Montana Combo Licenses

[bobcat]

Sure, $4 for a gallon of gas is a fair price, if people are willing to pay it. Why should the oil companies not make as much profit as possible? If you dont like the price of gas, find a more economical form of transportation and leave your car at home.

[Bigshooter]

"The prices do seem a bit high but when you compare to other states, Montana isn't much higher."


Most states are already to high.  Now is it ok for them to catch up to Montana?

It's ok for states to do whatever they wish. If people think the prices are too high, then they don't have to hunt there.


For comparison, Oregon is $516 for deer, $641 for elk, and $1017 if you hunt both deer and elk.

Idaho is $456 for deer, $571 for elk, and $873 for both.

Washington charges $434 for either deer or elk, or $674 for both.


The new Montana fees sure don't seem excessively high when compared to Washington, Oregon, or Idaho.   

All i'm saying is: now is it ok for washington, oregon and idaho to raise there prices more to catch up to montana?

When does it stop?

[Bigshooter]

So when one state decides it will be $2,000 for the combo license are people going to complain when others raise theirs to the same, or just use the excuse that "it is comparable to the other state's prices..." argument? It is getting too expensive for many people.

 

Bobcat this is my point.  When is enough, enough?

[Holg3107]

When is enough, enough

According to the state its when people quit paying for it. If they raise the cost to 2k and people pay it then its not enough and you should expect another cost increase.

[Bigshooter]

When is enough, enough

According to the state its when people quit paying for it. If they raise the cost to 2k and people pay it then its not enough and you should expect another cost increase.

So only the rich hunt? 

[Holg3107]

So only the rich hunt?

The state doesnt care how much money the people make who buy their tags. As long as people are buying them the prices will stay the same or rise. Hunting is a business, the state is going to try and proffit as much as possible for their product. It sounds weird and a bit ridiculous to call hunting a "product" but from a monetary perspective and a state perspective thats exactly what it is.

[bobcat]

The reason non-resident prices are so high in many states is that the non-resident fees are used to subsidize the ridiculously low resident fees. Residents of Montana only pay $16 for a deer tag, and $20 for an elk tag. They could probably bump each of these up by $10 and decrease the non-resident tags by $100. But the problem with that is we don't vote in Montana. So I guess if you really want to hunt in the state of Montana, but don't want to pay high fees, the answer is simple- move there.

[Bob33]

Hunting licenses are no different than any other product bought from any other company.  The price that WDFW (the "company") establishes will be set at a point where they believe their profits will be maximized.  If they can sell one license for $1000, that's more profit than selling nine at $100 each.  That's capitalism at work.  It's the same for milk, houses, gas, clothes, and everything we buy.  If oil companies believed they could make more profit selling gas at $8/gallon than they do at $3/gallon do you think they wouldn't do it?

[Tony 270]

I bet they would make more money selling gas at $8 than at $3 because too many people are forced to drive to get to work and don't have the option of carpooling or taking public transportation, walking, bicycling, etc.  Goods still need to be transported by truck. Planes still need to fly. But the public (and government - real or fake) outrage would be huge and I think that's the only reason they don't.

[Bigshooter]

So only the rich hunt?

The state doesnt care how much money the people make who buy their tags. As long as people are buying them the prices will stay the same or rise. Hunting is a business, the state is going to try and proffit as much as possible for their product. It sounds weird and a bit ridiculous to call hunting a "product" but from a monetary perspective and a state perspective thats exactly what it is.

I thought the states were suppose to manage game.  Not sell it off to the highest bidder, so they can make money.  Making it less affordable to people cuts your throat in the long run.  Less people getting in the sport.  No kids hunting. Ect.

Bob,
Thanks for the economics lesson.

[actionshooter]

Hunting licenses are no different than any other product bought from any other company.  The price that WDFW (the "company") establishes will be set at a point where they believe their profits will be maximized.  If they can sell one license for $1000, that's more profit than selling nine at $100 each.  That's capitalism at work.  It's the same for milk, houses, gas, clothes, and everything we buy.  If oil companies believed they could make more profit selling gas at $8/gallon than they do at $3/gallon do you think they wouldn't do it?

Yep,
  If 1/3 of the hunters say "screw it, I'm not hunting MT anymore!" Whats it going to matter, with the increase the state will still take in the same revenue.

[Tony 270]

Not true, the state won't take in the same revenue. They may take in the same amount from hunting sales alone, but by losing a third of the people coming in the state you also lose the same number of paying customers in restaurants, gas stations, hotels, guided services possibly, grocery stores, sporting goods stores, etc...

Losing a lot of revenue and the smaller hunting towns will probably feel the impact more than the big cities. Lost sales leads to lost income tax, less for the state, less for everyone.

[BAR C3]

First of all this was voted in by the voters. Had nothing to do with the Game Department of Montana. Being that I have friends and family in Montana, and have hunted there for 15 plus years, I think the voters are going to regret it! There reasoning is they are sick of the ranches leasing land to the Outfitters for guaranteed tags. Thus, taking opportunities from residents to hunt on these ranches. 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. No different form what happens in every other state.
I don't hunt Idaho anymore since there rates went up. Guess what, they lost big money and are rethinking it and considering lowering to be competitive. Montana will feel the same! The other thing that blows me away is that us out of towners spend money in those towns. The guided ones don't need to. 

[muleyguy]

the residents of montana "own" their deer and elk;  most of us on here are good ole' conservatives......my how our attitudes change when it comes to us wanting something that doesn't belong to us............the state of montana owes non-residents absolutely nothing.......

it is a priveledge for WA residents to hunt MT, not a right.

MT puts out a quality product;  they will either sell out their tags next year at the higher price, or be very close, and, will generate millions of dollars to help keep residents tag fees low and fund their department

[Bob33]

I thought the states were suppose to manage game.  Not sell it off to the highest bidder, so they can make money. 

I don't mean to be flippant, but do you really believe that is their primary objective these days?