Montana: Buyers remorse?
#21
I agree with everything you say in your first paragraph. The experience has NOTHING to do with the price you pay. As far as you getting it (my point of view), please tell me where you are traveling out of state each year, spending a grand on a tag, and coming home empty handed 7 out of 10 years. And those odds are being generous for the average nonresident hunter. I can get the same "expeience" for 1/2 the money in Colorado.
Yes, there are probably many nonresident hunters who have been coming a long time, that will continue to come, but I will still bet you that it will be harder to sell out on the tags each year for the next few years
Yes, there are probably many nonresident hunters who have been coming a long time, that will continue to come, but I will still bet you that it will be harder to sell out on the tags each year for the next few years
(empty 7 out of 10 years!) You need a new hunting spot... not a new state.
-South
Last edited by South33; 05-14-2011 at 07:33 PM.
#22
I have to wonder, is it the actuall cost of the tag that has people taking a second or third look at hunting out of state, or is it the total cost these days of hunting out of state?
Seriously, look at the ridiculous raise in the cost of fuel, airline tickets, food, motels, and now the hunting license. It occured to me that it may be the total hit to the pocket book that really has people upset and not just the raise in non res hunting fee's.
Because i have several non resident friends, i have an idea of how much the total cost of them coming here to hunt costs. After talking with them, it wasn't neccessarily the raise in the license fee's but a raise in the cost of everything that kept them from putting in for the draw. A couple of them are some that waited and bought the tags after the draw results were announced because they didn't want to chance the draw, not draw and lose even the small fee for drawing. This way they were gauranteed to get the tags they wanted.
I do agree that the fee's are to high, and to me it feels like like the heritage that we all love is becoming a sport that only the well to do will be able to participate in.
Seriously, look at the ridiculous raise in the cost of fuel, airline tickets, food, motels, and now the hunting license. It occured to me that it may be the total hit to the pocket book that really has people upset and not just the raise in non res hunting fee's.
Because i have several non resident friends, i have an idea of how much the total cost of them coming here to hunt costs. After talking with them, it wasn't neccessarily the raise in the license fee's but a raise in the cost of everything that kept them from putting in for the draw. A couple of them are some that waited and bought the tags after the draw results were announced because they didn't want to chance the draw, not draw and lose even the small fee for drawing. This way they were gauranteed to get the tags they wanted.
I do agree that the fee's are to high, and to me it feels like like the heritage that we all love is becoming a sport that only the well to do will be able to participate in.
#23
I agree with everything you say in your first paragraph. The experience has NOTHING to do with the price you pay. As far as you getting it (my point of view), please tell me where you are traveling out of state each year, spending a grand on a tag, and coming home empty handed 7 out of 10 years. And those odds are being generous for the average nonresident hunter. I can get the same "expeience" for 1/2 the money in Colorado.
Yes, there are probably many nonresident hunters who have been coming a long time, that will continue to come, but I will still bet you that it will be harder to sell out on the tags each year for the next few years
Yes, there are probably many nonresident hunters who have been coming a long time, that will continue to come, but I will still bet you that it will be harder to sell out on the tags each year for the next few years
#24
Some truth to that, but when you hunt the muzzleloader season before it gets crowded from out of state hunters, and you know where the elk are, and it cost $49 for the tag and $10 for gas.
Colorado can be sweet.
Colorado can be sweet.
#25
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
"(empty 7 out of 10 years!) You need a new hunting spot... not a new state."
Those are not my odds. Those are published odds for the "average" hunter.
In Montana, I have been there 3 times and I am 100% (two elk, 1 bear). In Colorado, I average probably slightly better than 50% but that is for probably 25 hunting seasons.
And the Montana long seasons are great..........for residents. Nonresidents have to come and hunt and get home. I certainly don't have a month to hunt. If I did, I could find a way to afford Montana.
Hey, come to Texas. A $350 nonresident tags gives you 5 whitetail, 1 mule deer, 4 turkeys and unlimited hogs and exotics. And you can come back and hunt turkeys in the spring on the same tag! Our season runs from October 1st until the first weekend in Jan. Oh that is right, you have to have a place to go in Texas with that pesky private land thing. Well, there is always something isn't there!
That is why I do swap hunts! Have swapped in Alaska, Montana, and Colorado. Will swap for Utah if I ever get picked!!!
Those are not my odds. Those are published odds for the "average" hunter.
In Montana, I have been there 3 times and I am 100% (two elk, 1 bear). In Colorado, I average probably slightly better than 50% but that is for probably 25 hunting seasons.
And the Montana long seasons are great..........for residents. Nonresidents have to come and hunt and get home. I certainly don't have a month to hunt. If I did, I could find a way to afford Montana.
Hey, come to Texas. A $350 nonresident tags gives you 5 whitetail, 1 mule deer, 4 turkeys and unlimited hogs and exotics. And you can come back and hunt turkeys in the spring on the same tag! Our season runs from October 1st until the first weekend in Jan. Oh that is right, you have to have a place to go in Texas with that pesky private land thing. Well, there is always something isn't there!
That is why I do swap hunts! Have swapped in Alaska, Montana, and Colorado. Will swap for Utah if I ever get picked!!!
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
This huge rise in MT non-res. BG Combo to over $900 is the main reason we didn't apply this year in that state.... Basically, the message I get from it is that they only want non-res. hunters with big bank accounts. That's their prerogative. So, my family won't go to MT hunting or for vacations anymore. That's ours.
#27
Spike
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5
I have friends from out of state that put in for their tags like clock work every year for diy hunts. They have a wonderful time here and have made lifelong friendships with many of the people that they have come across on their hunts here.
Bottom line is this i guess, yes it is expensive for a non resident to come here and hunt, but it's still way cheaper then a 5 day "vacation" to Disneyland or to Disneyworld. Just my 2 cents worth.
#28
Spike
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Montana
Posts: 5
One of the things that has not been discussed is the fact that the fee increase was voted on as part of a bill to abolish outfitter sponsered licenses. Voters in MT passed I-161 54%-46%.
I voted for I-161. I voted for it for many reasons. One of the problems I had with it was that the outfitter didn't have to pay for these licenses, then they can turn around and charge for them. I know they have to pay fees to be a licensed outfitter, but the fact that they can get the licenses for nothing and then sell them rubbed me the wrong way.
The way I look at it, now these licenses are available to everyone and if you buy one and still want to hire a guide, then go for it. But for the hunter who wants to hunt land that is publicly accessible (which we have A LOT of) they can do it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as opening the door to the more avid hunter, and ones that can't afford a guide. They can pay a couple hundred bucks more for the license and hunt on their own, rather than having to pay thousands for a guide.
I voted for I-161. I voted for it for many reasons. One of the problems I had with it was that the outfitter didn't have to pay for these licenses, then they can turn around and charge for them. I know they have to pay fees to be a licensed outfitter, but the fact that they can get the licenses for nothing and then sell them rubbed me the wrong way.
The way I look at it, now these licenses are available to everyone and if you buy one and still want to hire a guide, then go for it. But for the hunter who wants to hunt land that is publicly accessible (which we have A LOT of) they can do it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as opening the door to the more avid hunter, and ones that can't afford a guide. They can pay a couple hundred bucks more for the license and hunt on their own, rather than having to pay thousands for a guide.
#29
One of the things that has not been discussed is the fact that the fee increase was voted on as part of a bill to abolish outfitter sponsered licenses. Voters in MT passed I-161 54%-46%.
I voted for I-161. I voted for it for many reasons. One of the problems I had with it was that the outfitter didn't have to pay for these licenses, then they can turn around and charge for them. I know they have to pay fees to be a licensed outfitter, but the fact that they can get the licenses for nothing and then sell them rubbed me the wrong way.
The way I look at it, now these licenses are available to everyone and if you buy one and still want to hire a guide, then go for it. But for the hunter who wants to hunt land that is publicly accessible (which we have A LOT of) they can do it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as opening the door to the more avid hunter, and ones that can't afford a guide. They can pay a couple hundred bucks more for the license and hunt on their own, rather than having to pay thousands for a guide.
I voted for I-161. I voted for it for many reasons. One of the problems I had with it was that the outfitter didn't have to pay for these licenses, then they can turn around and charge for them. I know they have to pay fees to be a licensed outfitter, but the fact that they can get the licenses for nothing and then sell them rubbed me the wrong way.
The way I look at it, now these licenses are available to everyone and if you buy one and still want to hire a guide, then go for it. But for the hunter who wants to hunt land that is publicly accessible (which we have A LOT of) they can do it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as opening the door to the more avid hunter, and ones that can't afford a guide. They can pay a couple hundred bucks more for the license and hunt on their own, rather than having to pay thousands for a guide.