$1,149.84

[schmalts]

I call BS on the welfare comment. That might be the perception of some, but consideration of all pertinent facts would not support that.

I agree that the pricing models are not good for the long-term interest of hunting. Got any answers to that which will have a practical chance of getting implemented?

16/625

Call BS all you want, but when the res/nonres cost ratio gets that out of whack, how do you not call it a welfare situation. It's not the price of the nores tag, it is the ration between res and nonres where I call the welfare comment. Yea, i see the examples you posted and they would be easier to agree if all the costs were same ratio but it isn't the case. Montana is relying on nonresidents to pay a huge chunk of the funding of wildlife and that's fine, as long as they know the long term effect. The reason, most residents don't mind it. We have had this conversation before, and I have had conversations with other Montana residents who admit it is a little embarrassing what the price ratio has become. It benefits some, and burdens others. When the prices keep climbing, those who can afford it have better odds to draw tags because a lot of guys are priced out. Hell, I bought the deer/elk combo many years without any motive to use the elk portion, I did it because the odds were 100% while the deer only was a gamble to get drawn so it benefited me at one time. But we all know what happens when the $$$ rules wildlife, I bet it is the number one reason land that used to be BMA is leased.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

What BigFin says is still true 30 years later. After high school, I left MT and went to the military and school and saw a few states. I moved back home when the first "opportunity" presented itself. I took a salary at about 1/4 what I used to make and my wife was blessed to find something comparable to what she had. I have friends in my field who make 4-6x as much as I do. But I tell them I get to live in MT. WORTH EVERY SINGLE PENNY.

But we pay in opportunity to hunt/fish as well. Just count the number of out of state plates in Braodus on Nov 15. Or see what is in the McDonalds in Dillon on Sept 15. Or try fishing Rock Creek July 31. If the costs were any less, I'm not sure we would have anywhere to go.

$1K+ is real money, I apply out of state as well so I feel the pain.

I have to ask what you do that friends make 4x6 times more as that is a pretty darn big spread for the same work. Is it possible to be a remote employee and get those bigger dollars and still live in MT

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

It sucks so I just put my head down and go make more money.

 

[Schism]

I think that is a great question. Not sure I have answers. I have some opinions, but those are not necessarily answers, as they are formed by my life experiences that create the lens by which I see the issue.

I think about it a lot, as this is very common topic during tag application season.

Does it eliminate support for conservation? Maybe in some areas or instances. In other instances, I think it might create more passionate conservationists when you see how much they invest in a lifestyle that is built around lands that need conservation. I think it is a net negative, but I don't have the answer of how to overcome that issues.

I am sure it reduces connection to public land. I have heard it many times, "Why should I care about public land issues when cost and tag allocations keeping me from hunting public lands." I can try to explain that the wildlife is not connected to the land and therefore there is no connection between quasi-land ownership of public lands and tag cost/allocation. That is not how they perceive it and thus their perception, however technically and legally incorrect, is their reality. I think this feeling of disenfranchisement is an even bigger net negative and trying to find ways to tackle that topic eats a lot of my time.

Thanks for the reply Fin. I value your opinion and your experiences and thank you for all you do to promote public lands. I'm part of a great bunch of guys trying to start a BHA chapter in North Dakota and have heard first hand the disenfranchisement with public lands several times lately. Tag prices are used many times as a justification of that feeling. Like you said, while maybe not 100% accurate, it is their perception and therefore becomes their reality.

 

[antlerradar]

For the first time in 12 years i put in for the deer only instead of the deer/elk combo. Can't justify it anymore. I hear what you are saying Randy, but it's gotten to be like welfare at this split. Sorry, but you really do know this is not good for the long term of hunting.

The more the nonresident price goes up the worse off we as residents will be. The high the price the more the average joe hunter will be displaced by hunters looking to pay for access. Keep bumping up the nonresident price and the more commercialism will become the norm in hunting.

Even the average joe's have changed. Today's unguided public land nonresident is far more dedicated. No longer do we have many weekend warrior nonresidents from close by states that hunt the first weekend and are gone. Today's nonresident stays for much longer ( I have met some that hunt for three weeks plus) and hunt harder. This means more pressure on the public.

I don't have the answers but can not help but think that increasing resident fees to where residents pay at least half of the licence revenue instead of the 1/3 we payed a few years ago would be a good start.

 

[HighDesertSage]

They charge it because they can get it. If you don't want to pay it, that's your right, but right, wrong, or indifferent, they'll be a person, or two, right behind you to fill the void if you bail.

 

[BlakeA]

They charge it because they can get it. If you don't want to pay it, that's your right, but right, wrong, or indifferent, they'll be a person, or two, right behind you to fill the void if you bail.

This^^^

Look what happened in WY for elk this year. They increased the fees and they continue to not only sell out, but set records for number of apps. People had zero problem spending $1300 almost $1400 after you buy the archery stamp for a GENERAL elk tag. Everyone thought prior to the draw that the regular draw would see the increase in apps and not the special. Wrong. They both saw an increase. There is wayyyy more interest in western big game hunting right now compared to even 5 years ago.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

after seeing these comments ID should jack up the fees, we have more non res plates in some areas during hunting season than residents.

 

[8andcounting]

They charge it because they can get it. If you don't want to pay it, that's your right, but right, wrong, or indifferent, they'll be a person, or two, right behind you to fill the void if you bail.

Not necessarily. There was years the tags never sold out after the big $ hike in 2010

 

[8andcounting]

What BigFin says is still true 30 years later. After high school, I left MT and went to the military and school and saw a few states. I moved back home when the first "opportunity" presented itself. I took a salary at about 1/4 what I used to make and my wife was blessed to find something comparable to what she had. I have friends in my field who make 4-6x as much as I do. But I tell them I get to live in MT. WORTH EVERY SINGLE PENNY.

But we pay in opportunity to hunt/fish as well. Just count the number of out of state plates in Braodus on Nov 15. Or see what is in the McDonalds in Dillon on Sept 15. Or try fishing Rock Creek July 31. If the costs were any less, I'm not sure we would have anywhere to go.

$1K+ is real money, I apply out of state as well so I feel the pain.

Well there's a set number of NR tags so whether tags were 500 less would make no difference the number of deer and elk hunters would be the same . And us NR deer and elk hunters spend a huge amount of $ at your gas stations bars restaurants hotels meat lockers taxidermists grocery stores etc.....

 

[NoWiser]

The disparity between R and NR tag costs is a big factor in me not hunting Montana. As ridiculous as it may be, I just feel like I’m getting completely hosed when a tag that costs a resident $20.00 costs me $900. If the same tag cost a resident $90.00 my feelings would be different. Stupid, I know. Having not drawn anything yet, I should be putting in for MT this year. Instead, I’ll do a cow hunt in Colorado and then head to Wyoming to shoot a couple doe antelope.

 

[Addicting]

Well there's a set number of NR tags so whether tags were 500 less would make no difference the number of deer and elk hunters would be the same . And us NR deer and elk hunters spend a huge amount of $ at your gas stations bars restaurants hotels meat lockers taxidermists grocery stores etc.....

When I totaled up last years trip with the Combo tag, fuel, food, Campground, processing, and my trailer breakdown I could of gone with an outfitter. The cost really added up over the length of the trip. That being said there are cheaper places for us to hunt but I wanted to see MT. I am glad I did but now we are concentrating on closer to home hunts to save some money and get my kids involved.

 

[Tradewind]

What the excessively high NR fee leads to is disenfranchisement. Antlerradar is exactly right. After paying $1100, give or take to cross the state line to hunt in addition to dumping, in an ave year, abt 4 - 5 grand into the MT economy on all of the the trips, a couple thoughts come to mind. One is that I have paid my dues, literally, and paying a land owner only shuffles the money from the local economy to the private ranch.
When the call goes out to donate to the worthy causes, I don't dig too deep because I have already given.
The time, money and effort involved gives pause at some point. Alternatives are certainly entertained, if nothing else then just to see some different country.

Ishootdasmallones is also partially right, but only as long as the economy in general is doing well and the elk and deer population holds. Then there will be people lined up behind you.

 

[HighDesertSage]

Not necessarily. There was years the tags never sold out after the big $ hike in 2010

That was 2010. Now, 8 years later, I don't see that happening. The economy is good, people want to get out and hunt. I don't have a crystal ball and who knows how it will be in another 8 years. But right now you gotta pay to play. Or stay home.

 

[Hem]

I keep waiting for an all out boycott by non residents.

 

[WildWill]

The disparity between R and NR tag costs is a big factor in me not hunting Montana. As ridiculous as it may be, I just feel like I’m getting completely hosed when a tag that costs a resident $20.00 costs me $900. If the same tag cost a resident $90.00 my feelings would be different. Stupid, I know. Having not drawn anything yet, I should be putting in for MT this year. Instead, I’ll do a cow hunt in Colorado and then head to Wyoming to shoot a couple doe antelope.

My feelings exactly!

Tradewind also had a great point after spending a couple thousand a year on app, prefrence point, and tag fees donating to worthy causes that support western hunting access are lower on my priority list.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

I keep waiting for an all out boycott by non residents.

keep waiting, it will never happen but if it did fish and game would be so screwed for funding.

 

[belly-deep]

The disparity between R and NR tag costs is a big factor in me not hunting Montana. As ridiculous as it may be, I just feel like I’m getting completely hosed when a tag that costs a resident $20.00 costs me $900. If the same tag cost a resident $90.00 my feelings would be different. Stupid, I know. Having not drawn anything yet, I should be putting in for MT this year. Instead, I’ll do a cow hunt in Colorado and then head to Wyoming to shoot a couple doe antelope.

I’m not sure jealousy over the resident price would ever keep me from getting a tag. I’d look at whether I could justify the cost instead of worrying about what someone else pays for one.

 

[LopeHunter]

keep waiting, it will never happen but if it did fish and game would be so screwed for funding.

I agree you will never see a boycott that is meaningful. We are a self-serving species where the vast majority of us are looking to get the most for the least.

Heck, I am not losing sleep about my bank balance. I am losing sleep about western states seeing big game as $$$ to maximize for funding budgets. Gosh, don't want to rock the boat. Speak softly and carry a tiny stick, eh? TR is not amused but Carl Icahn applauds the monetization.

MT had leftover tags for 5 or so years but revenues went up. MT was a Plan B for me when unsold tags would be leftover after the last application results trickled in from AZ sheep and deer. Skunked this year? MT was basically OTC then.

Gleeful discussions about how they could sell non-residents 10x the tags at 3x the cost. What would you be more proud of, putting 100 more moose in the riparian zone or putting 75% more bonus point and application fees in the bank year over year? 100 more moose might provide 3 more bull moose tags a year so a few thousand $. Doubling moose point fees is easier and offers more $$. Take a bow WY F&G. Bravo.

As the max or near max WY guys jump from Point Buying mode to Application mode then 2018 elk/deer/pronghorn applications will look like a fantastic stat to strut around. Pats on the back for everyone at F&G. Uh, not really. Lots of the max guys are wanting tags as they patiently waited and waited, year after year, merely buying points. This rise in application numbers shall pass and the accelerated point creep will ebb. Point creep ebbs, more pats on the back for a great point system that is maturing nicely. Uh, no. Add in a 2008-like economic pullback with rising unemployment and $1000 tags will become even less affordable for a median income household. Outfitters and private land owners love the monetization and change in focus.

So, who cares about economic diversity when a bunch of hunters heads into the woods? Private golf clubs do not lose sleep about economic diversity so why would F&G? Remember, could sell 10x the tags at 3x the cost. Mission accomplished.

 

[406LIFE]

Some thoughts as I read over the thread:

1. Tags will never decrease in price. Either move here and contribute to the economy or continue to pay in another way.

2. Montana does not owe any NR anything (No disrespect, but NR don't pay our taxes and they are mainly consumptive when here).

3. The difference in pricing of other states NR tags is all pretty much on the same plane in western hunting.

4. I don't see these tag prices leading to disenfranchisement with hunting, just with MT (or some other state that charges NR higher). I also don't see conservation taking a hit either. Those who can't hunt elk because of the price are still able as many do to join RMEF and make arguably more contribution to the conservation of elk than state Fish and Game agencies.

5. What NR contribute to local economies is probably a fluid number. Some towns like Broadus may need them to just exist. Others, like Dillon would survive without it. Neither will see a total loss of NR hunting dollars.

6. The simple law of supply and demand is very much at play here. If you like to hunt you will pay more until one of two things happen: there are more tags (not happening) or there are less hunters (which although hunting numbers are dropping, interest in MT elk tags is increasing).

7. I see us all as part of a larger community, but states' rights will always trump the management of wildlife and issuing of licenses. Until there is a hunting passport that allows you to pay once, hunt all animals in all states, and the states split the money, there will be disparity in pricing for R and NR.

8. I do see danger to passion for public lands decreasing if NR pay high prices, and want to "ensure" success, of paying for access to private. That will, of course, depend on the hunter.