Post by: Buschingc on November 22, 2010, 04:16:16 PM
Post by: 270Shooter on November 22, 2010, 04:19:37 PM
Post by: longknife on November 22, 2010, 04:27:04 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 22, 2010, 04:27:14 PM
http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp (http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp)
Post by: wayner on November 22, 2010, 04:47:48 PM
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on November 22, 2010, 04:53:01 PM
Joe
Post by: LittleJohn on November 22, 2010, 04:59:18 PM
Post by: Craig on November 22, 2010, 05:23:16 PM
Post by: FSTaxidermy on November 22, 2010, 05:30:02 PM
I hunted in the panhandle in Idaho for 15 straight years and finally quit when many of the Elk were killed by hard winters and wolves. If the hunting was excellent then I believe it might be worth going back again?
I feel bad for the guides and small businesses, there were many hunters that canceled there trips this year due to lack of work/money. I believe the price increase will continue to put more financial pressure on them and drive them out of business. Who wins?
Post by: mazama on November 22, 2010, 06:47:40 PM
Post by: Black Ghost on November 22, 2010, 07:01:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 22, 2010, 07:42:50 PM
Why do people keep saying the guides are screwed?? 12500 tags last season...couldn't sell all of those! Anyone who wants to hunt mt next year will! Hire a guide if ya want one...and save $200 from the guaranteed tag price last year lol.
Post by: Wea300mag on November 22, 2010, 07:46:33 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 22, 2010, 07:54:22 PM
Deer and elk..Because they are screwed. Out-of-state hunters can no longer book a hunt years in advance with the assurance they will get a tag. Some outfitters book hunts three or more years in advance, because hunters need that much time to plan and budget. Their year rolls around, and they're assured of a tag. Not any more.
Why do people keep saying the guides are screwed?? 12500 tags last season...couldn't sell all of those! Anyone who wants to hunt mt next year will! Hire a guide if ya want one...and save $200 from the guaranteed tag price last year lol.
Post by: Phantom Gobbler on November 22, 2010, 08:02:57 PM
Post by: vtec on November 22, 2010, 08:12:00 PM
Post by: Buschingc on November 22, 2010, 08:21:30 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 22, 2010, 10:29:18 PM
Post by: Wanttohuntmore on November 23, 2010, 05:17:10 AM
Also, if I want to hunt antelope, do you need a deer or combo tag, or do you just do the antelope application? Come on stock, go up, then I can retire to Montana....
Post by: canyelk48 on November 23, 2010, 06:56:17 AM
Montana Fish & Wildlife is asking for comments on the new fee increase, so I would recommend everyone flood them with emails. You can email them at: hworsech@mt.gov
Use the subject "$912 B-10 for the Nonresident Elk Combination License"
Post by: canyelk48 on November 23, 2010, 07:30:42 AM
Post by: Fletch on November 23, 2010, 10:22:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 10:33:16 AM
I emailed them anyway and told them what I thought about their BS rate hike and how I hoped they see a significant reduction in revenues from the loss of NR hunters since we're not gaining anything from this increase.
Well, non-residents are gaining SOMETHING- better odds of hunting there every year. That ought to be worth something. The prices do seem a bit high but when you compare to other states, Montana isn't much higher.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 23, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Most states are already to high. Now is it ok for them to catch up to Montana?
Post by: tip on November 23, 2010, 11:18:31 AM
What really pisses me off is that they raise prices because of budget shortfalls, yet in a couple years when everything is dandy again, do you think they will LOWER the prices??? Hell no... they will be considering another rate hike to cash in.
The average joe can't win anymore... its all about the f***ing $$$.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 12:10:11 PM
"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. :dunno:
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 12:14:48 PM
At some point, and on a consistent basis, they will lose money every year compared to the past because the higher fees cause fewer sales and less revenue.
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 12:16:48 PM
That is if you have extra money for any of that stuff to begin with.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 12:19:47 PM
I think that's what they should be doing anyway, is raising resident fees by a substantial amount- say 25%. Then the non-residents' increases could be lessened somewhat.
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
If there were a sudden shortage of X at the store and prices went from $5 (for example) to $10,000 and only the super rich could afford it, it does not mean the price is fair.
Did you think gas at $4 a gallon was fair? You were still buying it, did you like it? Did you agree with it and the record profits big oil was making? Was it really fair?
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 12:30:46 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on November 23, 2010, 12:44:07 PM
"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. :dunno:
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?
Post by: Bigshooter on November 23, 2010, 12:45:39 PM
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?
Post by: Holg3107 on November 23, 2010, 12:48:30 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 23, 2010, 12:52:16 PM
QuoteWhen 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?
Post by: Holg3107 on November 23, 2010, 01:00:07 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 01:09:17 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2010, 01:12:08 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 01:18:58 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on November 23, 2010, 02:41:42 PM
QuoteSo 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.
Post by: actionshooter on November 23, 2010, 04:51:15 PM
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.
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 08:58:41 PM
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.
Post by: BAR C3 on November 23, 2010, 09:28:28 PM
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. :bdid:
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 09:29:19 PM
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
Post by: Bob33 on November 23, 2010, 09:35:42 PM
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?
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 09:36:59 PM
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.
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 09:37:59 PM
Quote
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
Quote
-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.
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 09:44:49 PM
Quote
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;
Quote
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???
Post by: BAR C3 on November 23, 2010, 09:50:47 PM
QuoteCome 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:
IQuote-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.
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 09:54:08 PM
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.
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 10:53:07 PM
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........
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 11:09:42 PM
Quote
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.......
Post by: Tony 270 on November 23, 2010, 11:11:46 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 23, 2010, 11:38:04 PM
Quote
Here we go again... is a priveledge, not a right blah blah blah
Quote
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......
Quote
So essentially it comes back to my point of being a commodity, one that the state sells to hunters because of demand
Quote
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.
Post by: Tony 270 on November 24, 2010, 08:51:43 AM
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?
Post by: Vek on November 24, 2010, 01:26:56 PM
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).
Post by: RPM on November 24, 2010, 04:52:40 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 24, 2010, 05:23:20 PM
it was an ini*censored*ive brought to the vote of the residents of montana.I think they call that a Freudian slip? :chuckle:
Post by: gray brow on November 24, 2010, 06:47:05 PM
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.
Post by: Buschingc on November 24, 2010, 08:45:03 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 24, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
Quote
You have the money, you can go do it, is really that simple.
not to belabor the point.....but, please explain to me how if MT issues 4600 deer combination licenses, and there are 14,000 people apply, and, there is absoulutely no ability to "buy" your tag if you do not get drawn, how you can "buy your way into it" ????
you are simply wrong in your analysis and want to keep on arguing;
let me explain it, in simple mathmatical terms for you:
4600 tags; 14,000 people apply
NO ABILITY TO BUY A TAG IF YOU DO NOT GET DRAWN
is it really that complicated for you to understand??
in MT, you CANNOT BUY YOUR WAY INTO A TAG anymore.............last year, yes; this year, NO
if you want to get into an argument about what the facts are, it really is better if you know what the facts are going into the argument.........
Post by: Tony 270 on November 24, 2010, 09:16:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 24, 2010, 09:27:47 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on November 24, 2010, 09:30:11 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 24, 2010, 09:30:28 PM
Quote
Deer tag, elk tag, combo tag - I really don't care. They are all overpriced. You keep going off on some point about X number of tags available and have a point about that. Similar to a baseball or football game in that there are X number of seats and if they sell out, you're SOL. My point, try and keep up, is that it is not some great priveledge to go hunt there and you seem to have the attitude that non-res guys should get down on their knees and kiss your feet for that great, special, mind blowing, earth shattering, life changing priveledge. It is a business transaction, nothing more. People pay, people get the tag. Anything else?
ahh, we finally get to the point.....your just pissed that you cannot afford the price and other's can........
Quote
My point, try and keep up, is that it is not some great priveledge to go hunt there and you seem to have the attitude that non-res guys should get down on their knees and kiss your feet for that great, special, mind blowing, earth shattering, life changing priveledge.
unfortunately for you, there is plenty of other non-residents that can afford to hunt there ,and will gladly pay the increased fees......
the reality is that it is a "great priveledge" to hunt in MT if you do not live there......the put out a great product; that is evidenced by the fact tat 90% of people on this website are falling all over themselves to get there.....and, can't wait to get back to WA to post pictures of what they got, and how many bucks they saw, and how they passed up 50" mainframe bucks the first 10 minutes they were there.........(I know, it is tough when all you have seen is 2 pts your whole life, so the first time you see a 23" buck you think it is B&C..........)
Post by: Tony 270 on November 24, 2010, 09:32:17 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 24, 2010, 10:48:49 PM
Quote
You are a retard.
Quote
They are all overpriced
the two money quotes that get at the heart of the matter.........
Post by: muleyguy on November 24, 2010, 11:24:28 PM
Quote
They are all overpriced.
you like to say it is just a business transaction; and, for non-residents tags, you are exactly correct, it is a business transaction for the residents of MT, as well as it should be..
so, I guess we actually agree.......
but, you just couldn't help yourself....you had to blurp out "they are all overpriced"......and "you seem to have the attitude that non-res guys should get down on their knees and kiss your feet for that great, special, mind blowing, earth shattering, life changing priveledge"............. that tells me exactly what I need to know....you put up this front that it is "all supply and demand" and "all about money".....when, in reality, you are just frustrated that they have raised the tag prices.........
because, if you understood the concept of supply and demand, and price, you would realize that MT tags are most certainly NOT OVERPRICED; when 10,000 people apply for 2300 tags, that means the tag is UNDERPRICED.
economics does not have emotion, and, you are certainly injecting lots of emotion into it......your comments make this very apparant...........so don't go giving me all this "economics lesson" when in reality your argument is just an emotional one.
Post by: spookgus on November 24, 2010, 11:38:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 24, 2010, 11:55:06 PM
Post by: spookgus on November 25, 2010, 12:07:08 AM
Post by: Machias on November 25, 2010, 07:25:29 AM
Well, I think the people of Montana who voted for this initiative included many hunters, and not "ultra liberals." In fact I think it was the hunters in the state who got this initiative started and got it passed. And if I was a Montana resident, I probably would have voted for it myself.
Yep, I have been trying to educate myself on this Initiative by reading the resident's comments on the Bowsite. It had allot of support from Montana's resident hunters. Some feel they do not know all the consequences (who ever does) but seems there may be a rift now between landowners and hunters. I think this story is just beginning.
Post by: BAR C3 on November 25, 2010, 08:23:32 AM
BINGO! My point exactly! Those land owners are going to ask for more $$$$ now. The money they get for some of the spreads over there will never be matched by the Game Department.Well, I think the people of Montana who voted for this initiative included many hunters, and not "ultra liberals." In fact I think it was the hunters in the state who got this initiative started and got it passed. And if I was a Montana resident, I probably would have voted for it myself.
Yep, I have been trying to educate myself on this Initiative by reading the resident's comments on the Bowsite. It had allot of support from Montana's resident hunters. Some feel they do not know all the consequences (who ever does) but seems there may be a rift now between landowners and hunters. I think this story is just beginning.
So why would I pay more for tags and more to lease the land when I can go to Colorado and have a quality hunt. A group of my friends went over there last month first time and all five tagged out. One shot a 350+ bull. They had two bonus points. It was a DIY on Public Land.
Post by: Bigshooter on November 26, 2010, 07:41:36 AM
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........
I like this post. It show how the numbers are going to work. I believe that Montana will sell every tag they have this year. The only thing that I don't agree on is the "case law". A few years ago the courts ruled that states could not discriminated against nonresidents. Meaning nonresidents and residents should have equal rights to draw tags. It wasn't until Harry Reid attached some language to a military bill that got passed that said it was up to the state to decide how draw tags were issued. The case was brought up by Arizona outfitters if I remember right. I won't be suprise if Montana outfitters take this to court.
Post by: hunterofelk on November 26, 2010, 09:01:49 AM
Post by: actionshooter on November 26, 2010, 09:06:44 AM
In the big picture..its chicken scratch