded the Land Owner management program by the Outfitter tags. So all those places that were free to hunt on will now go up to the highest bidder.

you are completely wrong;  I-161 INCREASES funding for the Block Management Program by $700,000;  the Block Management program will be able to EXPAND its acreage because there is a bigger funding source in place;

here is where the additional monies generated by the tag fees are going per the legislation:

I

-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold.

getting rid of the guaranteed tags will limit the fly by night outifitters, and with the increased funding for Block Management, additional private ground will be able to be brought in the Block Management program over time.

[muleyguy]

Like I said, MT might make the same on tag sales, but will lose a lot of revenue in everything else the non-residents come into the state and pay for. Shooting themselves in the foot in terms of the big picture.

you are fooling yourself if you think non-resident hunter numbers are going to drop significantly;  they will either sell out, or be very close to selling out, just like they have been for the last several years;

Here we go again... is a priveledge, not a right blah blah blah

so, explain to me why you think, as a resident of WA state, why you should have any ownership in Montana's wildlife???

that is a pretty socialistic view........democrat are we???

[BAR C3]

Come on people are you that stupid? It will only get worse now! The state funded the Land Owner management program by the Outfitter tags. So all those places that were free to hunt on will now go up to the highest bidder.

you are completely wrong;  I-161 INCREASES funding for the Block Management Program by $700,000;  the Block Management program will be able to EXPAND its acreage because there is a bigger funding source in place;

here is where the additional monies generated by the tag fees are going per the legislation:

I

-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold.

getting rid of the guaranteed tags will limit the fly by night outifitters, and with the increased funding for Block Management, additional private ground will be able to be brought in the Block Management program over time.

As you quoted, assuming that all Non Resident tags sell out. I will be surprised if they do!
Look up Idaho's stats, they haven't sold out of tags for two years. Sold out every year prior. I bet Colorado will start getting more hunters. No wolves, TONS of elk.

MuleyGuy-Nobody owns those deer and elk. No more than the deer that run on my property. Should the residents have more privileges? I never said they shouldn't. I get more because I have family there. Don't use them. I put in with everyone else because I go with others that don't have family there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the Outfitters, I just don't think the residents are going to get the results there looking for. When I first started hunting over there getting on land was not a problem. It is now if you want a quality hunt.

[Tony 270]

Time will tell whether or not you lose tag sales or not, we'll see.

And nice comprehension skills Comrade. Where did I say I have ownership of MT wildlife? You say it is a priveledge, it is not. It is a simple commodity, a good for which there is a demand. People pay, people get it. It is not a priveledge like you eating all of your vegetables with dinner and mommy and daddy gave you ice cream for dessert. Big difference.

[muleyguy]

for the deer combination license last year, there were 11,500 applicants for 2300 tags;  and 2300 tags allocated  to the guaranteed program; of which virtually all were filled;

with the new legistlation, the number of deer combination licenses will be increased to 4600 total, but, the guaranteed ones will be eliminated;

the people who normally apply for the guaranteed tag will now just apply for the draw;

that puts the estimated number of people applying for the deer combination tag at about 14,000 people next year (give or take) going for 4600 tags;  so 10,000 people are going to bow out of applying because of the higher fees??  I highly doubt it.

the big game combination draw had 17,700 applicants last year and 5600 guaranteed tags;  the guaranteed tags haven't been selling quite out each year, but, have been very close;  so, now about 23,500 people will be applying for a total of 17,000 big game tags;  so, 6000 people are going to have to bow out of, just to get to 100% draw.

the reason Idaho started having left over tags is because they simply priced it too high relative to the "product" they were delivering;  idaho has had a rapidly declining mule deer population, has vast wilderness areas that are too steep and have too little vehicle access for most people and for most of the state does not allow hunting during the rut.

the thread entitled "Washington Invades Montana" is no joke; for those of us who have been hunting there the last 25 yrs, it is staggering the amount of WA guys going there now vs even 10 yrs ago.............the invasion is not going to stop because of a couple of hundred dollars........for the 10 of you on Hunting-WA that bow out of the drawing because of the higher tag fees, 500 will be lining up to take your place.......

case law clearly demonstrates who "owns" deer and elk and it clearly demonstrates who gets to "manage" those deer and elk by state;  you each might want to change it, or think otherwise, but, the law is clear.  and, your definition of priveledge can be whatever you want;  bottom line is the law is, that as a WA resident, you have no rights to MT wildlife, unless the state of montana says you do.......kind of like you have no right to ice cream from mommy and daddy when you are 8 yrs old unless they say you do........

[muleyguy]

When courts consider whether a state has the authority or the duty to regulate hunting or protect wildlife, they consistently trace the source of the state's authority to its sovereign ownership of the wildlife resource.34 While alternative sources, such as the police power, may provide the nec­ essary authority,3S courts primarily invoke sovereign ownership theory.36 By relying upon the state's sovereign ownership interest as the basis for the state's authority to manage wildlife, these courts essentially have adopted the public trust doctrine.
In Geer v. Connecticut,37 the United States Supreme Court expressly adopted the theory of state sovereign ownership of wildlife and implicitly adopted the public trust doctrine. The Court considered whether the state, in light of the Commerce Clause, had the authority to regulate the killing of game within its borders by forbidding its transportation outside of the state.38 It held that the state did have the requisite authority, and that the Commerce Clause did not limit such state regulation of game.39 In reach­ ing its holding, the Geer Court considered the nature of the state's interest in wildlife. Much like the Illinois Central Court, the Geer Court relied on the history of the state's sovereign responsibilities over its natural resourc­ es for the benefit of the people.40
The Geer Court considered principles of English common law and Roman law.41 Under Roman law, wild animals had no owner and there­ fore belonged "in common to all citizens of the state.,

this is what the law is;  if you are a resident of WA, you hunt MT at the priveledge of the residents of MT.......

[Tony 270]

So essentially it comes back to my point of being a commodity, one that the state sells to hunters because of demand. Doesn't just apply to non-MT residents either, they sell it to you, although at an extremely low price. And you're correct that non-residents don't have rights to MT wildlife unless MT says we do, but that applies to you as well. We both pay to play, we both need the state to say it's okay. So what was your point again? Do you have one?  

[muleyguy]

Here we go again... is a priveledge, not a right blah blah blah

It is not a priveledge like you eating all of your vegetables with dinner and mommy and daddy gave you ice cream for dessert. Big difference.

I don't know, seems pretty clear you were trying to tell me it wasn't a priveledge for WA hunters to hunt MT, when, it clearly is......

So essentially it comes back to my point of being a commodity, one that the state sells to hunters because of demand

It is a simple commodity, a good for which there is a demand. People pay, people get it.

no, it isn't a simple commodity because the, supply and price, is FIXED by the State;  if it was a simple commodity, then additional demand could simply be taken care of by bidding the price up.

and, that is certainly not the case;  next year if I want a deer combination license in the State of MT, but I do not draw, I cannot just go and pay someone $10,000 to get one;

you have to understand the legal doctrine.....the state manages the wildlife, in trust, for the citizens of the state;  the citizens of the state own the wildlife;  it is the legal responsibility of the state to maximize revenues from the resource while at the same time protecting it and providing opportunities to the citizens of the state.

you are just pissed because they raised the price......when, in fact, it is their legal duty to maximize the revenue;  supply and demand does factor in to a degree because if the "resource" can sustain 17,000 tags, and they are getting 24,000 people applying, then, they are "leaving money on the table"; it should be priced so that supply meets demand, and that maximizes the revenue.

but, to compare it to a simple commodity, is really not accurate.

[Tony 270]

It is about as much of a priveledge to go see a baseball game, buy a car, or fly on a plane as much as it is to hunt in Montana. You have the money, you can go do it, is really that simple. The only issue that may come up is the seat I want is already sold, the car I want isn't on the lot, or the flight is booked. Other than that, you have the money, you're on your way. It is stictly about cash, nothing else.

Not pissed MT raised their price, I've never hunted there or have even tried. What do I have to be pissed about? Oh, I get it... you went off yet again on some stupid assumption you pulled out of... wherever as if you know something about me. Not pissed here, just stating a simple fact that it is getting too expensive for some and even if I do have the money, it isn't worth it to go there. But like I said, haven't even tried to hunt MT even when it was cheaper so I have nothing invested in the state and have no reason to be pissed.

Any other BS you want to toss this way, Comrade?

[Vek]

If you're serious about hunting, the numbers being thrown about aren't out of reach.  Stop smoking.  Don't buy any prepared coffee.  Stop eating out.  "thin the herd" - sell some guns. 

Don't ever attempt to move to and hunt in Alaska - the numbers being thrown about won't even get you afield to hunt (with the exception of well researched and extremely difficult road or boat-based walk-ins). 

[RPM]

lots of posts here so if it's already been said sorry. the fish and game didn't do it. it was an ini*censored*ive brought to the vote of the residents of montana. half of tham felt that the state was subsidesing the outfitter busineses and the other half now think the outfitters won't be able to lease as many ranches and they will now be open to the public ( fat chance). i don't think the F&G are happy with it. i'm dissapionted in it but will still probably go. sorry for the spelling

[Bob33]

it was an ini*censored*ive brought to the vote of the residents of montana.

I think they call that a Freudian slip? 

[gray brow]

We hunt a lot of NWR land in Montana.  When we run into gamies, it's federal guys not Montana state.  I know I pay federal taxes and it seems like federally administered lands should have an element of national "ownership" not just the state's prerogitive.

I don't like how this is heading towards an "elitist" scenario where only the wealthy or deranged are willing to keep up with price increases.  Yes, me and my cronies will pay and go because we can.  But 20 years ago we couldn't have and we'd in the WA pumpkin patch hoping for a legal.

I've read a little of what Teddy had to say and this doesn't strike me as what he had in mind.

[Buschingc]

Since starting this post, I have been thinking alot about what to do... Ive basically come to the conclusion that I spent a $643 last year for the deer and elk combo... I hunted very hard and ended up shooting a deer, but I never even seen an elk.. (lots of elk tracks) Its hard to swallow that fact that im pissed off about the price increase... I have decided that I wont pay for the deer and elk combo and just take my chances with just the deer tag... Since thats basically what I paid for last year.. lol.. I really enjoyed my time in Montana and I haven't had anything even close to that experience here in Washington.. I really appreciate all of the feed back about this topic..