Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sitting on a pretty high horse here. I'd take a "common man" over a suit and tie any day.
I don't think that's what he's saying. I think Buzz is saying if we price NR tags low enough for the lower income "common man" to buy every year or low enough to be super affordable then states lose out on a lot of management revenue and it's a disservice to the wildlife and hunters. And undoubtedly, not all the people buying NR tags are lower on the income totem pole, meaning the extra money will just get spent on material shit.
 
The BMA program needs a revamp for sure. There needs to be some sort of criteria for lands to be enrolled. Just down the road from my house a landowner has a piece enrolled that holds zero animals...zero. I feel bad when I see someone sign in and waste their time on it. Not to mention it is a waste of money to enroll that land. The landowner owns some quality hunting land, but of course none of it is in block management.
Not to derail the thread, but changes need to be made.

Wrong on so many levels. I had no idea land owners were abusing the BM program like that. Seems MT has more welfare abuse than CA in this thread..
 
Wrong on so many levels. I had no idea land owners were abusing the BM program like that. Seems MT has more welfare abuse than CA in this thread..
There is an old thread on HT about some of the abuse going on with BMAs in MT that will open your eyes. Now I've hunted a few great ones over the years others not so great.
 
The BMA program needs a revamp for sure. There needs to be some sort of criteria for lands to be enrolled. Just down the road from my house a landowner has a piece enrolled that holds zero animals...zero. I feel bad when I see someone sign in and waste their time on it. Not to mention it is a waste of money to enroll that land. The landowner owns some quality hunting land, but of course none of it is in block management.
Not to derail the thread, but changes need to be made.

My brother and I were on a 8k+ acre BMA this past Nov. Looking at the satellite imagery the deer were exactly where we expected, 3 miles from the road on state land not accessible from the BMA. Hiked in one evening hoping to see a whitetails cross the border or have a buck chase some does. Then some ranch hands drove the 3 miles, parked, and then shot at some deer on the MT state land that was not publicly accessible from the BMA. Big waste of BMA $$ IMO.

I kind of expected it based on my research, but it was kind of crazy to see in person how many deer and elk were on private land vs. the public land in central MT.
 
BMA is a joke. It should be sign in and go on the entire huntable property. Its ridiculous, total bs. An example of welfare ranching. Waste of tax payer money.
 
Not sure how this turned into a BMA bashing thread. I've had great experiences on every BMA I've signed up to hunt. Sure there have been some I looked at and wasn't interested in, but the vast majority contained as much wildlife or more than any of the surrounding public.
 
Not sure how this turned into a BMA bashing thread. I've had great experiences on every BMA I've signed up to hunt. Sure there have been some I looked at and wasn't interested in, but the vast majority contained as much wildlife or more than any of the surrounding public.
There’s some serious issues with the Block Management program that should be addressed, but I’ve had some great hunts on BMAs too.
 
Not sure how this turned into a BMA bashing thread. I've had great experiences on every BMA I've signed up to hunt. Sure there have been some I looked at and wasn't interested in, but the vast majority contained as much wildlife or more than any of the surrounding public.
Yeah, I assisted in the derail. Back on Topic of the thread.
 
BMA‘s are awesome. Just have to pick the right ones.
This was the first year I hunted BMAs, during archery it was great. Very few people. Lots of animals and a great time. The begingnin of rifle season was crazy. I had been to a particular BMA about 4 or 5 times during archery and maybe saw one other person. I went on opening day of Antelope and there must have been a few hundred people at each parking area of the BMA. I turned around and went home. But a few weeks into the season the area was pretty dead again. Overall a very positive experience.

But to be on point, I'm glad the bill this thread is about got amended to remove the guaranteed tags. I still don't support splitting the drawing to cater to those with more money. Its still a crap shoot because you don't know how many will early apply and what your odds will be.
 
I don't think that's what he's saying. I think Buzz is saying if we price NR tags low enough for the lower income "common man" to buy every year or low enough to be super affordable then states lose out on a lot of management revenue and it's a disservice to the wildlife and hunters. And undoubtedly, not all the people buying NR tags are lower on the income totem pole, meaning the extra money will just get spent on material shit.
I do understand this. I just do not like the word of "entitlement" being thrown around for everyone that is a NR. I get it, we have established that the wildlife is the residents resource. Also because of this, I think the increase in revenue should not always be 100% directed towards the NR privileges, knowing that the R control the game. If they truly want the best option for their game I would like to see everyone pitch in. I completely agree it is a privilege for us to cross another state to hunt. I don't want to lose it and I know a lot of guys out there that aren't in the well off department where these price hikes will continue to hurt. It just seems like in my time of meeting people in the woods these guys are the ones who usually work harder and pay more respect to the game and their fellow hunters.
Here in MN I have watched our quality deer herd become very poor. The management of the deer and the predators seem to be one of the worst in all states. Unfortunately the residents had no say in it and haven't for the past 5 years.

Anyways, I am not sure how I feel about the amendment.... I like that its there for anyone and that anyone has their choice to spend the money on the tag they want. I really like where the money is said to be going. I can see myself saying 300 bucks is worth a tag to go hunt elk in Montana but more along the guaranteed lines. I almost want to pay it right now to despite the outfitter take their money and give it to the resource and access. But thats just me being ornery right now with all of this.
 
Internet doesn't pay for NR licenses or make it any more affordable.

The reason is because its affordable, maybe more affordable now to a bigger swath of NR hunters than it ever has been.
Yes it surely is. Which is why Montana should raise tag prices to the highest point the market will support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
114,023
Messages
2,041,547
Members
36,431
Latest member
Nick3252
Back
Top