Hikchick

AMEN!!!!

Pace Maker

(quote) While hard to swallow you were willing to pay that price. So are are over 13,000 other people. You tell me what incentive the state of Montana has to change the price of their tags. (quote)

So as a non-resident I'm suppose to stay in my state and hunt because the price of a license is more than what "I" think it should be? And this is going to help things? It's like anything else, the Red Sox finally win a world series and the price of tickets go up. And they're sold out. People are going to pay for what they want to do. My opinion is these states are seeing how much money they can get, because people are willing pay, and they're not going to lower any prices. It's all about the money to the State. And, you're not going to stop people from paying because if I stop, there's another NR right behind me that's going to pay. How many times have you seen rates of anything go down? I doubt it's ever going to happen.

(quote) I advocate doing away completely with the outfitter set aside tags and placing those tags directly into the NR draw quota. The price of tags would come down and the price of outfitting would come down if the outfitters had to compete every year for your business.(quote)

I would imagine this would do nothing more than put a lot of outfitters out of business. I can't see how you could run a business not knowing how many clients you were going to get each year. That doesn't see fair. It doesn't seem to me that too many outfitters get rich doing this. I think most do it because they love doing it.

(quote) But don't come in and demand that all us lowly residents stand aside and bow down to you because you grace us with your presence and drop a couple hundred or even a couple of thousand dollars into our economy. (quote)

I don't consider people that live where I travel to hunt, above or below me. And I certainly don't expect anyone to bow dow to me because I'm putting money into your economy. I can't afford a residence in every place I hunt.

Like I said, I don't know the answer to this problem. But, it's not going to get resolved sparking up a resident/non-resident debate. That's just going to get hunters against hunters. If there is a problem in your state with the way tags are distributed then that matter should be taken up with the residents of the state, not posted on a board for the whole world to see. All you'll spark doing this is controversy. And the anti's just love reading arguements between hunters I'm sure.

kshunter

Your statements are out there. Why you attack me in your posts, I do not know. But the funniest thing is why is the "Kansas rifle vs bow" discussion being brought up when that's not even the topic at hand. The correlation of that topic being involved is vague at best. If anybody wanted to talk about your ambitious "rifle vs. bow" hunter topic, then it would have been brought up well before the 9th page. I as well as you am very interested in HB2115, since it looks like it could go either way. But then again that's a different topic. If you started another informative topic, then I'd with not doubt read it, as to that is how we all learn.

Please leave your anti-bowhunting sentimentism and pro-rifle elitism out of here. For the sake of all of us. If you can maturely debate at the real topic with "Taulman Objective" then do so, otherwise grow up!!! Not sure why you're so eager to cause a racket with fellow hunters. Go back and read you 1st first... Life is too short to be an a$$.

kshunter

.

Nemont

Pace Maker,
My point is exactly the same as yours. People are willing to pay for the ability to hunt, if you don't pay the price there is someone else willing to. My question wasn't whether it is correct and justifiably to price tags so high but what incentive does the State of Montana have to lower the price? Just like the Red Sox there are many, many willing buyers for a limited number of seats.

Just so you know I guided for an outfitter for big game and later for waterfowl. I have family who work in the Outfitting business. You are missing the point of what I was saying. NR hunters want a chance to hunt in western states, Montana's outfitter set aside tags take away opportunity for the "average" DIY hunter to get a tag. If you put the outfitter set aside tags into the general draw then there would be that many more tags for the averag hunter.

As for outfitter guaranteed tags and them going broke I don't think that is necessarily the case. First off do you know any other business that is guaranteed a client base that they don't have to competer for? Why outfitters? There would still be many NR who wish to use their services. Doing away with outfitter set asides would do two things. Make the marginal outfitter either shape up or drive them out of business. It would make the really good outfitters more competitive. That would be good for everybody especially NR hunters. In addition it would open up thousand and thousand of tags which would be more likely distributed to the "average hunter" then the outfitter set aside tags in use today. It is not an anti outfitter proposal but a pro NR "average Joe" proposal. Now tell me what is wrong with opening up more opportunity to more average hunters, doing away with guaranteed tags (the total number of tags would remain the same), getting outfitters to compete for your business and at the same time addressing most of the concerns Taulman's case raises.

You are paying $977.25 for an outfitter sponsored tag that would have cost you $640.25 if you had taken your chances in the general drawing. It looks to me like not only were you willing to pay the price to hunt in Montana but were also willing to pay $337.00 or 52.6% more for a guaranteed tag. If that tag was made more readily available to you in the general draw which price would you be more willing to pay? Anyone who is willing to pay the price can hunt in Montana every year for elk and deer, waterfowl, upland birds, varmits etc. Pace Maker, you voluntarily paid a lot more for a tag then you would have had to, so tell me why the State of Montana should take pity on your problem because it appears that you are making choices on your own accord?

You need to go back and look at who started the entire issue to start with. It was not resident hunters who have a problem with the way the State divvy up tags. It was not the resident hunters who picked the fight. If you don't like seeing hunter vs. hunters then maybe you should tell the NR hunters who are leading the charge to do away with the current system. I don't like the hunter vs. hunter fight either but I didn't pick it and don't really want to sit back and have my hunting opportunities ended.

Nemont

kshunter

Any other business depends solely on its ability to advertise and provide service/product, some outfitters are demanding that the state help give them special state status (whether by ttag or any other means). This is neither good business sense for the state nor good for ANY hunters-res or NR.

SpyroAndes

When did our states become versions of e-bay? Auctioning of services to the highest bidders? It is a dangerous step to allow government to act like big business.

Because if we did, the first thing they would probably do is sub-contract our police, fire and educational systems.

Government is here to SERVE THE PEOPLE not to EXPLOIT THE PEOPLE.

I agree... Prefered Status to Guided Clients is stupid.

Not a thing... remember to drop those prices too...



This war wasn't started by the nonresident hunters or George Taulman.

This war was started by THESE STATES!

Since the nonresident isn't allowed to vote in their state elections, the only avenue to fire back at the states was through the courts.

SpyroAndes

Landowner Permits...

Outfitter/Guide Pools...

Outfitter Tags...

They are all bad for the average nonresident and resident.

Here is a quick example of what I am talking about...

Antelope in Nevada's Unit XXX... Draw Odd for Non-Residents is traditional around 25 to 1 for the 7 tags issued or, if you have the $$$, you can buy 1 of the 5 Landowner permits for a measly $3000.

Why not just put the permits in the nonresident pool and lower the draw odds to 15 to 1 or so? Because there isn't the money in it.

Nemont

The State is not behaving like EBay there is no bidding, there is one set price, that analogy doesn't even make sense. They are behaving like an entity which has a highly valuable resource and attempting to meet the demand for that resource. I find it interesting that you would compare hunting tags to providing fire, police and educational services. I happen to think those are not in the same category as big game tags.

Did you read my entire post?
The price is already 52.6% cheaper if you choose not use an outfitter
Imagine what the price would be if all the Outfitter sponsored tags were in the general draw pool. More available tags would eventually lead to lower prices. I think you need to review who you are actually so mad at. In Montana the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) has incredible political sway. Whom do you think supports outfitters with big $$$ Residents or Non Residents?

You have yet to come up with a coherent alternative to the current system. There is no workable solution to the Federal Lands argument. I also do not believe that the States started the war. Wealthy NR hunters who want to hunt when ever and where ever they please started the war. When I go to Idaho or Wyoming I bitch and moan about the price to hunt I just enjoy it. When I go to New York City I gripe about the costs of hotel rooms and cost of dinner, I just pay it. Nobody is being forced to pay anything if they do not want to. Look at Pace Maker, I am sure he is a quality individual highly ethical and motivated hunter. Yet he wants us to say that for him to get a guaranteed outfitter sponsored tag to come to Montana to hunt and pay $977.25 is unjust. Nobody said to him he HAD to hunt in Montana, he wanted to. I am done posting on this thread anyway because I have stated my opinions and no amount of arguing is going to change them.

If you believe Taulmans lawsuit and Conservation Force Attorneys are going to get you any more opportunity to hunt in the west at a lower price you need some therapy. They do not care what the price of tags goes to just that there are a few more that go to NR hunters. It is about money on both sides of the issue but ole George will not care if his clients have to pay $3,000 for an elk tag and another $3,500 for the hunt because that still pays his bills. He knows he can still sell out at that price because there are plenty of guys with that kind of money.

I am for the average NR hunter who comes and hunts. He doesn't make alot of money but saves up so he can come on a couple of hunts. I would help him out everytime I see him. I really don't need to help out anyone who can afford a guide and guaranteed combo tag.

Nemont

SpyroAndes

Do you know what free enterprise is?

They are acting like private profit driven corporations setting prices as high as the market allows. That is not Government... That is a Capitalistic Enity that is Profit Driven.

You evidently didn't understand the sub-contracting issue regarding police, fire and schools. It is called out-sourcing and it is the method of corporations that are only interested in the bottomline. It is based up doing what you do best (e.g. govern) and leave the support stuff to people who do that best. It would not shock me if the state out-sourced payroll to ADP, human resources or IT services because it is cheaper.

If it is all about making the most profit possible, I am sure that we could outsource our fire, police and educational services.

Maybe all the state administrative jobs could be out-sourced to India as well. You only have to pay them a third of what an American makes. Think about all that money!

My point... which sailed over your head like a bullet shot from a guy's barrell w/ buck fever... is that we shouldn't be setting our tag prices based up the maximum that the market will allow (e.g. the highest bidder hence the e-bay comment) because a government agency shouldn't be looking to turn the highest profit margin possible.

SA