Post by: mburrows on January 29, 2021, 07:31:22 AM
Summary of the bill
60% of the nonresident combination licenses would be reserved for applicants who will hunt with a licensed outfitter
Licenses that are not sold to outfitters by March 30 would then go into the general draw
Removes the ability for nonresident combination license cost to be adjusted annually
Adjusts the nonresident deer combination licenses from 4,600 to 6,600 total licenses
One other change is making the preference point only purchase period extended until December 31 of that license year. Currently, the point only purchase period runs from July 1 through September 30 if you did not apply in the main draw.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 29, 2021, 08:10:45 AM
Post by: mburrows on January 29, 2021, 08:20:46 AM
Post by: Stein on January 29, 2021, 08:39:17 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 29, 2021, 08:45:52 AM
Wow, pretty obvious who is going to benefit if that goes through. I would hope hotels, restaurants, gas stations, ets, in areas that aren't in high demand and thus aren't served by many or any outfitters will realize what this will do to their revenue from hunters.
:yeah: Many Montana towns rely on hunters in the fall and winter to survive. You shift those hunters staying at motels in town, buying groceries, eating and drinking at restaurants/bars to being lodged and fed by outfitters and many business will go under.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 29, 2021, 08:46:16 AM
Post by: Stein on January 29, 2021, 08:59:02 AM
Wow, pretty obvious who is going to benefit if that goes through. I would hope hotels, restaurants, gas stations, ets, in areas that aren't in high demand and thus aren't served by many or any outfitters will realize what this will do to their revenue from hunters.
:yeah: Many Montana towns rely on hunters in the fall and winter to survive. You shift those hunters staying at motels in town, buying groceries, eating and drinking at restaurants/bars to being lodged and fed by outfitters and many business will go under.
I wouldn't be surprised if the hotels made less money from outfitter clients as well, they often have deals for reduced rates or kickbacks. They are also MUCH more concentrated - not every town that has a horde of DIY hunters has outfitters in the area, not to mention many outfitters have bunk rooms or cabins of their own and would undoubtedly expand if guaranteed additional clients every year.
There are many units people just aren't going to pay $10k to hunt. Establishments in those areas should be very concerned.
Post by: vandeman17 on January 29, 2021, 09:05:54 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2021, 09:08:12 AM
My guess is this is being pushed by out of state outfitters again. :twocents:
Post by: greenhead_killer on January 29, 2021, 01:36:14 PM
Post by: Stein on January 29, 2021, 01:52:56 PM
The bill also requires a $100 fee to apply for the outfitter tag in addition to the tag cost. :chuckle:
I e-mailed the vice chair as I grew up in his district and hunt there and felt it would carry the most weight. I tried to focus on heritage and supporting local small economies and reminded them many outfitters are out of state and the money wouldn't even stay in MT in many cases.
Post by: Mulie87 on January 29, 2021, 02:27:38 PM
Post by: Stein on January 29, 2021, 02:30:35 PM
Post by: Mulie87 on January 29, 2021, 02:38:16 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on January 29, 2021, 02:39:52 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2021, 02:55:07 PM
I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.
Yep, looked it up. Here you go.
https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Hunter_Access_Funding,_I-161_(2010)
Post by: dreamingbig on January 29, 2021, 03:11:31 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on January 29, 2021, 03:37:52 PM
I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.:yeah:
This is government welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps rather than demand government handouts the guides and outfitters pushing this should focus on improving their business model if they desire more stability, increased profits, etc.
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2021, 12:25:40 AM
I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.:yeah:
This is government welfare, plain and simple. Perhaps rather than demand government handouts the guides and outfitters pushing this should focus on improving their business model if they desire more stability, increased profits, etc.
This is similar to Washington’s car tabs votes.
Post by: MADMAX on January 30, 2021, 10:54:09 AM
https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/roster/individual/6816
Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee Contact Information
Name Party Seat Email Phone
Number
Sen. Steve Hinebauch - Chair R SD 18 steve.hinebauch@mtleg.gov (406) 365-7967
(406) 989-1372
Sen. Bob Brown - Vice Chair R SD 7 bob.brown@mtleg.gov (406) 242-0141
Sen. Tom Jacobson - Vice Chair D SD 11 tom.jacobson@mtleg.gov (406) 868-9814
Sen. Mark Blasdel R SD 4 mark.blasdel@mtleg.gov (406) 261-3269
Sen. Jill Cohenour D SD 42 jill.cohenour@mtleg.gov (406) 227-1144
Sen. Jason Ellsworth R SD 43 jason.ellsworth@mtleg.gov (406) 360-0009
Sen. Pat Flowers D SD 32 pat.flowers@mtleg.gov (406) 580-0035
Sen. Greg Hertz R SD 6 greg.hertz@mtleg.gov (406) 253-9505
Sen. David Howard R SD 29 david.howard@mtleg.gov (406) 633-2762
Sen. Bob Keenan R SD 5 bob.keenan@mtleg.gov (406) 250-4111
Sen. Edie McClafferty D SD 38 edie.mcclafferty@mtleg.gov (406) 490-5873
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 30, 2021, 11:05:36 AM
Post by: Stein on January 30, 2021, 11:09:32 AM
Post by: MADMAX on January 30, 2021, 11:24:52 AM
Hello-
Thanks so much for contracting me on this issue. Your participation in this process helps so much. I appreciate you reaching out to let me know your thoughts. Know that I have listened. Thanks -Jill
Senator Jill Cohenour
Senate District 42
East Helena, Montana
Phone: 406-227-1144
https://www.facebook.com/Jill-Cohenour-for-Senate-1448274122071012/
Legislators are publicly elected officials. Legislator emails sent or received involving legislative business may be subject to the Right to Know provisions of the Montana Constitution and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Montana law. As such, email, sent or received, its sender and receiver, and the email contents, may be subject to public disclosure, except as otherwise provided by Montana law.
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2021, 02:30:53 PM
We can also call or e-mail hunting organizations and ask them to oppose it and send position statements to their members, especially those in MT encouraging them to write or call in to the senators too. RMEF would be a good one to start with.
Did you open the link I provided and read the info on I-161?
Post by: Stein on January 30, 2021, 03:32:34 PM
Oops!We can also call or e-mail hunting organizations and ask them to oppose it and send position statements to their members, especially those in MT encouraging them to write or call in to the senators too. RMEF would be a good one to start with.
Did you open the link I provided and read the info on I-161?
I found it and was surprised that RMEF and NRA are both for outfitter tags. Both submitted completely bogus or misleading statements. Big no-no in my part, I'm done with NRA for the time being but still supported RMEF. Maybe they have changed their mind since then, I know Newberg spoke out very publicly in favor of no outfitter tags. We'll see, if they support this they won't get a penny from me in the future.
In reading Randy's forum, sounds like this is being pushed heavily by large wealthy landowners that like to have tons of NR buddies and family come in and hunt their land and they don't like standing in line for the draw with us lowlifes. They are contributing max amounts through agents to keep it somewhat out of the media's attention. Of course, the guides are happy as well and did a big show of force when the bill was introduced, but it was introduced in return for big $$s behind the scenes.
In many of the Montana Senate districts, they may only raise $5k for their campaign, so it isn't hard to get noticed and have your position heard by writing checks.
Post by: go4steelhd on January 31, 2021, 05:02:48 PM
Something that was not thought of when they changed but happened Is for the last 7 or 8 years I’m guessing, (some one would have to look up the actual year it changed for outfitter tags) since the change allowed about double as many tags on the public and block management, they have gotten hammered to the point something has to change.
I am not for outfitters getting 60% of the tags, but most of them operate on private lands thus hugely reducing pressure on public and block management , if they don’t change it with this I feel they will simply reduce tags drastically for Nonresidents. Or go unit specific. You are starting to see changes with this across the west.
The is not enough resources to take the pressure on public :twocents:
Post by: Stein on January 31, 2021, 05:29:13 PM
I do agree this would move a good portion of the hunters from public to private, but where are the outfitters going to hunt when they book 2-3x more clients or new outfitters enter the picture? More ground will go from BM to private lease and more outfitters will hunt public.
If move X tags from DIY to outfitter, there is 99.99% chance the total harvest will go up, probably dramatically. Compare harvest rates from guided and DIY and it can't be even close.
If the goal is to reduce total harvest, this will do the opposite. In addition, the legislation is purely driven from the desire for more guaranteed tags for wealthy NR hunters that want a tag every year and will pay for them, it has no basis in conservation or managing harvest.
Post by: MADMAX on January 31, 2021, 05:30:37 PM
We were admiring some buck deer last year
Rancher pulls up , we shoot the breeze
He says hey if you want shoot one of those bucks
$6000 and go right ahead
Yea no thanks
“There small ones anyway” he says
They weren’t small to us
Post by: go4steelhd on January 31, 2021, 06:02:29 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that, many of MT's units are over objective so I'm not of the opinion harvest numbers need to go down. The addition of shoulder seasons would be the first thing to go if it were the case.
I do agree this would move a good portion of the hunters from public to private, but where are the outfitters going to hunt when they book 2-3x more clients or new outfitters enter the picture? More ground will go from BM to private lease and more outfitters will hunt public.
If move X tags from DIY to outfitter, there is 99.99% chance the total harvest will go up, probably dramatically. Compare harvest rates from guided and DIY and it can't be even close.
If the goal is to reduce total harvest, this will do the opposite. In addition, the legislation is purely driven from the desire for more guaranteed tags for wealthy NR hunters that want a tag every year and will pay for them, it has no basis in conservation or managing harvest.
Over objective is generally aka damage to agriculture. This is almost always in units that have access issues or are predominantly private. 62.5% of Montana is private. They have also cut the last two weeks off of rifle elk and deer season in units near me due to over harvest. That changed in the last few years
Post by: Stein on January 31, 2021, 06:25:04 PM
Post by: DWBMontana on January 31, 2021, 08:15:52 PM
Post by: ffhoofer on February 02, 2021, 04:38:00 PM
Post by: meatwhack on February 02, 2021, 05:25:40 PM
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.
Post by: Brushbuster on February 02, 2021, 06:27:08 PM
Anyone hear how this went today?
Here is a link: http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210202/-1/41731
They don't get to the bill until almost the 16 min mark.
My guess is it will pass out of committee. Many more testified in favor of the bill in person than opposing it. Frustrating to watch when even F&G couldn't answer what effect it would have on NR DIY hunters. The sponsor is now claiming they only want 40-45% of the tags instead of proposed 60%. :bash:
Post by: DWBMontana on February 02, 2021, 08:08:58 PM
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?
Post by: Stein on February 02, 2021, 08:11:34 PM
It has zero to do with crop damage or conservation.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 03, 2021, 09:44:46 AM
It's backed by outfitters and rich ranchers that like to fly in their family and buddies and want guaranteed tags for them every year.
It has zero to do with crop damage or conservation.
:yeah: With the difficulty of drawing non resident tags in majority of western states, having guaranteed tags will be a great money maker for outfitters and ranchers
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 03, 2021, 09:45:54 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 03, 2021, 10:01:13 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on February 03, 2021, 10:48:36 AM
Dale prob knows every inch of history about it.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 03, 2021, 11:05:46 AM
If I recall this is just reverting back to what used to be where guides got like half the non res tags then 10 years or so ago they pulled em from the guides and all heck broke loose now they are circling back the other way. Back then you coukd only draw every couple years expect will be that way again.
Dale prob knows every inch of history about it.
Correct. It used to be this way and was voted out.
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2021, 11:06:41 AM
Post by: HillHound on February 03, 2021, 11:24:45 AM
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2021, 11:28:45 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 03, 2021, 11:38:13 AM
It's starting to look like the original sponsors may reduce the percentage, I think all agree 60% won't be filled. They are probably happy with a much smaller number for their rich out of state buddies but the way it's written now, the outfitter tags are first come first serve, not reserved for a particular outfitter or landowner, so they might not have thought it through all the way. I'm actually surprised they didn't pitch reserving X tags per ranch X acres or larger, but then again it's easier to hide behind the outfitters instead of showing their hand.
Even with a smaller percentage, that is a lot of DIY tags lost so the odds of drawing a tag will go down a lot. Already one of the most expensive tags in the west so like hillhound said, I will most likely consider other options if it passes.
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2021, 11:41:00 AM
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.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 03, 2021, 11:48:08 AM
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 :o
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 03, 2021, 11:48:17 AM
If it comes out the outfitters are selling tags at cost to family friends etc, they ought to lose their guide license.
Post by: Stein on February 03, 2021, 11:49:49 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 03, 2021, 11:52:31 AM
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 03, 2021, 11:52:52 AM
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.
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 03, 2021, 11:56:46 AM
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.
Post by: meatwhack on February 03, 2021, 12:24:39 PM
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.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 03, 2021, 01:42:50 PM
https://sosmt.gov/elections/ballot_issues/2010-2/i-161/
Post by: MADMAX on February 03, 2021, 02:15:44 PM
Post by: cbond3318 on February 03, 2021, 02:38:19 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 03, 2021, 03:59:33 PM
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
;)
Post by: dreamingbig on February 03, 2021, 09:38:31 PM
Here are some interesting stats from the latest bugle magazine.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210204/e8f9beec01a539b964e3038ac1752d8e.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on February 04, 2021, 08:03:48 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 04, 2021, 08:49:54 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on February 04, 2021, 09:11:55 AM
It's a very thin line to toe for RMEF, for sure.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 04, 2021, 09:25:08 AM
Post by: Stein on February 04, 2021, 09:35:15 AM
Post by: MADMAX on February 09, 2021, 06:36:15 PM
Post by: TooTallMike on February 09, 2021, 07:13:50 PM
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=143&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20211
Post by: MADMAX on February 09, 2021, 07:53:40 PM
Thanks
Post by: Limhangerslayer on February 09, 2021, 08:20:58 PM
I figured RMEF might want to look down at their shoes and hope it quickly resolves one way or another. A big chunk of their mission is to obtain and enhance access to public lands, I would think it also assumes you need a tag to use the land, but I would guess they have board members sympathetic to the guide perspective but hopefully not the wealthy landowner that wants the land and tags for their personal use.doubt it, look at the big ranches that RMEF owns and only the elite get to hunt. One of the reasons I don’t support them
It's a very thin line to toe for RMEF, for sure.
Post by: dvolmer on February 10, 2021, 09:21:29 AM
Totally agree with the above. I know that RMEF local chapters do a lot of good things like fix elk fences and other good projects but I to have watched the RMEF outdoor TV shows and watched the uppity-ups in the organization hunt on prime RMEF lands purchased by donations and or gifted that none of the peasants (us folk) will never have a chance to lay foot on in our lifetime. I don't support them either at the corporate level. I have seen to much of the "Good Old Boys" club in some of their corporate doings. Not to sure they would be a great advocate for the DIY non-resident hunter in Montana. They will follow the money wherever that leads them. Just my two cents.I figured RMEF might want to look down at their shoes and hope it quickly resolves one way or another. A big chunk of their mission is to obtain and enhance access to public lands, I would think it also assumes you need a tag to use the land, but I would guess they have board members sympathetic to the guide perspective but hopefully not the wealthy landowner that wants the land and tags for their personal use.doubt it, look at the big ranches that RMEF owns and only the elite get to hunt. One of the reasons I don’t support them
It's a very thin line to toe for RMEF, for sure.
Post by: Stein on February 10, 2021, 09:29:12 AM
I also quit watching their show years ago and don't subscribe to their e-mails as I just had zero interest in seeing Mr. Celebrity being guided on RMEF property. Like any similar organization, there are people that pay $20 a year and people that pay $200k a year and the latter obviously speak a bit louder than the former.
It is hard to find organizations that are completely in line with my way of thinking, so it's usually a judgement call as to whether to support them or not. I'm on the fence with RMEF now, if they come out with a clear position supporting it, I would be done with them as it doesn't matter how much habitat or public access exists if you can't get a tag.
Post by: idaho guy on February 10, 2021, 10:08:15 AM
Do you guys think there are enough people to pay for outfitters to use the 60%? 60% is 23,160 people hiring a guide for what $8-10k+? If you have a great chance at drawing a tag, they could probably increase their prices expecting way more demand.
The bill also requires a $100 fee to apply for the outfitter tag in addition to the tag cost. :chuckle:
I e-mailed the vice chair as I grew up in his district and hunt there and felt it would carry the most weight. I tried to focus on heritage and supporting local small economies and reminded them many outfitters are out of state and the money wouldn't even stay in MT in many cases.
:yeah: I cant imagine there is that many hunters are using an outfitter in montana. That makes no sense but I have been wrong before
Post by: Stein on February 10, 2021, 11:26:00 AM
Post by: dvolmer on February 10, 2021, 04:24:51 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on February 15, 2021, 11:12:55 PM
Now $300 premium and no requirement for outfitter.
Need more popcorn!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 16, 2021, 05:44:03 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 07:31:58 AM
The both kept it civil and overall fairly friendly... But I think Mac Minard left with a few black eyes.
Post by: dreamingbig on February 16, 2021, 07:34:36 AM
Is their a list saying how many Non Residents go with and outfitter in the past years for both deer and/or elk?They say 39% is the historical number for elk. The latest amendment in the bill drops outfitter requirement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 07:38:07 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on February 16, 2021, 07:44:35 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 16, 2021, 07:54:18 AM
https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/SB0143.pdf
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 08:08:02 AM
So now you can pay several hundred dollars to just get in on an earlier draw?
Sounds like it, very similar to Wyoming's Special tags. Pay extra to get in the Special draw (WY term), if you don't draw there you bounce into the riff-raff draw and have a second chance there.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 16, 2021, 08:38:06 AM
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on February 16, 2021, 10:50:39 AM
If you don’t draw in the special you don’t get entered in the regular draw, the special draw does still have a 25% random component to itSo now you can pay several hundred dollars to just get in on an earlier draw?
Sounds like it, very similar to Wyoming's Special tags. Pay extra to get in the Special draw (WY term), if you don't draw there you bounce into the riff-raff draw and have a second chance there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 11:01:53 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 16, 2021, 11:05:19 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 11:30:05 AM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 11:39:15 AM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
Part of that is the planning cycle. I have no doubt that they will look out and see other states and push another price increase at some point. It will also be increasingly difficult to get a tag as more and more people compete for the same number of tags - the very reason this bill was introduced. One interest group said they are willing to pay more for a guaranteed tag every year.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 16, 2021, 11:50:09 AM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
I agree in the value but I still think that the $300 early/special or whatever you want to call it draw only favors people with more disposable income. I can't blame states for trying to bring in more revenue but it just stinks the way things are trending
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
I agree in the value but I still think that the $300 early/special or whatever you want to call it draw only favors people with more disposable income. I can't blame states for trying to bring in more revenue but it just stinks the way things are trending
100% agree.
I'm not sure what the right answer is here. It's a constant balance of managing public lands, private land partnerships, biological studies on wildlife, enforcement, etc.... and budget.
Work hard, make money, keep expenses low and go hunting :tup:
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 11:58:25 AM
I do support raffles and auctions because the state gets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to use for conservation in exchange for only a few tags.
If wealthy MT landowners want guaranteed tags for their buddies, at least make them pay for it. Instead of $300, make it $5,000 or $10,000 and have it a landowner sponsored tag. Each landowner can buy a few tags a year at $5,000 and the revenue must go into something fun like public access.
Post by: Mtnwalker on February 16, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
Is this factoring in opportunity, season length etc? or just a straight up price comparison?
Post by: baker5150 on February 16, 2021, 12:33:46 PM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
I agree in the value but I still think that the $300 early/special or whatever you want to call it draw only favors people with more disposable income. I can't blame states for trying to bring in more revenue but it just stinks the way things are trending
100% agree.
I'm not sure what the right answer is here. It's a constant balance of managing public lands, private land partnerships, biological studies on wildlife, enforcement, etc.... and budget.
Work hard, make money, keep expenses low and go hunting :tup:
This will potentially hurt families the most. Guys who buy 3+ tags a year. Especially if they require everyone in a group to pay the 300 fee. There is no value in a something you can no longer afford.
"IF APPLYING 27 AS A PARTY, EACH PERSON MUST PAY THE APPLICATION FEE."
Post by: vandeman17 on February 16, 2021, 01:08:50 PM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
I agree in the value but I still think that the $300 early/special or whatever you want to call it draw only favors people with more disposable income. I can't blame states for trying to bring in more revenue but it just stinks the way things are trending
100% agree.
I'm not sure what the right answer is here. It's a constant balance of managing public lands, private land partnerships, biological studies on wildlife, enforcement, etc.... and budget.
Work hard, make money, keep expenses low and go hunting :tup:
This will potentially hurt families the most. Guys who buy 3+ tags a year. Especially if they require everyone in a group to pay the 300 fee. There is no value in a something you can no longer afford.
"IF APPLYING 27 AS A PARTY, EACH PERSON MUST PAY THE APPLICATION FEE."
exactly and I almost said the same thing.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 01:12:12 PM
just turning hunting into a rich man's sport by the day
Kind of. Overall, Newberg brought up the point that Montana actually provides one of the best values for a tag. If you compare their price to say, Wyoming's special or Utah or New Mexico... Montana is hard to beat.
Is this factoring in opportunity, season length etc? or just a straight up price comparison?
Price comparison. Basically his point was that WY special elk permits are about the same cost as the deer+elk combo in MT. There is a lot more to it than that obviously but he was mostly just using that to counter what the other guy was saying.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 01:13:15 PM
At the end of the day, the pot of money we use for hunting is only so big.
Post by: vandeman17 on February 16, 2021, 01:22:42 PM
Totally get it guys. Same team here. If this year's WY trip got bumped up by $300ea it wouldn't break us, but it might cut into any other hunting plans I have.
At the end of the day, the pot of money we use for hunting is only so big.
I was agreeing with you the whole time. :tup:
Post by: dvolmer on February 16, 2021, 02:23:36 PM
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 02:40:43 PM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Not going to tick me off by presenting an opposing opinion.
That said, I'm not familiar with Wyoming taking more than a third of their non resident tags and reserving them for outfitted hunts only.
The wording has changed but that has been the agenda for this from the beginning.
Post by: whacker1 on February 16, 2021, 03:42:48 PM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Not going to tick me off by presenting an opposing opinion.
That said, I'm not familiar with Wyoming taking more than a third of their non resident tags and reserving them for outfitted hunts only.
The wording has changed but that has been the agenda for this from the beginning.
I appreciate everyone's comments and have been reading from beginning to end. i would disagree with the last comments, but only in the context that Wyoming's outfitter's limited the area we non-residents can access by requiring a guide or resident guide to access the wilderness. while it may not be financial in tag fish and game revenenue it is if you want to go to that area as it is $5500 (more or less) to hire the outfitter for a week. So, while it is not a direct correlation, the intent is the same.
Post by: dvolmer on February 16, 2021, 03:43:51 PM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Not going to tick me off by presenting an opposing opinion.
That said, I'm not familiar with Wyoming taking more than a third of their non resident tags and reserving them for outfitted hunts only.
The wording has changed but that has been the agenda for this from the beginning.
Ya, I don't really understand the outfitter thing. I've never been on a outfitted hunt before. But maybe by hiking up the price, more of the outfitters will be able to get their clients tags. I guess if you are paying thousands for an outfitter, what is $300 more. I am assuming now that the draw is getting harder to get a tag every year, the outfitters want a way to guarantee a client can hunt. Am I missing something in the way the bill has been changed? Looks to me with the proposal now submitted, that the guides wont be guaranteed tags but they will just go to a second higher cost drawing. Maybe I didn't read it right.
Post by: whacker1 on February 16, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
this is immensely frustrating as it is definitely a pay to play system. But given the math, i would be surprised if it didn't happen.
Unknowns, if you don't draw special permit, do they refund the extra $300 if requested?
if you draw in the regular draw after applying in the special i assume you give up the $300 as you have had 2 bites of the apple and you still drew the tag, even if it was in the second draw.
But what if you don't draw in either special or regular due to demand? do they refund the extra $300 then? i would assume they would have to, but the bill is not clear on process and i assume that is handled in rule making.
Post by: whacker1 on February 16, 2021, 03:50:34 PM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Not going to tick me off by presenting an opposing opinion.
That said, I'm not familiar with Wyoming taking more than a third of their non resident tags and reserving them for outfitted hunts only.
The wording has changed but that has been the agenda for this from the beginning.
Ya, I don't really understand the outfitter thing. I've never been on a outfitted hunt before. But maybe by hiking up the price, more of the outfitters will be able to get their clients tags. I guess if you are paying thousands for an outfitter, what is $300 more. I am assuming now that the draw is getting harder to get a tag every year, the outfitters want a way to guarantee a client can hunt. Am I missing something in the way the bill has been changed? Looks to me with the proposal now submitted, that the guides wont be guaranteed tags but they will just go to a second higher cost drawing. Maybe I didn't read it right.
You are reading it correctly. no guarantee for guides, but cost you more for early application, which should give applicant better draw odds.
Post by: DWBMontana on February 16, 2021, 05:33:07 PM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?How about us residents who have family and friends that are NR's? I lease a ranch in Montana , main reason I lease it is to enjoy time with my family and friends from out of state. I know these folks not only bring themselves but other folks who are non hunting, who visit cafe's, visit gift shops, stop at coffee houses, they spend quite a bit while visiting, generating more income for Montanan's.
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
Post by: cbond3318 on February 16, 2021, 06:32:02 PM
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 06:34:43 PM
Post by: MADMAX on February 16, 2021, 06:37:58 PM
Post by: Stein on February 16, 2021, 06:48:21 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 16, 2021, 08:09:17 PM
One example was that an access fund could only be used to buy easement to public land through private if the private land owner was the sole leaseholder of the said public land.
Basically it’s a bunch of citizens in Montana trying to use non resident cash to pay for their personal wishlists rather than pay for conservation or access programs.
Post by: jstone on February 16, 2021, 08:16:22 PM
Post by: dvolmer on February 17, 2021, 06:33:21 AM
Meanwhile, I finally finished that debate podcast and Newberg pointed out that there are 5 more bills in review trying to restrict where the money can be spent.
One example was that an access fund could only be used to buy easement to public land through private if the private land owner was the sole leaseholder of the said public land.
Basically it’s a bunch of citizens in Montana trying to use non resident cash to pay for their personal wishlists rather than pay for conservation or access programs.
That's a bummer!
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 17, 2021, 06:40:13 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 17, 2021, 06:57:26 AM
Weren't we lead to believe it was to support the outfitters that were having a hard time making ends meet?sure were. The whole Newberg podcast was about how this was meant to stabilize the outfitter industry in MT.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on February 17, 2021, 07:33:16 AM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
[/quote
Good post. Some points I agree with and a couple I would, lets say, tweak :chuckle:. Like you I want to hunt as much as possible, and IF the draw is going to run similar to WYO special, for the most part I would be for it. No different than having a raffle and the guy who spends more has better odds, but everyone can still afford to play the game.
IMO your example of the hot dog stand is only partly correct, and is and you said not only simple, but very short sighted, something no game department anywhere should aspire to be.
Your hot dog stand is booming purely due to current market strength. So yes, if your hot dogs are selling to quickly, one solution is to simply raise prices to increase revenue. However, if you stop there, sooner or later the market will weaken and you will be forced to lower prices again. In the meantime your hot dog supplier, who in this case you have little control over because he is managed by forces of nature beyond your control, AND you have no other option for another supplier, as this hot dog manufacturer is the sole proprietor, reduces the size and quality of the hotdogs your selling. Now all of a sudden hot dogs are cheap again, and your working twice as hard to sell them, and your customer is disgruntled because although your prices are cheaper, percentage wise its the same (or worse) hit to their pocket book, but now the quality is also less.
The better option would be to increase the supply chain.... In this case by improving herd quality and numbers, thus being able to supply more tags, or increase the quality of product by actively securing access. Both of these however require more work, and the kicker.... Selfless work.
Capitalism is awesome and I love it, but its not perfect. It does not lend itself well in environments where selflessness is the expectation, or where "acts of nature" are somewhat the norm for day to day operation.
We are seeing some major changes to Western hunting systems across the West this year. Time will tell if these departments are just money hungry, or actually taking advantage of the current market strength to improve hunting experience for all the hunting public in the future as is their charge.
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 08:00:13 AM
Weren't we lead to believe it was to support the outfitters that were having a hard time making ends meet?sure were. The whole Newberg podcast was about how this was meant to stabilize the outfitter industry in MT.
Follow the money, look at the bill sponsor and where he got money. It wasn't from guides.
Post by: dvolmer on February 17, 2021, 08:27:34 AM
I have hunted Montana for deer for the last 12 years without missing a year. With the amount of applicants increasing and the way it is run now, I probably will have to start sitting out every other year or soon every three years. I'm 55 years old now and seeing that I wont be hunting or be able to hunt forever. I'm in pretty decent shape for 55 but the old bones/joints are starting to ache when they shouldn't be. Would I be willing to pay an extra $300 to increase my odds and hunt every year? You bet I would! With limited years left, I don't want to miss out on even one year! Do I like it? No! But it doesn't shock me at all that Montana is doing this. Simple business model. Raise the costs until applicant numbers and quota numbers become equal. If you were selling hotdogs for a buck a piece and you sold out every day before lunch was half over, what would you do? You would raise your prices to equal out demand and make you the most money for your time spent working. Its called Capitalism. Montana legislature and F&G do not answer to non-residents. There constituents are the citizens of Montana. Montana citizens should be demanding that they get top dollar for these tags to support the resource and to endure the pressure of non-resident hunters in the field. Another thing to think about, who supports the businesses and hospitality industries the most during the hunting seasons? The guy that packs his camper or truck and can barely afford the trip & tag or the guy with deep pockets and doesn't bat an eye on the cost increases?Over the last 10-20 years as I have watched different states continue to raise their prices I have asked the same question. How will this work? Will people really pay these huge price increases? Will the market eventually fall out and the states loose revenue? Is the states greed you might call it going to backfire on them? etc etc etc. In every case and in every state for the last two decades the states have won and the applications still outnumber the quotas. About 10 or so years ago when Montana raised their prices substantially they had some left over tags after the draw but they still sold them all by the end of the hunting season by over the counter sales. Montana did go from a state that you had to wait about every three years to draw to a state you could draw every year and a lot of hunters have gotten used to that. Its just the last two years or so that the supply doesn't meet the demand and now under the current system a hunter will have to wait a year in-between hunting. Under the current system it soon will be every third year. When this happens it triggers the state to realize their prices can be raised without loss of tag sales.
I don't like to see this anymore than the rest of you but its like asking, which family gets to go to Disneyland? and which family gets to go to the state park 10 miles out of town? I know this is going to tick off some of you and I understand, buts its just the way it is and there is not much we can do about it. We will have to belly up to the bar ($$$$) or choose other options or hobby's. All of the other states are doing the same thing or will be shortly. Montana has watched Wyoming do this and has seen how successful it is for them.
[/quote
Good post. Some points I agree with and a couple I would, lets say, tweak :chuckle:. Like you I want to hunt as much as possible, and IF the draw is going to run similar to WYO special, for the most part I would be for it. No different than having a raffle and the guy who spends more has better odds, but everyone can still afford to play the game.
IMO your example of the hot dog stand is only partly correct, and is and you said not only simple, but very short sighted, something no game department anywhere should aspire to be.
Your hot dog stand is booming purely due to current market strength. So yes, if your hot dogs are selling to quickly, one solution is to simply raise prices to increase revenue. However, if you stop there, sooner or later the market will weaken and you will be forced to lower prices again. In the meantime your hot dog supplier, who in this case you have little control over because he is managed by forces of nature beyond your control, AND you have no other option for another supplier, as this hot dog manufacturer is the sole proprietor, reduces the size and quality of the hotdogs your selling. Now all of a sudden hot dogs are cheap again, and your working twice as hard to sell them, and your customer is disgruntled because although your prices are cheaper, percentage wise its the same (or worse) hit to their pocket book, but now the quality is also less.
The better option would be to increase the supply chain.... In this case by improving herd quality and numbers, thus being able to supply more tags, or increase the quality of product by actively securing access. Both of these however require more work, and the kicker.... Selfless work.
Capitalism is awesome and I love it, but its not perfect. It does not lend itself well in environments where selflessness is the expectation, or where "acts of nature" are somewhat the norm for day to day operation.
We are seeing some major changes to Western hunting systems across the West this year. Time will tell if these departments are just money hungry, or actually taking advantage of the current market strength to improve hunting experience for all the hunting public in the future as is their charge.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 17, 2021, 08:33:42 AM
I think what ticks people off is when the claim of a substantial increase is to help with access or provide stability to outfitters but it's essentially proven to be false advertising.
Post by: dvolmer on February 17, 2021, 08:37:39 AM
This has never happened in this arena. Never has a state raised non-res tag/license fees and not made out like a bandit. The demand is just to strong.
Post by: dvolmer on February 17, 2021, 08:38:34 AM
I see your point, and no matter what we do there will always be tag increases. The cost of doing business is always going up, not down.
I think what ticks people off is when the claim of a substantial increase is to help with access or provide stability to outfitters but it's essentially proven to be false advertising.
I agree. But the fact is, the state could tell us the tag increase funds would be used to give their Governor a raise or for some special social program and they would still get all the hunters they need to fill their increased cost tags. People want to hunt! and they want a better quality experience than what they are currently getting. For the normal guy here in Washington, the hunting experience is absolutely terrible and getting much worse really fast. These quality hunting states have us by the ##$%@ and really can do just about anything they want to. Its a sad reality we have to face.
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 08:40:48 AM
One of the trends we are probably seeing and will likely to see more of is not everyone getting a tag. A group of 3 guys maybe used to hunt three tags every year may now only hunt 1-2 tags. Same thing with a family, maybe dad decides to not buy a tag and only the kid(s) carry a rifle.
Last year, I hunted a doe tag for deer to save money because I had a goat tag I wanted to focus on. I might do that again this year, it's several hundred less and nearly the same amount of meat in the freezer.
At the end of the day, hunting for a week out of state is ballpark similar cost to other out of state vacations like theme parks, skiing or whatever.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 17, 2021, 08:46:44 AM
Yeah, the trend in the West is for state legislatures to cut funding to game agencies, so they have to be self sufficient which means raising prices. Residents hate increases, even a buck or two, so it falls 95% on NRs.
One of the trends we are probably seeing and will likely to see more of is not everyone getting a tag. A group of 3 guys maybe used to hunt three tags every year may now only hunt 1-2 tags. Same thing with a family, maybe dad decides to not buy a tag and only the kid(s) carry a rifle.
Last year, I hunted a doe tag for deer to save money because I had a goat tag I wanted to focus on. I might do that again this year, it's several hundred less and nearly the same amount of meat in the freezer.
At the end of the day, hunting for a week out of state is ballpark similar cost to other out of state vacations like theme parks, skiing or whatever.
Hold the phone - where is the goat thread Stein?!
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 09:04:16 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 17, 2021, 09:05:09 AM
Not too exciting, the speed goat variety. I don't even put in for the shaggy ones.
OK, I withdraw my vote on your ban :chuckle:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 17, 2021, 09:53:55 AM
Weren't we lead to believe it was to support the outfitters that were having a hard time making ends meet?sure were. The whole Newberg podcast was about how this was meant to stabilize the outfitter industry in MT.
Follow the money, look at the bill sponsor and where he got money. It wasn't from guides.
Here you go the bill is sponsored by Ellsworth, Jason here are his contributors what stands out for you?
$180.00 Baker, Mark
$180.00 Baker, Mark
$180.00 Brown for SD2, Dee
$20.00 Brown for SD2, Dee
$100.00 Cote, Francis G
$180.00 Fitzpatrick, Steve J
$100.00 Fuchs, Daniel C.
$180.00 Hertz, Gregory J
$180.00 Hertz, Gregory
$180.00 Hinebauch, Steve
$180.00 Hinebauch, Steve
$180.00 Iverson, John D
$180.00 McGillvray, Thomas
$120.00 McGillvray, Thomas
$70.00 Reichner, Scott M
$180.00 Reichner, Scott M
$180.00 Sales, Scott
$180.00 Taylor, Elaine J
$180.00 Taylor, Elaine J
$180.00 Taylor, Mark
$180.00 Taylor, Mark
$180.00 Thomas, Fred
$180.00 Thomas, Fred
$180.00 Blasdel, Mark
$180.00 Hoven, Brian E
$170.00 Gianforte, Greg R
$180.00 gieger, bob
$180.00 gieger, bob
$180.00 hartman, Paul
$180.00 hartman, Paul
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 10:08:00 AM
It is kind of hard to follow though since the numbers are small. He certainly didn't like the amendment, Tom Jacobson from Great Falls threw the guides under the bus by referencing the 2010 law that removed guide tags.
I have no doubt that wealthy landowners know how to work the system.
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 10:31:38 AM
There are negotiations to reduce the amount of guide tags to the amount of tags currently issued to guided customers, maybe 40%.
So, two underlying reasons:
1 - Guides want more tags for their clients.
2 - Landowners want guaranteed tags for their NR friends and families.
The bill's sponsor seems to be in camp 1.
There might be a 3 forming - Legislators are looking for more loot. Depending on the proposal, it could be up to $5M more for FWP every year.
Post by: dvolmer on February 17, 2021, 11:03:24 AM
Dug a bit deeper, the bill also sets aside a new 2,000 tags for "landowner sponsored" tags where you can buy one if you are sponsored by a qualified landowner. This would increase the total number of tags issued and they would also cost more.
There are negotiations to reduce the amount of guide tags to the amount of tags currently issued to guided customers, maybe 40%.
So, two underlying reasons:
1 - Guides want more tags for their clients.
2 - Landowners want guaranteed tags for their NR friends and families.
The bill's sponsor seems to be in camp 1.
There might be a 3 forming - Legislators are looking for more loot. Depending on the proposal, it could be up to $5M more for FWP every year.
Stein, It was my understanding that there was already a 2000 quota for Landowner preference tags. Would this be different? and if so, how? By the way, thanks for all of the intel you are doing on this issue.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 17, 2021, 11:13:30 AM
Dug a bit deeper, the bill also sets aside a new 2,000 tags for "landowner sponsored" tags where you can buy one if you are sponsored by a qualified landowner. This would increase the total number of tags issued and they would also cost more.
There are negotiations to reduce the amount of guide tags to the amount of tags currently issued to guided customers, maybe 40%.
So, two underlying reasons:
1 - Guides want more tags for their clients.
2 - Landowners want guaranteed tags for their NR friends and families.
The bill's sponsor seems to be in camp 1.
There might be a 3 forming - Legislators are looking for more loot. Depending on the proposal, it could be up to $5M more for FWP every year.
Stein, It was my understanding that there was already a 2000 quota for Landowner preference tags. Would this be different? and if so, how? By the way, thanks for all of the intel you are doing on this issue.
No, this is building off of the already existing 2000 landowner tags.
Post by: Brushbuster on February 17, 2021, 11:31:41 AM
Dug a bit deeper, the bill also sets aside a new 2,000 tags for "landowner sponsored" tags where you can buy one if you are sponsored by a qualified landowner. This would increase the total number of tags issued and they would also cost more.
There are negotiations to reduce the amount of guide tags to the amount of tags currently issued to guided customers, maybe 40%.
So, two underlying reasons:
1 - Guides want more tags for their clients.
2 - Landowners want guaranteed tags for their NR friends and families.
The bill's sponsor seems to be in camp 1.
There might be a 3 forming - Legislators are looking for more loot. Depending on the proposal, it could be up to $5M more for FWP every year.
Stein, It was my understanding that there was already a 2000 quota for Landowner preference tags. Would this be different? and if so, how? By the way, thanks for all of the intel you are doing on this issue.
No, this is building off of the already existing 2000 landowner tags.
As I understand it, the 2/15 Admendentment removed the portion of the bill that allocates the tags only to Outfitters. All it does now is create an earlier draw for those that want to pay more (40-50% of the tags).
SB0143_3.pdf (mt.gov)
I got from listening to the hearing the bill does not create any additional NR Landowner tags also.
Not impressed listening to legislators/outfitters impressions of NR DIY hunters. :bash:
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2021, 11:44:29 AM
Yeah, having lived in MT for a long time and having friends and family still there, I can attest to how the locals and guides view anyone from out of state. I have been trying to talk my brother into buying a truck so I can swap him during hunting season.
It will be interesting to see where the bill goes. My crystal ball seems to be centering on a price increase for NR tags as that is the one thing all sides in MT can agree on.
Post by: Brushbuster on February 17, 2021, 12:39:36 PM
Hoping we all get tags from MT this year! :tup:
Post by: Bigshooter on February 18, 2021, 09:41:13 AM
Post by: dvolmer on February 18, 2021, 09:51:40 AM
I say it on here all the time. If you want to hunt out of state you need to be ready for fee increases and you need to plan for them. It's part of the game. Increases aren't worth complaining about it. They happen all the time.
Yep! Probably wont happen for awhile, but you might see the day that the tag and license cost as much as hiring an outfitter. :twocents:
Post by: kselkhunter on February 18, 2021, 09:57:16 AM
The increase in Idaho tags has me contemplating a trip into British Columbia as an alternative. As states continue raising non-resident prices, Canada starts coming into range..... I know some places that do $6K-$8K for a (non-trophy) moose hunt in BC....and with Idaho being almost $3K now just for a chance at a moose tag.....that BC hunt gets you food, lodging, guaranteed tag, and a guide included in the price. Similar story coming soon for MT, WY, etc. when you factor in the license/application costs for all the years it takes to actually draw a tag soon.....
If Montana continues down the path, it will balance out with less non-residents applying eventually as they keep increasing prices.
Post by: whacker1 on February 18, 2021, 10:46:49 AM
:yeah:
The increase in Idaho tags has me contemplating a trip into British Columbia as an alternative. As states continue raising non-resident prices, Canada starts coming into range..... I know some places that do $6K-$8K for a (non-trophy) moose hunt in BC....and with Idaho being almost $3K now just for a chance at a moose tag.....that BC hunt gets you food, lodging, guaranteed tag, and a guide included in the price. Similar story coming soon for MT, WY, etc. when you factor in the license/application costs for all the years it takes to actually draw a tag soon.....
If Montana continues down the path, it will balance out with less non-residents applying eventually as they keep increasing prices.
well said on the canada comment vs moose in idaho. other species a little tougher.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 18, 2021, 01:25:03 PM
:yeah:I dont think your wording of $3000 just for a chance at a moose tag protrays reality. While you do have to front the tag fee most of it is refunded of you are unsuccessful. I also dont think you can compare a canada non trophy hunt to a majority of idaho tags. You can hunt the entire season vs 5-7 days in canada and you have the opportunity yo scout and trophy hunt if you desire. Of course there is the fact that you may never draw idaho.
The increase in Idaho tags has me contemplating a trip into British Columbia as an alternative. As states continue raising non-resident prices, Canada starts coming into range..... I know some places that do $6K-$8K for a (non-trophy) moose hunt in BC....and with Idaho being almost $3K now just for a chance at a moose tag.....that BC hunt gets you food, lodging, guaranteed tag, and a guide included in the price. Similar story coming soon for MT, WY, etc. when you factor in the license/application costs for all the years it takes to actually draw a tag soon.....
If Montana continues down the path, it will balance out with less non-residents applying eventually as they keep increasing prices.
Post by: kselkhunter on February 18, 2021, 02:11:38 PM
Yes I'm aware the tag is refunded in Idaho if not drawn. I'm also aware their tag numbers are going down, and their license and tag fees keep going up every few years. If you fail to draw for 10 years, that's over $1,850+ in license costs that you funded for those attempts to draw the tag....you have to add those costs in too..... Also, I live 20 hour round trip drive from most good Idaho moose units, so "hunt the entire season" isn't that apealling to me. Taking 2-4x trips for that moose hunt would make it significantly more expensive in travel and hunt costs having to repeatedly go over.
The point is, Idaho is now expensive enough when factoring in all costs that a guaranteed tag in Canada is looking more appealing. Remembering that Canada has far more moose than Idaho so you don't need to keep going back over and over to find a larger moose "hunting an entire season", you just go a few miles and find a bigger one the same week......
So Canada = higher odds of filling a tag on a larger moose in a much shorter time frame for what is becoming a similar costs when factoring in all costs associated with waiting to draw that Idaho moose tag......
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 18, 2021, 02:51:48 PM
Post by: RightPlace-RightTime on February 18, 2021, 03:52:38 PM
Post by: MADMAX on February 18, 2021, 04:41:29 PM
Post by: dvolmer on February 18, 2021, 06:47:48 PM
All these changes for this year or next?next