$1,149.84

[Tradewind]

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.

deleted.

 

[idahohuntr]

I always cringe when I see States upping non resident fees...but then I think of how much opportunity I have and that my hunting seasons are not going to last forever. I'm guessing if I live long enough to end up in some retirement home, the only cringing i will do would be if i had to look at a big bank statement and a sparse hunting album.

 

[MooseCaboose]

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.

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.

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 license revenue instead of the 1/3 we payed a few years ago would be a good start.

Seemingly Conflicting Assertions:

1. Increased License Costs Price Guys Out
3. Increased License Costs Motivate Landowners to Lease
4. Increased License Costs Motivate People to Spend More to Purchase Access

You both are not the only ones to make these conflicting statements, just the first examples I found.

Even the average joes 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.

You are right in saying hunter effort has increased, but wrong in saying its gone up a significant amount. According to MT Elk Hunter Harvest Survey:

In 2008 the average hunter spent 8.9 days in the field.
in 2016 the average hunter spent 9.4 days in the field.

I'd say there are still ample weekend warriors as well as guys who hunt for weeks on end. Anecdotal evidence in this case doesn't line up with the best available numbers.

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.

Thus far, there's not been an effect. Agency revenues continue to climb. Decreasing tag costs is not going to improve the "average guy's" ability to get an elk tag because as prices fall, more people apply, and odds go down. Further, there are a limited number of animals on the hill, so there is a real limit to the number of tags available no matter the price. Decreasing prices will only limit agency conservation efforts which will decrease the number of animals on the hill, further decreasing the "average guy's" odds to get an elk tag.

As far as the notion that nonresidents will give up hunting out of state--good luck with that, it's never going to happen. The agencies know it, residents know it, you know it. Game theory works against it. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma. Non-residents would (theoretically) be better off if they could all coordinate a boycott of high prices. However, if you as a non-resident know all other non-residents are planning to boycott, you are incentivized to deviate from the boycott because the missing others increase your draw odds. Every non-resident knows every other will benefit from deviating in the form of higher odds. Therefore, most non-residents will end up not boycotting because they are lured in by the potential of higher odds and the risk that every other non-resident will take advantage at their expense.

As For Solutions:
1. Residents could/should pay more if agencies can communicate particular conservation programs the additional funding would be used to advance. More skin in the game wouldn't be the worst thing.
2. Move to a western state if you want to pay in-state fees. If you are concerned about economic opportunities, start a small business. You won't be alone, Montana has the most per capita. Creating jobs will create more opportunities for other hunters to move out as well.
3. The state manages wildlife for the benefit of the residents of that state. Theoretically, a state could cut off all non-resident hunting if it wanted. This might involve much higher resident fees but would also increase draw odds substantially. If its welfare, that states allow non-residents to hunt at all is hunting welfare for non-residents, not the other way around.
4. The primary reason states allow non-resident hunting is to fund wildlife agencies. If not for the high price of non-resident fees, this funding motivation goes away. The closer resident and non-resident fees become, the higher risk residents of the state will start to begin to wonder for what reason precisely the agency is hurting their draw odds by offering tags to non-resident hunters. High non-resident fees guarantee continued support by residents for the allocation of tags to non-residents. Decrease the fees and decrease the support. Decrease the fees enough, and the tags get more limited or eliminated. After all, it's residents who elect the state officials with nary a vote from non-residents.

"We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit." BALDWIN v. MONTANA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION (1978)

 

[antlerradar]

The price increase of the licence does not cause more landowners to lease. The price increase changes the demographics of the nonresident hunters. With the passage of I161 thousands of DYI hunters dropped out of the drawing. Not one outfitter sponsored licence holder dropped out dew to price. The more we increase the nonresident price the more we change the demographics of the nonresident pool from DIY to hunters that are willing to pay. This will increase demand for leases and the increase in demand will cause more landowners to lease.

As for the days in the field is that resident or nonresident. What would be real interesting would be if the stats were broken down between nonresidents that hunt public and those that hunt private.

 

[NoWiser]

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.

If you took my thoughts as jealousy, you are mistaken. It really has nothing to do with dollar amounts, it's the fact that I'm getting charged 45X as much as a resident for the same tag. Sure, I might be envious, but that's not what keeps me away, it's the fact that I feel taken advantage of, big time. I only pay 10X as much as a resident for a cow elk tag in Colorado. That seems a little more reasonable to me. I pay 1.5X more in Wyoming for doe antelope.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This will increase demand for leases and the increase in demand will cause more landowners to lease.

That was the theory and argument against I-161 over seven years ago prior to it passing. Over that span of hunting seasons do you have any evidence / data to support that theorized "threat"?

 

[3855WIN]

Montana isn't worth it to me. I will not apply.

I hear supply and demand at times. Game depts aren't a business. Why is supply and demand involved with it? For every high dollar fat cat that is a NR hunter, there is a young person who would like to go hunt as a NR with Uncle Joe. There is a hunter who is considered a non resident by driving 20 miles and crossing a state line. There is a son or daughter going on a NR hunt with a parent, doubling the cost for license.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I just feel like I’m getting completely hosed when a tag that costs a resident $20.00 costs me $900.

NoWiser, although I do agree that NR fees were significantly increased and I, as a lifelong Montana resident and hunter, do feel as though I should contribute more ... still your numbers reflect an exaggerated comparison. There are additional hunting fees paid by the resident prior to purchasing the $20 tag. As often pointed out, the Montana resident pays for what the nonresident benefits from while here through many taxes, fees, and other payments, many of which you likely are not aware.

I am proud to be a multi-generational Montanan and value the special wild qualities of this state to the extent that I hurried back here after my active duty military years, with no question concerning where I would reside ... but to work two jobs / careers simultaneously to afford the life I wanted for my family.

 

[bobbydean]

I think there is a saying that behind every great man there is a great woman!

I think Big Fin's post illustrated that thought very well.

 

[8andcounting]

NoWiser, although I do agree that NR fees were significantly increased and I, as a lifelong Montana resident and hunter, do feel as though I should contribute more ... still your numbers reflect an exaggerated comparison. There are additional hunting fees paid by the resident prior to purchasing the $20 tag. As often pointed out, the Montana resident pays for what the nonresident benefits from while here through many taxes, fees, and other payments, many of which you likely are not aware.

I am proud to be a multi-generational Montanan and value the special wild qualities of this state to the extent that I hurried back here after my active duty military years, with no question concerning where I would reside ... but to work two jobs / careers simultaneously to afford the life I wanted for my family.

We as NR pay taxes fees and etc in our home states too . If we NRs weren't spending amount of $ we do 11 weeks every fall in your small towns a lot of little businesses may be closed . It's a treat for me to go to montana , I understand that , I love the state and most the people there are great , but everyone has certain things they sacrifice

 

[Straight Arrow]

If we NRs weren't spending amount of $ we do 11 weeks every fall in your small towns a lot of little businesses may be closed

Don't get me wrong, the NR hunter dollars are very important to small towns, but not sure they are "make it or break it'. For every NR hunter who has a bowl of beans at the Jersey Lilly in Ingomar, there are ten hunters from Billings who camp outside and sidle up to the bar for beans and biscuit and more.

... but everyone has certain things they sacrifice ...

Most certain agreement there ... and that is how we set priorities in every facet of life, as so clearly expressed by BigFin in his previous post.

 

[ewludwig]

Did I read it correctly?

406 states in pt 4 that those that are priced out of elk hunting due to high tag prices can still contribute to conservation of elk through RMEF? Gee, thanks. What a deal for the non resident who wants to hunt elk but is on a budget and can't afford it any longer.

MT doesn't owe non residents a thing......bout sums it up pretty clearly and makes it hard when those same MT folks ask us to help conserve access to public lands in the west. It's this type of attitude that makes writing large checks for tags increasingly difficult for some. I don't think it serves our greater conservation and access goals. I'm a public land owner and am fine with paying more to recreate on it than another public land owner.....to a point.

BTW, in 2017, numerous conservation groups in MN actually supported increases in resident liscenses fees to help conservation by filling deficits within the DNR budget that were hurting conservation efforts. We use the resources and are fine with paying more to ensure they remain viable.

In the end, The non resident cash cow is a no brainer for the politicians out west and will never change. So I gladly pay knowing I cant put a price tag on the experiences I've had hunting out West.

 

[NoWiser]

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.

I, along with 3 other guys, founded a RMEF chapter in Minnesota 3 years ago. I've spent thousands of my own dollars and countless hours getting it up and running. My guess is that Montana residents benefit exponentially more from the money our chapter raises than Minnesota residents. I can tell you right off the bat that if I can no longer justify hunting out west, I will no longer spend my time and money on RMEF. I'll more likely volunteer my time and money to the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association or the Ruffed Grouse Society.

I don't want to sound like I'm complaining. It's not my intention. I'm simply stating why Montana is so low on my list of states to hunt. It's because I feel like it's a slap in the face when I compare R and NR costs.

 

[schmalts]

NoWiser, although I do agree that NR fees were significantly increased and I, as a lifelong Montana resident and hunter, do feel as though I should contribute more ... still your numbers reflect an exaggerated comparison. There are additional hunting fees paid by the resident prior to purchasing the $20 tag. As often pointed out, the Montana resident pays for what the nonresident benefits from while here through many taxes, fees, and other payments, many of which you likely are not aware.

I am proud to be a multi-generational Montanan and value the special wild qualities of this state to the extent that I hurried back here after my active duty military years, with no question concerning where I would reside ... but to work two jobs / careers simultaneously to afford the life I wanted for my family.

Can you show me what taxes and fees you pay go towards F&G funding? I just paid more for the aquatic invasive species fee for my combo than you paid for your buck tag. Like others have echoed, it's not the price, it's the ratio that makes it look like welfare. What's laughable is a few guys have stated many topics we should feel good about funding the wildlife.... Where would that leave MT residents?

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm simply stating why Montana is so low on my list of states to hunt. It's because I feel like it's a slap in the face when I compare R and NR costs.

NoWiser, thank-you for your strong support of RMEF ... and wildlife habitat in many different states and places. Your perspective regarding R and NR license costs is certainly understood. For whatever it's worth, there are many resident hunters who would gladly pay more; albeit not dollar for dollar relative to NR costs. It is realized that NR license fees pay for something like forty percent of FWP revenues, so it's critical. Another reality is that regardless of resident hunting license fees, Montana is a "welfare state" in that our population numbers do not add up to enough revenue to fund much of what is required and desired. It's double-edged in that we like sparse density and open spaces ... which incidentally attract visitors to our state. So the dilemma results in Montana gladly accepting financial support from more populated states ... and hunters who reside there.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Agreed that MT residents should be paying more.

As for the non-resident sniveling, as long as all the permits are continued to be sold, you'll continue to see increases in prices and nobody will care about your hardships. Maybe move here and scrape by instead of crying.

There really is no shortage of non-resident sadomasochists willing to spend thousands to come hunt our mismanaged deer and elk.

 

[brownbear932008]

$1,149.84 is how much it costed to apply for big game combo , elk permit and bonus and pref point . Holy f ....... I know this has been dragged through the mud already but wow just wow . I keep saying I'll keep applying forever but I just don't know how much more I can go up . For a middle class guy that makes decent living this is a lot . I love Montana tho so I'll sacrifice elsewhere to do it but wow .

Your mind may change after you burn those points. I look at it differently now that my 11 points are gone.

 

[Irrelevant]

While I do use price to sort through my fall options. As a rather typical professional in WA I definitely have more money than time. But it boils down to priorities. Do you like you coffee/smokes/beer/eating out/fansy bacon/whatever the "thing" is or do you want to hunt out-of-state? For us we don't eat out. Ever. My wife and I never went out to eat while dating, since then I can count the number of times we've eaten out for fun (not due to travel). We don't do date nights. It works for us, we're able to save all we need from that omission to pay for my hunting and her travel.

Does it make sense that MT residents should have to pay more, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still within reason for what it offers. I think the golden rule should be resident pay 10% of the non-residents.

 

[Schism]

My concern is out of the 435 US Representatives and 100 Senators, Montana has 1 Representative and 2 Senators. Even if you can get all three to vote no on PLT issues, have fun convincing a majority of the 434/98 other legislators when their constituents feel disconnected from public lands, specifically those in western mountain states.

Say a group of state legislators want federal land transferred to the state. Say that same group of legislators is in charge of setting R and NR tag prices...

Some of the posts in this thread have hit sensitive spots for R's and NR's alike. Like it or not, we all need to stick together and work toward solutions. Unfortunately we as hunters are our own worst enemy when it comes to working together on some of these issues as we are all competing for a finite resource. I can't claim to have any answers but I believe it will require creative thinking and flexibility of both R's and NR's to reach a viable solution.

 

[The Hedgehog]

$448.89.

That's the price a family of 4 (getting one complimentary BMA license) paid for everybody getting sportsman license all around, which include deer, elk, bear, upland game bird, fishing, 2 archery stamps and a couple turkey tags, also including the special permit apps for all 4 submitting both elk and deer apps. In a couple weeks I'll get to spend about $150 for all of us to apply for moose, sheep, goat and bison.

The advantages of having to suffer living in Montana..