http://billingsgazette.com/lif...25-95e8e0b5a98d.html



Bill would guarantee nonresident hunters 10% of elk, deer, antelope, mountain lion or black bear tags

BRETT FRENCH french@billingsgazette.com 18 hrs ago

BRETT FRENCH, Gazette Staff


A House bill heard on Tuesday would guarantee nonresident hunters more licenses.
A bill to increase the number of some hunting licenses for nonresidents would add $147,000 in annual revenue for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, as well as pump money into the coffers of businesses servicing those out-of-staters, proponents argued during a Tuesday hearing.

“I don’t think the fiscal note reflects the true impact,” said by Rep. Kerry White, R-Bozeman, who sponsored House Bill 568.

The bill proposes to guarantee out-of-staters 10 percent of the elk, deer, antelope, mountain lion, or black bear licenses issued for those species. The measure was supported by the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association.

“This bill generates significant revenue,” said Jean Johnson, MOGA’s lobbyist. “The nonresident supports that (FWP) agency across the street,” with 70 percent of their budget coming from nonresident license sales.

FWP receives no money from the state general fund.

Opposing the measure were representatives from the Montana Wildlife Federation and Montana Bowhunters Association who argued that season setting should be done by the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, not the Legislature.

“Our main concern is that it is taking away authority from the FWP Commission for season setting, that’s a dangerous precedent,” said Jerry Davis, president of the MBA.

Davis and Nick Gevock, conservation director for MWF, also argued that it would take tags away from resident hunters.

“I have to advocate for resident hunters and anything that sees a decrease we would be against,” Davis said.

Mac Minard, executive director of MOGA, said Montana is in a national market to lure out-of-state hunters and needs every edge it can get to attract those people who may otherwise go to other Western states.


“I do not believe this reduces the opportunity for resident hunters,” White said. “Resident hunters have the ability to go to another area and hunt elk.”

Gevock disagreed, saying based on figures he received from FWP that residents could receive 10 fewer coveted elk tags in the Elkhorn Mountains near Helena, which is managed as a trophy elk hunting district.

The bill was amended to remove a section that would have created two archery-only subseasons for nonresident elk hunters in the Missouri River Breaks.

Information at the hearing suggested that out of 17,000 nonresident hunters who visit Montana, less than one-third use an outfitter.

No action was taken on the bill.

I don't really care what the states do about non-resident vs resident tags on state and private lands. But the federal government should require licenses and tags be issued without preference for state residency on all federal lands, even if it means that a particular state ends up issuing more tags to non-residents than residents. Again, I am speaking of federal lands only.

As I well say again it is more about money than game management.

Having lived in Montana for a decade as a resident I'm all about preference for residents even though I no longer qualify. It shouldn't be all about the money ...

That's all Montana cares about is the money.
Not much regard for the Game it's self.

I like Wisconsin. As a resident of Michigan, I have the same chance at a bear license, a preference point system, as a resident. Kudos to them!

quote:

I don't really care what the states do about non-resident vs resident tags on state and private lands. But the federal government should require licenses and tags be issued without preference for state residency on all federal lands, even if it means that a particular state ends up issuing more tags to non-residents than residents. Again, I am speaking of federal lands only.

Please be careful about what you ask for. In our great country, ownership does not yet include the right to own or manage the wildlife that lives on the land. Our present system works. Do you really want seasons, bag limits and other decisions affecting hunting and fishing on public lands across the West determined in Washington D.C.? If so, you can kiss many of the hunts we now enjoy (mountain lion, bear and sheep for starters) goodbye.

Bill Quimby

Absolutely right Bill

It was my understanding it has been 10% for non residents for deer,elk and antelope for years in the general drawing.

No kidding, all about money?, that's what it takes to maintain a game dept, feed for animals, its all about money, wildlife is not self supporting..

If you want to complain the complain about how all that money is spent, and that's your right.

I thought Boarkiller had passed on??? was that not posted here on AR? Whats going on??

Wildlife is owned by the state, migratory birds are owned by the federal government.

States Rights prevail in the management of big game species, and have since before WW2.

Anyone who is for this kind of bullshit, doesn't understand states rights.

The idea that someone would want the federal government managing big game species is a horrible idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
I don't really care what the states do about non-resident vs resident tags on state and private lands. But the federal government should require licenses and tags be issued without preference for state residency on all federal lands, even if it means that a particular state ends up issuing more tags to non-residents than residents. Again, I am speaking of federal lands only.

As other posts above, just think about the cause and effect for your idea for about three minutes, it's a terrible idea. Look how the EU is screwing up hunting in EU member states who have few rights fighting the elitists who set the rules. You think the past Federal administration would have done what's right for wildlife or for liberal elites ideologies?

Bottom line, if you like to hunt and don't want to have to hire outfitters just move to a state that's good for that. It's still somewhat of a free country.

quote:

Bottom line, if you like to hunt and don't want to have to hire outfitters just move to a state that's good for that. It's still somewhat of a free country.

Well, taking Montana as an example, WE the people of the United States, own 29% of all the land in Montana. I don't feel that locals should have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed.

quote:

Well, taking Montana as an example, WE the people of the United States, own 29% of all the land in Montana. I don't feel that locals should have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed.

Sounds simple enough but the states own the wildlife and manage the wildlife. The areas that they manage wildlife in don't often follow Fed boundaries.
I'm a fan of little or no big Government so I definitely don't want the Feds issueing licenses and managing states wildlife, please leave that to the state to decide not some suit in DC.

They only have control over big game. Those are the rights afforded the states in the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Bottom line, if you like to hunt and don't want to have to hire outfitters just move to a state that's good for that. It's still somewhat of a free country.

Well, taking Montana as an example, WE the people of the United States, own 29% of all the land in Montana. I don't feel that locals should have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed.

You win - kind of. Locals DON'T have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed. Access (your word) is the same for everyone, Federal and State land.

States manage wildlife, that's the law. If you want Feds managing hunting you'll not have to worry about out of state hunting rights, they'll screw it up pretty quickly. Problem solved!

"Well, taking Montana as an example, WE the people of the United States, own 29% of all the land in Montana. I don't feel that locals should have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed."

The percentage of federal land in Arizona is even higher, but it doesn't matter. Federal agencies (and not the states and local governments) already exercise total control over how federal land everywhere is managed/accessed.

In case you haven't noticed, the bureaucrats in D.C. sometimes have not been the friendliest to resident or non-resident hunters alike.

You obviously believe land management and wildlife management are synonymous. They are not. It's also obvious you believe wildlife should be linked to land ownership.

Let us all pray that never happens in America.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
"Well, taking Montana as an example, WE the people of the United States, own 29% of all the land in Montana. I don't feel that locals should have total control over how OUR land is managed/accessed."

The percentage of federal land in Arizona is even higher, but it doesn't matter. Federal agencies (and not the states and local governments) already exercise total control over how federal land everywhere is managed/accessed.

In case you haven't noticed, the bureaucrats in D.C. sometimes have not been the friendliest to resident or non-resident hunters alike.

You obviously believe land management and wildlife management are synonymous. They are not. It's also obvious you believe wildlife should be linked to land ownership.

Let us all pray that never happens in America.

Bill Quimby

You "OBVIOUSLY" don't know what the fuck I believe.'

quote:

In case you haven't noticed, the bureaucrats in D.C. sometimes have not been the friendliest to resident or non-resident hunters alike.

In case you haven't noticed
STATE bureaucrats are almost UNIVERSALLY unfriendly, to say the least, to non-resident hunters, especially big game hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I thought Boarkiller had passed on??? was that not posted here on AR? Whats going on??

Easy, I'm alive and well
The guy that was called hog killer went to Pig Shangri La
I'm still waiting

quote:

In case you haven't noticed
STATE bureaucrats are almost UNIVERSALLY unfriendly, to say the least, to non-resident hunters, especially big game hunters.

I must be lucky. I have done a bit of big game hunting in Wyoming, Utah, Oregon, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois as a non-resident -- as well as two states in Mexico and three provinces in Canada as an alien -- and have never encountered an unfriendly state or provincial bureaucrat.

Bill Quimby

The correct solution to the federal lands issue in western states is to sell those lands to private parties at public auction. It's absurd that 60-80% of the lands in some western states belong to the federal government.

No, that is the most anti-hunting thing I have ever heard.

If the lands are sold to the highest bidder it will lock up the entire West so no one can hunt on it.

The Texas method doesn't work to grow hunter numbers when cost of hunting escalates.

Here in Europe you have the exact situation you are talking about. The cost of local hunting destroyed hunter recruitment. The middle class being able to hunt is the single more important piece of management that wildlife needs. If you leave the management of wildlife into the hands of a select few, that select few will not choose hunting as the primary management tool.

By hunters paying for management we have a voice in that management.

Sell the fed land to private owners? Horse shit. Live in Texas if you want, but not us.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
The correct solution to the federal lands issue in western states is to sell those lands to private parties at public auction. It's absurd that 60-80% of the lands in some western states belong to the federal government.

Great idea.Then residents and non residents of those states could get to pay exorbitant lease fees in order to hunt just like TEXAS!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
The correct solution to the federal lands issue in western states is to sell those lands to private parties at public auction. It's absurd that 60-80% of the lands in some western states belong to the federal government.

NEVER!

Then all the land would belong to an elite few.

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
Great idea.Then residents and non residents of those states could get to pay exorbitant lease fees in order to hunt just like TEXAS!!!!!

The hunting land in Texas is managed very, very well. Yes, trophy hunting is expensive, but meat hunts are dirt cheap and available 365 days a year. Compare the deer hunting opportunities in California to those in Texas to see what I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:

NEVER!

Then all the land would belong to an elite few.

The lands in Texas already belong to those "elite few". They are required to pay taxes and generate a return on their capital investment. A 1,000 acre ranch might well be worth $3,000,000.00. Even a 5% rate of return is $150,000/annum after expenses, so the property must really generate at least $250,000 in revenue just to be maintained. At the end of the day a very significant percentage of land owners end up selling hunts or leasing the hunting rights.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
Great idea.Then residents and non residents of those states could get to pay exorbitant lease fees in order to hunt just like TEXAS!!!!!

The hunting land in Texas is managed very, very well. Yes, trophy hunting is expensive, but meat hunts are dirt cheap and available 365 days a year. Compare the deer hunting opportunities in California to those in Texas to see what I mean.

Hunting in California on public land for anything other than coyotes sucks. Hunting on private land in California is as good as any other private land hunting in America.

California has some of the best private land hunting programs in the nation. Tule elk, Roosevelt elk, Rocky Mountain elk, black bear, wild boar, mule/blacktail deer, sambar deer, aoudad, tahr, quite a variety.

boarkiller,
That's good news that your still on this side of the dirt, congrats we would have missed you!

I agree the feds should not have control of any big game animal, those animals belong to the states and that's the way it is, The gov. however has claim over indangerd species. and the US Forest Svce and BLm control the land, and by doing that can control the game..Then there is the wolf...The problem there is the US Fish and game flat out lied about the number of wolves they stocked..Furthermore they cannot pass math 101 in that wolves litter 2.5 times a year and have up to maybe 8 pups all of which have few and sometimes no preditors other than lions on rare occasions.. Elk and deer have one or two offspring a year, and even in the best of times one of them perish...Do the math on that and wolves will be eating kids and pets in the next generation, shades or California and the coyotes, lions, and bears..

Yep, the Gov. can mess up about anything they get involved in.

Big Government can screw up an anvil with a powder puff and do that on a daily bases.

Actually, the better solution is for the federal government to turn over the majority of those lands to the states. Then the decision on what to do with those lands could be made at the state level.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
Actually, the better solution is for the federal government to turn over the majority of those lands to the states. Then the decision on what to do with those lands could be made at the state level.

No states are stupid and greedy, and can't afford to manage public lands. They will sell them just as fast as they can to oil companies or mining companies and they will be gone forever.

The push to sell off Federal lands in the West in deeply misguided in my opinion. I live inside the National Forest boundary and have much, much more freedom to use Federal lands than I do with State owned or local government owned(open Space)lands. The pure volume of public access is what drew me to Colorado from the East Coast and I usually hunt several Western States each year. The last thing needed here is pay to play such as Texas has. Making hunting a rich mans game would not bode well for the future of our sport.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:

quote:

Originally posted by OLBIKER:
Great idea.Then residents and non residents of those states could get to pay exorbitant lease fees in order to hunt just like TEXAS!!!!!

The hunting land in Texas is managed very, very well. Yes, trophy hunting is expensive, but meat hunts are dirt cheap and available 365 days a year. Compare the deer hunting opportunities in California to those in Texas to see what I mean.

In Wisconsin we have about 3 Million acres of national Forest all hunt able for the cost of a license for what you are hunting.That does not include State and County forests available to anyone in the USA to hunt on for the cost of the license.I am lucky to live on my own hunting ground where I can hunt deer,turkey,bear,grouse,geese,ducks,but if I did not there are plenty places to go and hunt for free.That is why only federal ownership of lands in other states is so important.I can hunt in many states with lots of Federal and State land for what it cost me drive out lodging,food and gas.

Is 10% really that big of a deal? I am asking because I have no idea.

It is in line with what other states do. New Mexico has a similar number.

Non-residents are a cash cow.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
The push to sell off Federal lands in the West in deeply misguided in my opinion. I live inside the National Forest boundary and have much, much more freedom to use Federal lands than I do with State owned or local government owned(open Space)lands. The pure volume of public access is what drew me to Colorado from the East Coast and I usually hunt several Western States each year. The last thing needed here is pay to play such as Texas has. Making hunting a rich mans game would not bode well for the future of our sport.

I'll second that. Much of the East is pay-to-play for anyone who didn't inherit a farm, and agriculture attracts wild game in ways that open forests do not.
Communally-owned BLM land is precious and irreplaceable for hunters, and anyone else interested in a little time away from home.

I lived in the Mojave Desert for 3 years after having spent a year back east (after I retired from the military).

I couldn't get figure it out. You had to pay for every range day, couldn't find anyplace to hunt or shoot, or off road, or go for a drive in the country. Hell you couldn't even pull off the side of the road to pee without worrying about private lands.

Life is much better with public land.