Gearing up for 2008

[Smithstation Ranch]

Maybe I am spoiled but Utah is making non-res. buy a lics. just to draw a point. THAT SUCKS!! I only have a few points for Utah so not sure if I want to keep puting in or stop while I am $$ ahead. Any one else cought off guard by this?

As for the 08 season, like A-Con I am at the max for Cali. elk, sheep, and goats. Might do a Oregon archery elk, OTC tag. Fuel prices are hurting me as well as hay prices and beef prices are going down.

 

[Bambistew]

about time FWP did something right,,,to many non residents hunting archery antelope

yeah 459 NR bow hunters is way to many...

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I am going to put back in for the Colorado First season....I guess after finding those "Dumb" Elk I may be getting a little Cocky. But, I really just like going anywhere!
Hunt the Whitetails and visit with my Buddies at camp. My Father even spoke like he would like to come up and sit in a stand, that would be cool...I thought those days were sadly over. I'll keep my fingers crossed! John

 

[TheTone]

More than likely just applying for a controlled elk and deer in Idaho this year due to some life issues. Next year I'm looking at starting to really play the game.

 

[280]

bambi,,,459 drew in 2006, any limit on non residents is a step in the right direction

 

[schmalts]

bambi,,,459 drew in 2006, any limit on non residents is a step in the right direction

Drew?? it is a guarenteed draw, all you had to do is apply. once again... 459 archery hunters is too many??
WHAAAAAHHHH

 

[280]

typing slow for our mental midget from wisc.,,,,,,,,,,459 applied,,,,459 DREW,,,459 Non residents like our Wisc. elk expert is to damn many,,, and besides, i am gay

 

[schmalts]

Once again... WHAAAAAAAHH

 

[Muleyslyr]

No sh.t......cry me a river! The amount of Antelope in MT. your telling me that non-resi's Archery hunters even have an effect on them. It's a loss of revenue for the F&G in my opinion.

 

[shoots-straight]

I don't know where the 459 number came from but non resident archery antelope sales were at 1235 for 2007 and had been going up at about a 20% increase each year since sales started. It would have been devastating in a short period of time for resident hunters and non resident hunters that weren't using outfitters.

No sh.t......cry me a river! The amount of Antelope in MT. your telling me that non-resi's Archery hunters even have an effect on them. It's a loss of revenue for the F&G in my opinion.

It didn't have anything to do with effect on populations of antelope, but rather lost opportunity for people that hunt without outfitters as they were leasing all available land that was suitable for hunting water holes and such.

 

[Bambistew]

Where did the 1235 come from?

Leasing is not going away... it will either be outfitters or common resident hunters doing it. Its happening everywhere.

 

[BuzzH]

Bambistew,

You are right, but if limiting NR's slows that down...I say slap a limit on them.

I dont accept or condone the "well, thats the way it is" crap.

The problem is sportsmen have compromised themselves and their sport to outfitters, NR's, landowners, politically appointed G&F commissions, etc.

In a nutshell, we've pissed away our sport.

 

[schmalts]

I didnt even see another archery lope hunter last year in MT. The 3 ranches that i did stop by and ask permission to hunt said hell yes, they are eating too much! I ended up killing one on federal land anyway. All i can say is there was no hunters where i was, so i saw no effect on the hundreds of lope i saw except for the little one i killed.

 

[280]

best hope ya draw one of the 450, or its no antelope for you

 

[AZ402]

What's the success rate on archery antelope in MT??

 

[schmalts]

My guess it is low if your .280, since it concerns him so much....

 

[AZ402]

My guess it is low if your .280, since it concerns him so much....

I don't care what that douche bag thinks about anything. I was just curious about the success %.

I have to agree with Buzz though, his thoughts on this are pretty dead on IMO.............

 

[280]

so AZ402 do you ever have your own opinion or do you just plant your lips on Buzz`s ass?,,,hell with 8 AZ elk points i may be in unit 9 come fall

 

[AZ402]

so AZ402 do you ever have your own opinion or do you just plant your lips on Buzz`s ass?,,,hell with 8 AZ elk points i may be in unit 9 come fall

I said I agree with Buzz on this issue dumbass. I like Buzz, have hunted with Buzz but we don't agree on everything. Although I do respect him regardless.

Don't count on unit 9 with 8 points. Unless it's a general rifle tag, then you may have a chance. You'd most likely go home empty handed on that hunt though.....

 

[Big Fin]

I'm not saying that changing unlimited tags is gonna solve all the access problems in MT, but it will have some affect.

When we went to outfitted tags ( in 1995), the outfitters and their association, MOGA, promised resident hunters that outfitters wouldn't go on a leasing binge. Well, we were stupid enough to buy into their "We need a consistent revenue stream" B.S. and agreed to it.

We all know how hard it is to change a subsidy, once it starts.

I have an outfitter friend and another who is a client of our firm, both operating in eastern MT. Here is how they do the math on the non-resident archery antelope tags. This explains why they like them so much.

They sell an archery antelope hunt for $1,800 to $2,400, depending upon quality. Not a huge number, but if they sell enough of these, the proceeds from the archery antelope hunts pays the lease fee for the ground. They then use the ground for their more profitable hunts, which are deer, and some rifle antelope hunts.

So, a little math says that if half the NRs are guided, which I do not know the ratio, we have 600 guided archery antelope hunts. That produces around $1,200,000 of gross revenue to outfitters if the hunts average $2,000 each.

If most of them use the approach of the two guys I mentioned, now we have $1,200,000 more being thrown at leases of private ground. Given that eastern MT land leases for around $1.00 per acre for range ground, (much more for premium deer ground) that means we have another 1,200,000 acres off limit to non-guided hunters, or just less than 2,000 square miles.

I don't think anyone is saying that we have no places to hunt. The real issue is whether or not states should have policies related to outfitter subsidies that are detrimental to non-guided hunters, whether resident or non-resident.

These acres being leased up for archery antelope hunts are then off limit for deer, birds, and whatever else, unless you have a special relationship with a landowner.

It is private land, and landowner can and should do whatever the hell they want with their land. I don't know of any resident hunter who disputes that fact.

That doesn't mean that state legislatures should enact policies that take a non-private asset, public wildlife, and funnel all the revenue from such to an industry that is at odds with the best interest of the majority of residents.

The guy who is really gonna take it on the chin (or elsewhere hump ) in the long run is the non-guided non-residents. Why? Because outfitters don't give a chit about you guys, and the only mechanism left for resident hunters to combat outfitters, and the economic power of their state subsidized non-resident income stream, is to go to more limited permit type hunts.

Non-residents, whether guided or non-guided, will be limited to 10% of the tags. You guys who are non-guided NRs are not the problem, but if residents feel the only recourse is more limited hunts, your opportunities under a limited tag scenario will go down. Sorry!

At least, that is how I see it, based on 18 years of fighting wildlife battles at legislative and commission hearings.