Heard rumors things were changing. Does anybody know about a potential lottery and no outfitter tags for 2011?

D. Nelson

There was a ballot measure that passed to remove outfitter tags this last November.

I heard the price of the out of state tags are going up to around 900 dollars any truth to that.

The non-res tags will go up also. Ill see if I can find a link.

This is what passed: http://montanavoterguide.com/d...icle&id=139&imageID=


I-161 revises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.

I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.

Rather interesting that they voted against the outfitters, this could hurt that industry.
Do you think the State will sell all the permits, now that they've raise the price?
If non resident hunters feel the price is too high, the State could loss money for F&G programs.

Montana couldent sell all the non res tags this year. I'll bet the res tags will go up as well.
Going to be tough for the Outfitters.

quote:

Originally posted by Alaska Hunter:
Rather interesting that they voted against the outfitters, this could hurt that industry.
Do you think the State will sell all the permits, now that they've raise the price?
If non resident hunters feel the price is too high, the State could loss money for F&G programs.

Bottom line, whether it hurts the outfitters or not.....the residents of MT decided that in order to keep outfitters from leasing all the land and excluding everyone else, it would be better this way.....I agree 100%! No way should outfitters be guaranteed tags so every NR has to pay $5000 to kill a deer or an elk. I've drawn 5 of the last 6 years as a NR and I could care less about the increase in the cost of my tag......because I don't have to pay on outfitter for it!!

I hunted MT the last four years for deer. My friend in E. MT land owner sponsored me which gives me a very good chance to draw the deer tag. I'll have to really think hard about buying a $527 deer tag. I shot some nice deer at my friends place but no real monsters. I go there mostly to see my friends as this is the only time I get to meet with them. I would hate not getting to visit and hunt with them.
I'm neither for or aganist the outfitter tags but one would think they could have raised the non res tags $50-75 and made up for the lost in revenue in the outfitter tags. I think the state of MT got real greedy in this tag increase. And who really thinks that the private land the outfitters leased will be open for anyone to hunt for free.

Wonder what they will charge when all that is left are wolves?

Outfitters are not loved by a lot of Montana Resident land owners.That is why The Block Management has worked so well.There still will be people who want to use an Outfitter when they draw.maybe this will weed out the ones who could not guide with out leaseing land!!!

going to be tough on the ranchers that will lose that lease $$. tough on the Out fitters who cant guarentee a tag for a hunter. Doubt that the resident hunters will be able to afford to lease the ranches . I think Montana has cut it's nose off despite her face.

Actually MOntana state officials or FWP did not sponsor this legislation. It was initiated by certain individuals and local hunting organizations opposed to the guaranteed tags. Gathering ~23000 signitures as a ballot measure with enough voters signing that petition got it placed on the November ballot.

The reasoning behind this was to even the playing field for what was perceived to be an inequity of license distribution between outfitters who controlled large private ground and the adjacent public acess, the run of the mill non-resident hunting liceses, and the Montana resident licenses. In theory, land owners will now be more friendly to allowing hunting on their ranches and/or open access to public lands they stand in front of now.

Will it work? I doubt it, but it's hard to say. These ranchers, many of whom are absentee owners, IMHO are NOT going to roll over and become friends with the common man. Real ranchers are just going to be pissed that them city dwellers are tellin 'em how they can manage their property. Proponents of I-161 claim it was a blatant privatization of public wildlife and it needed to be stopped, which is this best valid point that I can see.

In addition, about 75% or 80% of the funding for block management came from the sale of these licenses. The effectiveness of block management is a whole other subject, but the result is that funding will have to adjusted via the entire 11000 non-resident tags available.

What I think is likely to happen is that the outfitters will be the biggest loser simply because these ranches will be leased Texas style to one or five or twenty or..........individuals for whatever the market will bear and the residents and the non-resident hunters and the remaining outfitters can all "go eat cake." I have seen a significant increase in private leasing over the past few years anyway.

The only way that I can see for wildlife to stay on public land is to improve their habitat and provide wildlife security. Private ranches have both of these things. Until public land managers refocus to improve habitat and state or federal FWP departments control security by way of contolling hunting pressure, it's only going to get worse until it all comes to the crisis point.

Anybody interesting in hunting the king's deer? Anything learned from history?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yellowstone:
Actually MOntana state officials or FWP did not sponsor this legislation. It was initiated by certain individuals and local hunting organizations opposed to the guaranteed tags. Gathering ~23000 signitures as a ballot measure with enough voters signing that petition got it placed on the November ballot.

The reasoning behind this was to even the playing field for what was perceived to be an inequity of license distribution between outfitters who controlled large private ground and the adjacent public acess, the run of the mill non-resident hunting liceses, and the Montana resident licenses. In theory, land owners will now be more friendly to allowing hunting on their ranches and/or open access to public lands they stand in front of now.

Will it work? I doubt it, but it's hard to say. These ranchers, many of whom are absentee owners, IMHO are NOT going to roll over and become friends with the common man. Real ranchers are just going to be pissed that them city dwellers are tellin 'em how they can manage their property. Proponents of I-161 claim it was a blatant privatization of public wildlife and it needed to be stopped, which is this best valid point that I can see.

In addition, about 75% or 80% of the funding for block management came from the sale of these licenses. The effectiveness of block management is a whole other subject, but the result is that funding will have to adjusted via the entire 11000 non-resident tags available.

What I think is likely to happen is that the outfitters will be the biggest loser simply because these ranches will be leased Texas style to one or five or twenty or..........individuals for whatever the market will bear and the residents and the non-resident hunters and the remaining outfitters can all "go eat cake." I have seen a significant increase in private leasing over the past few years anyway.

The only way that I can see for wildlife to stay on public land is to improve their habitat and provide wildlife security. Private ranches have both of these things. Until public land managers refocus to improve habitat and state or federal FWP departments control security by way of contolling hunting pressure, it's only going to get worse until it all comes to the crisis point.

Anybody interesting in hunting the king's deer? Anything learned from history?[/QUOTE

So how does 70 to 80 % of Block Management come from 5,000 elk tags and 2200 Deer A tags????There are still 12,000 Elk tags sold by drawing,2000 non resident and 2000 landowner tags sold.
I would not be against paying a trespass fee to hunt.I think most outfitters payed by the animal killed and not a yearly fee.
I think its a win,win for the landowner and the hunters.

Anytime there is a 3rd party involved, someone is going to be taken advantage of. Pure and simple. Let the landowners, ranchers, absentee owners...whatever, deal directly with the hunters by whatever means necessary, whether it be a trespass fee for access, a trespass fee and an animal taken (trophy) fee combo or whatever the owner deems necessary for a fair shake towards covering his costs for operations. Why muddy the waters with a 3rd party agent? That 3rd party agent comes at a cost...sometimes a huge cost. Perhaps this will mean more real profit for the rancher/owner and less cost overall for the hunter...giving both more opportunity to get whatever they are after. Kind of like tossing the union out, and we all know what they cost both parties!

The Block Management is or was funded almost entirely from the sale of non-resident tags, outfitted or otherwise. In addition, residents chipped in with a hunter access enhancement fee tacked on to their yearly license. There are about 9 million acres under block management open to hunting. The 1200+ landowners that have signed up get about $10 per hunter evey time some one comes on their land to hunt and they receive a complimentary huntinng license.

I don't think that BM is going away because of the passing of I-161. That isn't the purpose of I-161, but outfitters who are still leasing private land will have to adjust their business plan to the larger 11000 non-resident tag pool instead of being able to work in the 5500 guaranteed client base. In the end, that may not be a bad thing.

Montana has been slow to embrace outfitting as an industry. It used to be just a few hardy souls, but now the ranks of outfitters have bloomed out. I believe the resistance to outfitting is two fold. First, there is a lot of public land in our 4th largest state so hunters were used to going where they wanted to without interference or competition from professional hunting entities. That is tied to the second point. It just hasn't been "the cowbyoy way" to close off hunting or deny access to the public land beyond the gate. The times have changed and the clock isn't going to roll back.

I am a firm believer in private property rights. What a landowner does on his ranch lawfully and ethically is his right....period. I may not like to see 500 head of elk on a ranch I can't get on, but I can pay the, as you say, trespass fee, and go kill one or two. It is still a defacto privatization of public wildlife because of better habitat and better security.

Montana Guides and Outfitters Assoc. has been pretty quite since the November ballot, but I imagine that they're working hard to adjust and their out of state clients have probably been advised along with recommendations to go along with it.

I still contend that improving habitat on public land and providing better wildlife security will help a great deal in dispersing the huge number of elk that roam the private valleys of Montana even as we speak.

Yup, just what they need to do is raise prices. $5000 or a million is no difference to me. I will miss hunting Montana.

I think there has to be some responsibility from the out of state hunters as well. I drew a combo tag 4 years in a row, drove out early to hunt mule deer and spent a lot of time trying to get some trespass rights which were basically nonexistent. I was more than willing to pay $200-300 to be able to trespass on some nice ground around the the Broadus area and spoke to quite a few ranchers who had ground near the Powder River. All of them turned me down, year after year, not becasue I think they really wanted to, but rather because they got caught up in the outfitter-lease system that basically has everything locked up around there for 30 miles in every direction.

I think if you are going to go out to Montana and ask to hunt deer on folks ground you should expect to pay a reasonable fee to do so.