Montana Elk Big Game Combo 2018, 2019 and going forward, how tough will the odds get

[LopeHunter]

I got basically 1100 into my NR big game combo this year , going for a week in November sharing a cabin with 5 other guys will end up being $140/each for the week (cheap) but then fuel plan on 100/each , then just odds and ends and spending money for the week maybe another 2-300 . Call it 500 for that stuff . That's a 1600 trip and no guarantee on bringing anything home , deer is pretty much 100% but u never know . It's gotten spendy . I might go cheap and just try for the deer tag but that'll be hard to draw - best bet will be sticking with the combo buts it's a lot of $$$

I burn about $60 of ammo getting dialed in and making sure is still dialed in at camp. I destroy 2 or 3 items of gear per hunt whether it be a hiking pole that bends, a boot that finally wears out, a lost glove or a set of long johns that lose the elasticity. I use up a few blades in my knife and wear out a game bag some hunts. Those gear and ammo costs add up and I figure $500 per hunt. I don't count my food as long as the same as if was staying at home and going to work that week. I figure I average about $2000 out of pockets and wear/tear on the SUV if drive to a hunt and closer to $4000 if fly instead of drive. Not counting license. Not counting the 5 - 20 years of application fees to get that hunt. I second the fastest way to get depressed is to truthfully add up the cost door to door then meat processing bags then euro skull mount then divide by pounds of meat put in the freezer. I should buy a truck full of lobsters to save money next year.

 

[mtmuley]

That'll go over like a fart in church...

Nope. A fart in church is acceptable. mtmuley

 

[brownbear932008]

That lobster idea is the best idea I've heard yet. I may have to do that and go back to basics.

 

[FreeAir84]

I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.

 

[HighDesertSage]

I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.

You're actually not entitled to any opportunity to harvest any state's wildlife as a NR. The fact that they let you do so is a privilege and bears a higher cost, and rightfully so. I am all for raising resident tag fees, and I have been vocal about doing so, but not at the same cost of a NR. That would be extreme.

 

[8andcounting]

You're actually not entitled to any opportunity to harvest any state's wildlife as a NR. The fact that they let you do so bears a higher cost, and rightfully so. I am all for raising resident tag fees, and I have been vocal about doing so, but not at the same cost of a NR. That would be extreme.

Im a NR and im actually hoping for a fee hike again , maybe will be 100% draw then again . As for drawing, guessing most the unsuccessfuls for NR last year were for the deer combo, I know there were people denied for the big game combo too, but there were so many returned that you could have bought a big game combo all through the season they actually never sold out.... I bought a pref point for the combo this summer plus will send in the $50 for another pref point with app, so I guess id be absolutely shocked if I got turned away.... but u never know I guess. if I do ill sign up for the alternates list and try it that way.

 

[BlakeA]

I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.

Sorry man but this is ridiculous. It's a privilege to have the opportunity to travel out of state and hunt as a non resident, not a right. Why should it be a fair price? Why should "everyone" have an equal opportunity? Some things in life are not designed for "everyone" and this is one of them. If you can't afford it, that's a personal problem, not a game and fish problem.

 

[el unit]

You're actually not entitled to any opportunity to harvest any state's wildlife as a NR. The fact that they let you do so is a privilege and bears a higher cost, and rightfully so. I am all for raising resident tag fees, and I have been vocal about doing so, but not at the same cost of a NR. That would be extreme.

Agree 100%.

 

[Southern Elk]

If you don't like the cost of the NR license, you could always move here. That's one big reason that I did. I can't wait for 2018 when I have a pocket full of tags for just a few bucks.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.

Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?

 

[BlakeA]

A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?

Are you talking guided hunts or DIY hunts? A lot of people that do not go DIY are still saving for years to do a guided hunt that may only be a once in a lifetime hunt due to the costs, but a DIY hunt isn't going to take you multiple years of saving unless it's an adventure in the north country maybe.

I think a lot of hardcore DIY hunters have been hunting multiple states each year for decades. It just seems like a recent development because of the internet and social media.

 

[HighWildFree]

I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.

Also to consider that most Western States are economically depressed. I could pick up and leave and make double what I make now. One of the benefits of being a resident is cheaper, more available tags, but it comes at the cost of lower wages as a penalty for living in states with elk.

 

[1_pointer]

A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?

Not sure it's any more prevalent now, we just know more about more folks because of things like social media. My home town is about the same size now as it was when I lived there 20yrs ago. I probably knew about as many folks, my parents age, then that traveled to hunt as I do now at my age.

 

[8andcounting]

all I know is im going to keep applying, if I get rejected for a combo tag then ill go elk b tag maybe deer b and upland and shoot some pheasants and still have a great time

 

[antlerradar]

Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?

I don't think this is new but more perception spurred on by social media and hunting shows.
My father guided hunters in the 60's and early 70's. Most of the clients he had would hunt several states. One group form PA would hunt WY and then in MT every year.
Twenty years ago I was working on the school housing. "the joy of small town school board" when a hunter from Michigan hit me up for info. He was hunting with a local outfitter. It was late November and this hunt was going to be his ninth hunt of the year and when he got done in Montana he was headed to Kansas for hunt number 10. Later found out he was cutting costs by not buying licences every where he hunted.

One thing about Montana, with our long seasons out of state hunters that have the time and money to hunt multiple states can almost always fit a Montana hunt in and not have scheduling conflicts.

 

[FreeAir84]

Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?

Honestly I'd probably feel the same way if I was you and had the opportunity and privilege to live somewhere with such great hunting opportunity. But as I'm not I don't. For federal land, paid for with federal dollars I think that equal opportunity to draw is a better option. I'm personally not perfectly free to move to your state and I can think of at least 1% of the population who is in the same boat as me. But I know this argument probably won't hold any water here. I do think the funding debate is not a bad one to continue however. I would think that habitat only gets better if we all pay a little more for the opportunity to hunt whether we be NR or residents right? As long as fish and game are managing the resources $$ provided which I have no reason to doubt that they do.

Thanks all for the responses.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Not all wildlife are held in trust and "owned" by the states right? Are waterfowl and other migratory species not treated differently? To be honest I find it kind of silly that states "own" the wildlife and it is a "privilege" to hunt in another state.. Where I lived a deer can cross the St. Croix and go from a "Wisconsin deer" to a "Minnesota deer." Wildlife do not follow state boundaries

 

[Hunting Wife]

Not all wildlife are held in trust and "owned" by the states right? Are waterfowl and other migratory species not treated differently? To be honest I find it kind of silly that states "own" the wildlife and it is a "privilege" to hunt in another state.. Where I lived a deer can cross the St. Croix and go from a "Wisconsin deer" to a "Minnesota deer." Wildlife do not follow state boundaries

Migratory birds are managed by the feds in cooperation with Mexico and Canada in accordance with international treaty (with the states also cooperating). The feds are also charged with managing threatened and endangered species, usually again with some kind of cooperation from the states. Everything else falls under state management.

 

[Hgdoo]

Hunting is a privilege in any state,

 

[Whiptail]

Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

Do you think land ownership should be considered when allocating permits?