ShatoDavis

I think that it would be very short sighted and ignorant for western states to do that. They would lose a tremendous amount of tourism Dollars. There is no telling how many millions of dollars are spent on hunting. Not just the cost of tags, think of the meals bought, motel rooms, gas to fill the vehicles. I would quess that it would damn near bankrupt many states. You say that You "might have to pay sales tax" You have no idea. You would have to move to a different state to live.I think someone who complains about out of state hunters is not only selfish but pretty darn ignorant as well.

Rebel Hog

DITTO!

traprdave

Well come back when you have a clue!!! We would be far from bankrupt. Your out of state hunting dollars DOES NOT soley support Montana economy. We have industry and tourism other than the couple of months hunting dollars. So think what you want, but our economy doesn't evolve around out of staters. If you think out of state dollars keeps me living in Montana, I'm not the ignorant one.Selfish, maybe, more like fed up!!

320BULL

Well let me put in my 2. I for one love hunting the west. I think all tags should be an equal draw for everyone alike. I still dont get how states can govern federal land anyway. Like the law in Wyoming about an out of stater needing a guide to hunt a wilderness area. I do like howsome of the"locals" hunt near the area I frequent. one guy drove the roads bugling from his truck every morning. One afternoon I was driving out and caught him taking a crap on the side of the road. silly guy couldnt even leave the road to crap! I live in MI and every local with a weapon wounds a deer in the fall. Its a joke most of the land is private and the deer herd is made up of 1 1/2 yr old bucks. The DNR did that. Not the out ofstaters.I like how the people out west treat me as a visitor to thier state and I love how they look after the game and the lands. So next time your out west pay attention to how you treat the land and the animals and next time you see a jackass in the woods dont blame it on the out of staters cuz it might be a guy from the next town. Next time you in MI look around and see what the used to be out of staters are doinghere. Cuz there locals now, they all moved here..........

Muliefever

It could keep all the Californians out of Idaho!!!! Ha Ha!! I really think that the money that out of state hunters bring into your own home state is still worth it! As long as they stay out of my spot!

bullcan

I would not like it because I do like to take a western trip once a year, but the hunting in MI is all I really need. We have deer,bear,turkey, and even a possibility of an elk tag here as well as ducks,geese,upland birds,etc. I would miss most the change of scenery. It is just awe inspiring to go from the deep, heavily forested woods here to the wide open expansive plains and the mountains of the west. Even montana with it's many big game animals does not have them all. What if you wanted to one day hunt caribou or musk ox or different subspecies of sheep and turkeys? I would hate to have my options taken away and be at the mercy of one state dnr.

tsoc

There was just an article in this months American Hunter magazine about the difference in revenues that are generated by resident versus non resident hunters for a few states out west.I believe that the non resident license sales in Montana generated about three times the revenue as the resident license sales for their game department,with about one tenth the drain on the states natural resources.Politically it is much easier for the states to increase the tag prices for the non residents versus the residents,there is no voter back lash.So from a game department point of view it is not likely that those practices will stop any time soon.
I can't speak for Montana,I have never hunted there (non resident tags are to expensive,unless you draw)but for the little town in Idaho that I huntfrom,if not for hunting and snowmobiling many of the locals would not survive there.

ShatoDavis

You told me to get a clue. So I did, this is from the "Montana Department of Tourism: http://travelmontana.mt.gov/Strategic%20Plan%20Final/Final_pdf/Chap%202_Existing%20Conditions%20FINAL.pdf

A. Statewide Socio-Economic Trends

Montana is the fourth largest state in the U.S., encompassing 145,552 square miles, and is

home to only 902,000 citizens, or 6.2 people per square mile (2000 Census). Yet Montanans

hosted nearly 9.5 million nonresident visitors in 2001. Those nonresidents spent $1.7 billion in

Montana, helping to make tourism and recreation the state’s second largest industry.

So you say that all tourism:

B.1 Nonresident Visitation Grew 46% from 1990-2000; Seasonality is a Challenge

For the purposes of this document, the terms “visitor” and “tourist” are interchangeable,

and refer to both residents and nonresidents who travel for leisure or business purposes, taking

money they earned in one place, and spending it elsewhere. The number of nonresidents

visiting Montana rose 46% from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 2.4), compared to 85% growth in lodging

sales (Figure 2.5). However, the number of summer visitors declined from 1996 to 2001.

Economic Impact of Hunting & Fishing

(Source: Montana FWP)

Sportsmen in Montana spent substantial dollars in 2000 on transportation, food,

lodging, guide fees and other items (Table 2.2). The average non-guided, nonresident hunter

has an economic impact of $1,600 per trip to Montana, while a guided hunter has a $3,800

impact (total of $200 million in 2000).

So You want to Foot the bill:

Nonresidents support a significant share of Montana’s fish and game management

efforts: two-thirds of all fiscal year 2000 hunting/fishing license revenue to FWP came from

nonresidents. Additionally, 43% of the entire FWP Department’s total 2001 revenue came from

nonresident hunting/fishing license sales. So, if the number of nonresident sportsmen declines,

the FWP budget will decline, or resident sportsmen will have to make up the loss in revenue.

Rebel Hog

Good posting, Shato!

Hunter06FlKy

yeah that's a big10-4