2011-2011 Montana Deer Tag

W

WORKNMAN

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-10 AT 07:40AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-29-10 AT 07:40?AM (MST)

Did Montana just raise their Deer tag cost to $500.00 for 2011-2012 season. If so, I'm done up there. If so how does everyone feel about this?
 
I called the Montana DWR this morning, the cost of a 2011-2012 Deer tag is actually $542.00. I dont think so....they can keep them!!
 
The reason is initiative 161 which was voted on in November. The residents of Montana wanted to do away with the guaranteed outfitter tags so to make up the revenue the non-Outfitter NR tags skyrocketed.
 
>The reason is initiative 161 which
>was voted on in November.
>The residents of Montana wanted
>to do away with the
>guaranteed outfitter tags so to
>make up the revenue the
>non-Outfitter NR tags skyrocketed.

Did resident tag costs jump up like NR tag costs?
 
Resident tags stay the same. My fam and friends from Utah who put in are going to stop doing so. I did not vote for it, most who did really didn't know all the ramifications of it. I wish that whomever was in charge of this gettin pushed so hard and fast would get on the delisting of the wolf campaign. I personally don't see why the extra $200 is such a deal breaker. When gas goes way up, non-residents still go to mt to hunt. With as many guys who come here and drink beer and drive millions of miles of dirt roads in brand new diesel trucks as I see, what's another $200? If you have been putting in and continue to do so, your odds just got better I think : )

"That's a special feeling, Lloyd"
 
Still a great deal IMO.Dont like it dont come.Leaves more tags for my non res buddies also.
 
I don't know that it's a great deal. Its higher than Colorado and standard hunts in New Mexico, but not by an absurd amount. I was prepared to pay for guaranteed outfitter tags in 2011 so it's actually a price break for me. I think my chances for drawing a tag are still extremely good though at least on elk.
 
And I thought NV was spendy!

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p248/nv_hunter/nevadaanimatedhelmetwd2.gif[/IMG]
 
just so u guys know that was NOT a initiative the residents of montana wanted. that was a closed door B.S. move. i feel bad for all the outfitters Here they are going to have a rough time gettin over this. our state is run by liberal lobbyists and the laws passed here not the true views of real montanans, but of transplants with big money.
 
tufcntry,

Not sure where you get your ideas...but apparently you dont have the pulse of the average Montana hunter.

I was born in Montana and lived there for 31 years before moving away 11 years ago.

I well remember when the Outfitter Sponsored licenses were being negotiated by the MTGOA and the hunting public. It was brought about to fund a then new program called Block Management. It sounded good and the MT residents hunters liked the idea of having block management open up more opportunities to the DIY and resident guys. One of the "agreements" was that the outfitters in MT were to never lease more acreage than was enrolled in Block Management. The MTGOA was to keep track and monitor the amount of acreage being enrolled. Rightfully so, as one of the fears that we all had at the time was that OSL's would increase the number of outfitters operating in MT and also increase the acreage they would lease as they were assured revenue via the OSL's.

In true form, when you let any group, "audit" themselves...the MTGOA never ONCE, not ONE TIME, produced a single document in regard to how many acres they were leasing.

This has gone on since 1994-95 when the OSL's were agreed to.

Its also my contention, and the contention of many other serious MT hunters, that the OSL's were giving guaranteed business to shady outfitters...or at a minimum some that ran real chicken-$hit operations. The NR hunters that wanted to hunt any given year, were pretty much at the mercy of either terrible draw odds, or if they wanted to hunt for sure...the outfitter sponsored license was their only other option.

The outfitting industry also cut its own throat, in some cases treating the average MT resident hunter as trash. Myself and many of my friends have had run-ins with some of those pukes. I've had them try to run me off public lands, not be willing to work together to assure everyone has a quality hunt, etc. etc. etc.

That being said, I've also been around some really first class outfitters as well. Its just too bad that it only takes a couple run-ins with one or two jerk-a$$ outfitters to ruin it for the rest.

In response to being lied to, seeing more and more acreage being leased up, the MT residents had enough. There were also other issues that came up, mainy the outfitting lobby only worrying about themselves while kicking the diy NR's and Resident hunters to the curb every chance they got.

You largely reap what you sow...and the Resident hunters were sick and tired of being sick and tired. The MTGOA and the outfitting lobby should take a long look in the mirror for the reasons that I-161 passed.

I'm also 100% sure that the best outfitters that are aware of and show respect to themselves, the clients, the wildlife, and their fellow NR and R do-it-yourself hunters...will rise to the top and have even more successful businesses. Those guys were doing well long before a single OSL was issued. The outfitters that were only surviving via the OSL welfare program...well, good riddance.
 
Do you think 161 will make ranchers stop leasing their land? I don't see how this will help the res hunter. I hunt a friends ranch in central MT and I know a lot of pissed off land owners.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-30-10 AT 10:55AM (MST)[p]I can afford the tag as can most on here I assume.

BUT - how long before hunter recruitment goes to zero because hunters are held hostage by Game & Fish/DNR agencies and outrageous fees. It is happening all over the country. The hunters pay the freight for everyone and the anti's sit back and laugh - and file lawsuits.

I can think short-term and say "awesome for me - less competition". But for how long? Long-term God help us if we don't have a population that hunts or at least understands it. Hunters are already a tiny minority but luckily most non-hunters are rational, reasonable people and are not ANTI hunting. My fear is when that tide changes.
 
Craig,

Tough to say, my gut tells me no, it wont open up more private land. The thing I find odd though is that any landowners would be upset. If anything, I-161 gives them a broader market to lease their land. They arent at the mercy of what an outfitter is willing to pay. They can lease to individuals who will likely have a better chance at drawing a tag. I'm sure all tags will be 60-100% draw odds now. Pretty tough for a NR to want to lease some property with only a 30-50% chance of drawing. That in turn, pretty much limited who a landowner could lease from (outfitters were the ONLY real choice via the OSL's). I think now the landowners will have a better chance to make more money and not be at the mercy of leasing to only an outfitter.

I could be wrong and maybe a bunch of landowners will jump into the Block Management program. I've heard rumors of some wanting to do that already.

What I do know, is that it likley wont be any worse access wise from what we have now. Time will tell.

upmuley,

I somewhat agree with you, but MT has a program now where a NR can buy a reduced price tag for their kids. What I'm seeing more and more is parents without a clue. You can buy kids cheap licenses in most any state. In WY, for less than $200, you can get kids a buck and 2 doe antelope tags...pretty good deal. Most all states are very aware of the recruitment problem, but its a many pronged problem, license prices probably not even being one of the top 5.

I also feel that hunters largely funding wildlife is an inherent strength, its more than obvious who pays the bills and who just blows smoke. That is something we want to maintain, and if that means paying more for licenses...IMO, cheap insurance for an arguement that cant be topped.
 
I voted against Initiative I-161 as well. I just dont see any of the things that they said were pros actually happening. I dont see anymore private land actually opening up. It just turned landowners against hunters that much more. Thats just my feelings.
 
>Craig,
>
>Tough to say, my gut tells
>me no, it wont open
>up more private land. The
>thing I find odd though
>is that any landowners would
>be upset. If anything, I-161
>gives them a broader market
>to lease their land. They
>arent at the mercy of
>what an outfitter is willing
>to pay. They can lease
>to individuals who will likely
>have a better chance at
>drawing a tag. I'm sure
>all tags will be 60-100%
>draw odds now. Pretty tough
>for a NR to want
>to lease some property with
>only a 30-50% chance of
>drawing. That in turn, pretty
>much limited who a landowner
>could lease from (outfitters were
>the ONLY real choice via
>the OSL's). I think now
>the landowners will have a
>better chance to make more
>money and not be at
>the mercy of leasing to
>only an outfitter.
>
>I could be wrong and maybe
>a bunch of landowners will
>jump into the Block Management
>program. I've heard rumors of
>some wanting to do that
>already.
>
>What I do know, is that
>it likley wont be any
>worse access wise from what
>we have now. Time will
>tell.
>
>upmuley,
>
>I somewhat agree with you, but
>MT has a program now
>where a NR can buy
>a reduced price tag for
>their kids. What I'm seeing
>more and more is parents
>without a clue. You can
>buy kids cheap licenses in
>most any state. In WY,
>for less than $200, you
>can get kids a buck
>and 2 doe antelope tags...pretty
>good deal. Most all states
>are very aware of the
>recruitment problem, but its a
>many pronged problem, license prices
>probably not even being one
>of the top 5.
>
>I also feel that hunters largely
>funding wildlife is an inherent
>strength, its more than obvious
>who pays the bills and
>who just blows smoke. That
>is something we want to
>maintain, and if that means
>paying more for licenses...IMO, cheap
>insurance for an arguement that
>cant be topped.

But if Dad can't afford a tag for himself is he taking Johnny hunting? No. Generally, people start hunting because they go out with their father. I don't know too many people who don't hunt or buy a tag but take their son hunting because a youth tag is cheap. I know what you are saying but I don't think the cheap youth tags make much if any difference in recruitment.
 
You dont need to take johnny on an out of state hunt...try hunting in-state.

If a NR hunter can afford it, most every state has reduced price youth hunts.

The states can not price NR tags so that everyone can play...just the way it is, and always has been. The trouble with people now days is they want it all, and they dont want to sacrifice anything to get it.

Its a pretty selfish father that would say, "well if I dont get a cheaper tag, then I'm not going to take little johnny". How interested are you in the future of the sport with a statement like that?

There is NO question that there is way more opportunities for youth hunting than there has ever been. Special seasons, reduced price tags, longer seasons, cow/doe seasons all season, youth duck hunting days, etc. etc. etc.

If you cant get your kids excited with those kind of opportunities in the state where you're a resident, I dont think lowering NR tag prices is going to help.

If parents spent more time with their kids outdoors hunting, fishing, camping, trapping, etc. etc. etc. instead of whining about NR license fees...there would be way more interest.
 
I must be one of the dissenting few because I will have no problem paying the new NR license fees to hunt Montana. Even if the combo tag settles at $900 or so, it's still a hell of a lot cheaper than an elk tag in Wyoming or Nevada, and you get to hunt both species.

As far as I-161 is concerned, I just hope the folks in Montana don't take it in the ear financially when many NR hunters decide not to pay the new prices. Idaho learned that lesson 2 seasons ago and I hope it isn't repeated.

Anyway...interesting topic. I'll be curious to see how things play out next year.

Raghorn Hunting Services
www.raghornhuntingservices.com
[email protected]
 
>> How much state tax do you pay in MT?........Thats what i thought.

Unless you're hunting on state owned property I don't care what you paid in state tax to Montana. The last time I checked national forest, BLM, etc were paid for with my federal tax dollars as well as yours. The only reason NR's pay more is they can't vote for state politicians.

I will be very surprised if 161 increased the amount of public land available to hunt or increased the chances of drawing more than a few percent at best.
 
You mean the Indians didnt want this LOL!

You Montana boys are spoiled up there. Better to have your wildlife agency take care of Residents, versus what we have in Colorado where the DOW hands everything to the Nonresidents. Now I bet because of this we're (CO) going to get even more hunters and crowds
 
>just so u guys know that
>was NOT a initiative the
>residents of montana wanted. that
>was a closed door B.S.
>move.

Huh? Montana residents voted it in. Wrong.

>i feel bad for
>all the outfitters Here they
>are going to have a
>rough time gettin over this.

Good outfitters will prosper. Crappy ones will no longer have guaranteed business.

I-161 has holes in it. Thinking that private ranchers are going to open up to us poor, wretched locals is highly unlikely.

The Outfitters did this to themselves by getting greedy and operating like crooks. They have a pathetic quality control system. I hunt public land exclusively and have had multiple run ins with guides and outfitters bent solely on bagging a critter for their hunter vs. obeying the law.

We MT residents have it pretty good here and get off very cheap. The pendulum will swing again, the government will continue to step in and protect whining outfitters one session and whining resident hunters the next.

I don't belong to a political party, but the Republicans seem to be in the pockets of ranchers and outfitters vs. locals. I'm guessing things might improve for outfitters in the next few sessions.
 
think about the ammount of money you spend to go hunting each year and im sure you will soon realize that a few hundred extra is a drop in the bucket. if you cant afford the tag fee how are you going to afford fuel, groceries, transportation costs, gear and all the other costs associated with an out of state hunt?
 
Unreal.... The outfitting industry in Mt., PRIOR to the OSL ,was over 500 ACTIVE hunting outfitters...and were leasing 8 million plus acres(reported by LAW). After the "guaranteed" license came into play....6.2 million acres leased and 420 ACTIVE hunting outfitters.....anyone who thinks there was a "guaranteed living" is an idiot, or just plain stupid. The OSL was no different than a car or a couch on a showroom floor...we had to first find someone who wanted to hunt with us, then they could get a license from the state...

Access was the main issue of 161....but tell me, when the facts are this: 30+million acres of public land w/ adequate access, and nearly 9 million acres of Block Management...how can their be an access issue? Let's see, 6.2 leased by outfitters vs. 39 million open acres???? Be honest...there can be no access issue...the issue can be summed up in three (yes, 3) words....ACCESS TO QUALITY.... see the Mt. Dept of FWP has allowed the residents of Montana to hunt themselves out of quality....so they vote in 161 to take a shot getting access to the managed lands.....the biologists of other states in the west refer to Montana as "a third world country" when it comes to management of mule deer and elk in general season areas... if the land that I hunt/manage were opened up to the public they would shoot it out in 2-3 days...

So the residents have spoken...161 passed... no gates will be unlocked...they still won't have access to quality, maybe then they will finally wake up and demand the FWP commission to manage BIOLOGICALLY.

What I do not understand is why any non-resident, unless they have a great place to hunt, would pay the increase in license to hunt Montana. What are you getting for your 40&60%+ increase in license fees? A chance to hunt already overhunted public lands?(before anyone get's goofy..I know there are areas of public land w/ good hunting, but they are few and far between)....A $912 elk/deer tag, a chance to take a 2 year old mule deer and little to no chance of beating the wolves to an elk.....I would not pay for it either.

Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter
 
SOUNDS LIKE MONTANA HAS A CHANCE TO GO THE WAY IDAHO IS GOING........GOING, GOING.......BROKE......I'M DONE WITH BOTH STATES.............YD.
 
IMO its the outfitters that are going to go broke not the state,now they have to actually work to get hunters to go with them.
 
mthunter87,

Its always entertaining to read something like you just wrote, if nothing else for the humor alone.

For starters, I'd like to see the law that required outfitters to submit how many acres of land they were leasing. I'd also like to look at the yearly totals from 1980-2010...funny thing is though...there are no public records of it???

Oh, thats right outfitters were all on the "honor" system...sweet. How many cash deals were made with leases? How many times were outfitters audited on how much they lease?

Ever heard the story about the fox guarding the hen house?

This issue is also not just about access, its about equity in business. I find it funny that you downplay the impact that OSL's had on the outfitting industry. If the program was so bad...why are you complaining that its now gone? If getting rid of the OSL's really isnt going to open other lands...why are you worried about? Why even bring it up? Isnt it more fair to allow ALL hunters to draw tags from the same pool and then CHOOSE if they even want to hire an outfitter?

I know the answers, was there when the osl's were negotiated and listened to the lies...

Further, there is no question that DIY hunters spend more money at a wider variety of businesses than the guided hunter. Many rent vehicles, eat at restaurants, stay at hotels...instead of just flying into the nearest airport and then staying with the outfitter.

As to DIY NR hunters not having access to top quality game on accessible lands...what a joke.

You make it sound as though a NR's only choice is to book on some private land and hunt in a hayfield to find a quality experience or a quality animal. That just isnt true...the NR hunter with some ambition and common sense can not only have a quality experience, but also has the chance to take quality animals as well.

I'll be buying tags in MT as long as I'm alive and breathing...even though the wolves ate all the elk and there is no quality animals on public accessible land in MT...

Just a wee sample of the poor hunting found on public lands in Montana by DIY hunters...

IMG_3291.JPG


IMG_2762.JPG


DSCN5616.JPG


buzzdadelk04.JPG


2010deer%20065.jpg


mtwt03.JPG


hvywt2.JPG


IMG_2796.JPG


IMG_1555.JPG
 
I just want to say...When I did have the opportunity to hunt S.E.Montana. Me and my friends had a great time. 99% of the locals in Brodus were great!! I still miss breakfast at that little restraunt going North out of Brodus on the left...GREAT FOOD!! But...My good friend has Hunted up there by purchasing the Elk/Deer combo tag. He has had problems the last three years with individuals trying to run him off BLM and state ground. What's up with that....are people really makeing that much money up there to try and run people off state and BLM ground. That's BS who is ever doing it.
 
Buzz, but here we go again, more mis-information, spread by the unknowing.

The Montana Board of Outfitters, regulated by the Labor and Industry Dept. in Montana requires by LAW that outfitters report every acre, down to the lot, that they operate on. If we are caught operating on private land not in our "operations plan" we faced stiff fines and loss of the OSL....so that kinds shoots your uninformed arguement in the back end.

Further, if you read my previous post, I stated that there are areas of good hunting on public land, I grew up hunting BLM, CMR, ect....The facts remain, most of Montana is over-hunted. If it were not 161 would never have come about.

Spending more money...get real. The average DIY hunter brings his own tent/camper, food from home, and own vehicle. The only business(not to diminish the revenue created) to really benefit are the gas stations and local tavern. If you doubt me on this feel free to call (i ain't hard to find) and I will give you the number of our local business' that sell me gas/groceries/ect....
 
I agree, running folks off BLM, State, ect., is wrong. Turn them in for harassment.
 
mthunter87,

I dont buy it...I'll need to see some proof of the number of acres that outfitters have/are leasing before I believe it. I'd also like to see an audit of same. I've personally seen outfitters make landowners offers to lease in the middle of hunting seasons...more than a few times.

Also, you're 100% wrong about the NR DIY not spreading the money out to local economies VS just pulling into some outfitters lodge/home.

I've hunted more than just a little bit as a NR and I've seen what goes on. I'll give you a perfect example...try booking a room in Clayton NM during the 3 day public antelope hunt.

All DIY hunters and you better book a hotel the day the draws come out. I also noticed that a vast majority of those DIY hunters were in the restaurants in the morning, and again in the evening.

I should also make it clear, that I work in 8 states and travel a bunch for work. I've learned through the years that there are a lot of places I have to book a couple months in advance if I want to have a place to stay during hunting seasons...in MT, ID, WY, CO, UT, AZ, etc. etc.

There is not even a remote doubt in my mind that NR DIY hunters spend more money in local economies...intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer.

I also noticed that you skirted many questions, but the big one is why you're griping about the OSL's being voted out if they really were such a bad deal for the outfitters?

I never get an answer to that question for some reason???

Why is it such a bad deal to get rid of OSL's?

Whats so unfair about ONE draw and then let successful applicants decide if they want to book with an outfitter or hunt on their own?
 
The one thing that the OSL did was provide stability to outfitting industry of Montana. IF(and that is the key word)an outfitter was able to market their hunt a client could then go and buy a license, thru the state....but in order to have this happen the outfitter first had to find someone willing to utilize their services....this has not been easy, as proved by the number of outfitters prior to the OSL vs. the number of active hunting outfitters now....and the number of leased acres prior to the set aside vs. the number now....

If you are questioning my honesty....feel free to call the Dept. of Labor and Industry in Helena Mt...they are not hard to find either...and ask for the acres leased by active outfitters...only the acreage is not totally acurate...see FISHING outfitters must also report any PRIVATE lands they CROSS to access a stream/river..so it isn't just acres leased to hunt on(however fishing acres are pretty much insignificant)..just a little more FYI...

W/ the OSL we had rules and regulations to follow: now we no longer have the priviledge of using the OSL, no more rules. The outfitting industry has again be de-regulated, hence my ads in several papers seeking to lease and expand...see when we had the OSL expansion was really tough...had to buy out other outfitters Net Client Hunting Use(NCHU)(there are 3 catagories, Cat 1 was the deer and deer/elk guaranteed) or go thru the state for NCHU(which only 2 outfitters ever did, the public comment period was particulary ugly) in order to expand.....now w/ the OSL gone all of our NCHU is automatically kicked down to Cat. 2 NCHU, which there are approx. 15000 of, and only 17K license so outfitters can expand, the sky is the limit so to speak...so kindly do not attempt to tell me that I know not what I am talking about...I know the rules/regs/laws/ect. inside out and backward... I had to put up w/ all this crap in order to run a business...now I don't

I certainly will miss the OSL, as I have developed great friendships w/ my many repeat clients over the last 15 years, but I welcome change and no more cap on the number of clients I can take...as Martha would say, "it's a good thing".
 
If the Motels are full the restaurants will be too, those guys aren't cooking there meals in the parking lot, so it more the Gas stations and Bars that are making money off the NR.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
 
Non,
Name calling on thru an anonymous posting...thats clever. Perhaps someday we will meet and you will have a chance to call me that in person. I find it hard to believe that the monitor would let you get away w/ such a childish post.

There is a lot of $$ spent by non-residents during the hunting season, nobody is denying that. Motels, gas, cafe, grocery, ect....but, I can tell you that the amount spent by un-guided non-residents does not compare to what a guided hunter spends...

There is a lot of "across the fence envy" in Montana. A situation that will not be rectified until we get a new Governor and a F&G commission that will demand biological management of the elk/deer in general season areas.

Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-11 AT 02:04PM (MST)[p]I still dont believe you on the number of acres leased. I've done a fair bit of research as well...and I cant find any hard numbers. Wouldnt you think the MGOA would have record of something like that? Seems they would, but when I asked Jean Johnson for those numbers...never a reply back. I wonder why?

I mean, intuitively, you'd think the lobbyist for the MOGA would know that kind of thing.

I dont see how losing the OSL will hurt your business, and I'm surprised you werent for I-161 if it deregulates your industry. Seems to me that most Eastern Montana ranchers/outfitters/landowners are the "conservative Republican" types. Typically, good republicans are also in favor of deregulation...like their hero Ronald Reagan was all for. Remember when he deregulated the airlines?

I also find it odd that a single outfitter/landowner/rancher would every support something like an OSL. Seems like a socialist program to me...having the government subsidize the outfitters via guaranteed licenses for their clients.

The way it is now is better, the hunters that WERE hunting each year and paying $4000+ per year, can now go purchase their own lease and perhaps out-bid the outfitters for those leases. I'd think 4-5 guys that were paying $4000-$6000 each for a hunt could pool their money and find a landowner willing to lease them some hunting rights for a lot less than that. Maybe they could even take advantage of the landowner sponsored deer tags and have 100% draw odds. I'm sure their draw odds will increse to 60-80%+ now that theres just one pool.

The OSL's were also unfair to the other outfitters that didnt have them. Wasnt a very level playing field for the ones that had to book clients from the random draw. Akin to ranchers without federal grazing leases having to compete with those that do. Not real fair for a private land rancher paying $12-$18/AUM for a private lease when a public lands rancher pays $1.35/AUM to lease public land...and nothing close to free enterprise/market.

Now we have a true free market in the outfitting industry and you're squealing...too bad, its called free enterprise...welcome to the real world.
 
Eric,

Really, you cant just spout numbers and make comments without some numbers to back up your claims.

You are flat full of crap on this:

"There is a lot of $$ spent by non-residents during the hunting season, nobody is denying that. Motels, gas, cafe, grocery, ect....but, I can tell you that the amount spent by un-guided non-residents does not compare to what a guided hunter spends..."

Thats a load of BS...and not true. The only person your clients are spending money with is YOU, the outfitter. Do your clients fill your truck up at the gas station when you guide them? Do you not put your clients up at your place? Do you also not provide them with meals?

I think you do...I read your website and what you offer, great service.

How much more would a local motel make if the clients you book were not staying in your bunkhouse? How much more would the local restaurants make if your clients didnt eat their meals at your place? How much more gas would each client buy from the local gas stations if they were using their own vehicles? I could go on all day with more examples of the same, but I hope you're smart enough to get the point.

You, as the outfitter, make more money, but the other businesses in the local communities feel a heavier economic impact from the DIY'ers...not even a debate.

Further, how many outfitters in Montana are not even based in Montana? Care to check the addresses of the near 500 on the books? How much of the money stays in the local economy when the outfitter doesnt even live in the state?

Again, no reason to answer...largely because you cant.

You also said, "There is a lot of "across the fence envy" in Montana. A situation that will not be rectified until we get a new Governor and a F&G commission that will demand biological management of the elk/deer in general season areas.

I wouldnt think so highly of your "across the fence envy"...you flatter yourself...something you seem wayyy too good at. I know a lot of hunters in Montana (I was born and lived there for 31 years), and their success on public lands would cause a lot of "across the fence envy" from a vast majority, if not all, of your clients. If they realized the quality of the game on public land, they'd likely think twice about paying 3-4k to shoot a deer in a hayfield.

As to your comments on the commission and Governor...good luck with that. Montanas commission has always been heavy with landowners, ranchers, outfitters, and real-estate agents. The landowners and ranchers have an unjust amount of influence on the biological management of MT's game. Just look to MT Elk Management Plan for proof of that. That ridiculous plan has killed more elk and is suppressing elk herds more than any wolf ever will. All brought to you with heavy influence from MT livestock and agriculture interests...

Put the blame where it belongs, dont try to make it sound like the average joe hunters are the problem, when they're the ones paying the bills.
 
Call the Dept. of Labor and Industry in Helena....they are not hard to find...ask for Debbie, Dan, or Connie...their number is (406)444-3738.

Why would Jean know what outfitters had leased? She is a hired to lobby, not know outfitter stats.

By LAW we are required to report the acres we lease...the form we must use is called an "L-1"....personally I could care less if you believe me or not...

A little more FYI...I was not "granted" my NCHU, I purchased it from another outfitter. NCHU was the vehicle that allotted us a SET number of license...we could not go over our NCHU, if we did we faced fines and loss of use of the OSL, same as if we did not report all the private land we operated on...loss of the OSL.

In no way was the OSL a "guaranteed living" or "guaranteed hunters".... If it were then everyone who was not an outfitter during the days of the OSL was a complete idiot for not cashing in on a "guaranteed living"....The ONLY guarantee was that of a license, IF you could find someone willing to use your services...period..end of arguement.

If you would bother to actually read, you would see that I am not "squealing"...I am rather looking forward to a free market place, no more LIMIT on the number of hunters I can book, no more rules/regs. that pertain to the use of the OSL. No more having to market a high priced license for FWP to use to compete w/ me leasing property(the outfitting industry of Mt....the only ones dumb enough to fund their competition)

You do not seem to understand the mindset of men whose ranches I lease....I am only there because they have ASKED me to be there...it is a priviledge that I get to hunt their private lands.....they do not want to hassle w/ hunters, this is why they allow me to lease/hunt their places...If I can't compete, well that's just the way it is....
 
So, you fill out a form...wow, I'm sure that was pretty reliable.

How often was there an audit?

How many outfitters paid fines in relation to what they "admitted to" leasing on the form they submitted? How many outfitters in the history of the OSL program lost their OSl's?

Yes, the OSL was a guarantee of clients. There were constantly people on this and other forums looking for outfitters with OSL's. Any hunter that wanted to hunt each year with 100% odds was at the mercy of the OSL's...period. The clients came to the licenses that the outfitters controlled. Thats guaranteed business.

Glad you're looking forward to the free market...I am too. I would also assume you voted for I-161 if thats how you really feel.

I'm looking forward to seeing outfitters compete against DIYers and other outfitters for their leases...I'm sure 161 will make that happen. The landowners will come out better as well...the free market price for their land will be expressed via maximizing profits on their private land.

I could really care less what a landowner does with their land...lease it, hunt it, not hunt it, put in BM, their land their choice.

What is a joke though, is that you somehow think theres so much "envy" of that...not true here.
 
The local motel and somewhat the local restaurant(talk w/ the owner, he'd tell you that he likes seeing me and my clients come in)....but the local motels, you are right, they are not getting much out of our clientel....however, call the Guest House Inn, Miles City, and ask them what they think of our outfit....

Where in the world do you think I gas up? How about grocery shopping? My gas/grocery bill is over 12K per month. All locally done. Plus guide/cook wages, and my biggest expense Lease fees, along w/ BLM fees, insurance, ect....do you think that we just get to pocket the 3-5K fees? I wish...were it so I would not be driving a 2001 Ford w/ 200K on it. My landowners use their dollars to help run their ranch, make equipment payments, ect...the money brought in by outfitted clients to a rural community like ours is very significant.

I do not make the rules...out of state outfitter..I don't like it either, but it ain't illegal. As to the number of them, I would guess(I am not certain on this number) it is less than 10% ..I would really be surprised to hear it was more than that....notice when I am not certain of a number I will readily admit it.

The OSL was no more guarantee than a car on a showroom floor. If it were there would not have been 1200 left over elk/deer license last Sept. 1, which FWP put on sale for $650 first come first served. Still sound like guaranteed business? Tell some of my peers that who were off 50-70% in business last year....they are waiting for their "guarantee".

While it may that you are not guilty of "across the fence envy", you are in the minority. 161 was purely an access driving initiative, those voting for it thought it would open up all kinds of access.
 
Eric,

If you haven't figure it out you won't make some of these guys happy until you tell them you're rolling in money from all the outfitting you do no matter if it's true or not.

I've never met you or even talked to you on the phone, but if you can take the abuse you're getting here and stay calm you're a better man than me. I've added you to my list of preferred outfitters. When I plan another trip to Montana I'll be getting in touch with you.

The good outfitters will prosper with or without guaranteed license.


Ben
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-11 AT 06:18PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-11 AT 06:17?PM (MST)

Eric,

I'm sure you're a good outfitter and I'm sure you run your business on the level. I also fully suspect you'll continue to do so despite 161.

I find it more appropriate to have one draw for all hunters and let the hunters decide for themselves if they want to hire an outfitter, lease, or hunt on public lands. I also feel this system will be better for MT's economy and spread the impact of the NR licenses/hunting out to more businesses. I dont see how it cant.

Win-win for everyone.

I never liked the idea of OSL's, have never liked them, and I'm not shedding any tears that the MT residents voted them out. I also dont believe it was purely an access issue, I think it was one of fairness in the draw to all NR hunters rather than favoring those that hire an outfitter. I-161 was also passed based on the distrust that many residents felt toward outfitters, and in particular the MGOA. I think MGOA cut their own throat and pushed things too far by trying to get OSL's for antelope. The MGOA has continually pushed for their businesses at the expense of MT resident and non-resident DIY hunters, as well as the resource (at times). The trouble with that, you're profitting from a public resource/wildlife and you can only take so much before the rightful owners push back. Combine that with a few bad outfitters and some bad experiences between DIY hunters and outfitters...no shock that 161 passed.

Like I said, I'm sure you'll weather the 161 storm just fine, and like Ben above mentioned the good outfitters will be better off in the long run.
 
Thanks for the kind words Ben, hope to see you around our campfire one day.

I was not shocked that 161 passed, I fully expected it to. The good outfitters will do fine, of that I have no doubt. I look at it like this, when we had the OSL I had a pool of approx. 7500 people who could afford the hunt and the license....in other words our marketing window was very small and selective. I also had a lot of BS rules to deal w/, but the PRIVILEDGE of having the OSL demanded that we follow the rules.
Now I have 17,000+ to market to. I had a to change my business model a little, and now offer hunts I was never able to....I am leasing more land because of this new ability I have on account of 161..I can offer semi-guided and drop camps, things that were not legal before..just some of the many "unintended consequences" of a poorly thought out ballot initiative.

Ballot Initiatives are not how wildlife issues should be handled. Was the OSL perfect? No, there were some who abused the license, and when they were caught they paid the price. MOGA did their level best to see that those abusing the license were caught, see with the OSL we wanted to sell FEWER tags, on account of the license being "variably priced" meaning w/ an over-sell it went up...undersell price went down....It was dang tough to sell a $1100 deer license. The guys who were abusing the system cost the honest outfitters by over selling the license...we did everything we could to see that abuses did not occur.

You pretty well summed up the arguement of 161 w/ "you're profitting from a public resource"...access was the whole issue of 161. I do not feel that I profit from the wildlife, I am profitting from my service. As one of my clients told me the yesterday, "there are big whitetail in every state, but it's the people that keep me coming back". One of the finest compliments an outfitter can recieve.

Until Montana's general season elk/deer areas are managed by FWP we will have "access to quality issues". The public as a whole does not understand that in order to have quality you must be willing to give up something, and a 5 week long rut encompassing rifle season is not good for the resource.

I have been asked by guys "well, what are you giving up". By attempting to manage biologically we turn down a ton of hunters each year...I have a problem, I like big deer better than I like money...so we take a "bare minimum" and keep our trophy quality high...on our Powder River hunt we average over 174 on mule deer 9 yrs. straight...keep buck to doe ratios in balance as best we can...when the ratio gets out of hand, like it did with the whitetail on the Milk River 2 yrs. ago...we opened up several of our leases to the public, resident and non-resident...letting them take does, and BUCKS, no charge.
 
You are such a gift to the hunters of MT,why cant there be more like you?You use local hunters as a management tool,you let them shoot does and bucks that dont meet your standards ,dont try to make it sound like anything else.
 
>Eric,
>
>Really, you cant just spout numbers
>and make comments without some
>numbers to back up your
>claims.
>
>You are flat full of crap
>on this:
>
>"There is a lot of $$
>spent by non-residents during the
>hunting season, nobody is denying
>that. Motels, gas, cafe, grocery,
>ect....but, I can tell you
>that the amount spent by
>un-guided non-residents does not compare
>to what a guided hunter
>spends..."
>
>Thats a load of BS...and not
>true. The only person your
>clients are spending money with
>is YOU, the outfitter. Do
>your clients fill your truck
>up at the gas station
>when you guide them? Do
>you not put your clients
>up at your place? Do
>you also not provide them
> with meals?
>
>I think you do...I read your
>website and what you offer,
>great service.
>
>How much more would a local
>motel make if the clients
>you book were not staying
>in your bunkhouse? How much
>more would the local restaurants
>make if your clients didnt
>eat their meals at your
>place? How much more gas
>would each client buy from
>the local gas stations if
>they were using their own
>vehicles? I could go on
>all day with more examples
>of the same, but I
>hope you're smart enough to
>get the point.
>
>You, as the outfitter, make more
>money, but the other businesses
>in the local communities feel
>a heavier economic impact from
>the DIY'ers...not even a debate.
>
>
>Further, how many outfitters in Montana
>are not even based in
>Montana? Care to check the
>addresses of the near 500
>on the books? How much
>of the money stays in
>the local economy when the
>outfitter doesnt even live in
>the state?
>
>Again, no reason to answer...largely because
>you cant.
>
>You also said, "There is a
>lot of "across the fence
>envy" in Montana. A situation
>that will not be rectified
>until we get a new
>Governor and a F&G commission
>that will demand biological management
>of the elk/deer in general
>season areas.
>
>I wouldnt think so highly of
>your "across the fence envy"...you
>flatter yourself...something you seem wayyy
>too good at. I know
>a lot of hunters in
>Montana (I was born and
>lived there for 31 years),
>and their success on public
>lands would cause a lot
>of "across the fence envy"
>from a vast majority, if
>not all, of your clients.
>If they realized the quality
>of the game on public
>land, they'd likely think twice
>about paying 3-4k to shoot
>a deer in a hayfield.
>
>
>As to your comments on the
>commission and Governor...good luck with
>that. Montanas commission has always
>been heavy with landowners, ranchers,
>outfitters, and real-estate agents. The
>landowners and ranchers have an
>unjust amount of influence on
>the biological management of MT's
>game. Just look to MT
>Elk Management Plan for proof
>of that. That ridiculous plan
>has killed more elk and
>is suppressing elk herds more
>than any wolf ever will.
>All brought to you with
>heavy influence from MT livestock
>and agriculture interests...
>
>Put the blame where it belongs,
>dont try to make it
>sound like the average joe
>hunters are the problem, when
>they're the ones paying the
>bills.


I dont know any of you guys from Montana in this discussion....BUT, I can say we were nearly in a fist fight at a Bar in Brodus three years ago. Becuse we took better bucks on BLM land than guys that paid $3,000.00 with a local Outfitter. The paid hunters wanted to know where we were hunting...We said BLM land. The Outfitter called BS on us taking those Deer on BLM land. We did take them on BLM land...I turn wrenches for a living...cant afford to pay $3000.00 for a hunt.
 
Maybe you should ask some of the guys whom we have let hunt, the only thing I ever say to them is this..."if you shoot a buck, make sure he's big enough you are going to have him mounted"...all I have asked when we allow access is that they do not shoot any immature buck deer. Maybe ask all the folks we let hunt antelope on our private land...free of charge... see w/ antelope its easy to allow access...why? Antelope are managed BIOLOGICALLY....so when a permit holder asks me, "can I hunt goats?" It is easy to say yes..on account that there will be another one just as good next year to take the place of the one harvested this year...hunters don't get to just slaughter the antelope. With deer access is a lot tougher..but would not be if they were managed in a similar manner.


... some folks never learn, better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
 
After your complaints to Founder about my posts Im not going to continue playing your game,hope everyone draws a tag this year,with fewer outfitters in thefield it will be a great year to have a tag!Good luck
 
mthunter87,

You dont think its right to manage based on ballot initiatives...but you find no problem with the MGOA lobbying the commission for OSL's???

Thats odd...name one thing about an OSL that is based on "biological management"...

What do you expect from a commission that is a politically appointed body and comprised heavily of landowners, outfitters, and real estate agents. Never in the history of the FWP commission has there been one thats ever had more than 1 professionally trained biologist. Usually 4 of the 5 have no professional experience in biology.

How do you expect the FWP to manage based on biology when the very commission that is the FINAL authority on things to do with wildlife...arent even biologists? Those dolts are easily lobbied by the likes of the MGOA...and thats no better, and IMO, worse than ballot initiatives.

Also, I take exception to your "theory" that antelope are managed based on biology. Thats a fuggin' joke of epic proportions. You're going to tell me that "managing" about 1/3rd of the state (unit 700) as one antelope herd is based on biology? Yeah, right.

If you want to see proper antelope management, based on biology,...take a look at how many and the size of the antelope units in Wyoming.
 
I concur...700 should be broken up into smaller districts...I guess I have to be very specific when speaking..more so than I thought....in Reg. 6 our area is managed more biologically than 7 is...call me tomorrow and I will tell you why.... my number is on the web site........
 
I mean who would over-look the mismanagement of about half the total population of antelope in Montana...silly me.
 
Interesting to say the least. Sounds like penis envy to me. Eric, if I ever decide to hunt anything but Sheep in MT, I will contact you. Good luck
 
So MT your telling us that if we were in your neighborhood hunting and wanted to hunt one of your leases bieng a res of MT you would let me go for free as long as I killed a doe or a 174 class buck or better?
 
blackmax...I do not know if we would or not..I do not know you at all...I also do not know how our whitetail population will look this coming fall...we are having a lot of die off due to the winter...


You are correct about R7 and the derelict management of antelope....7 should be managed just as 6 is...(i'll save you the phone call)..the reason for this is easily seen, just look at a map of 6 and then of 7...most of the antelope habitat in 6 is public land...in 7 there is a lot of accessable land, but there is also a ton more private...FWP's logic is this "when the antelope get really thick, the landowners will have to allow access"....I have heard the 7 guys say this.
 
Ill be referring every out of stater I know who hunts that region to them,probably a few locals that head out that way as well,they let people in to hunt prime ground AND shoot trophy bucks for FREE!Winter die off....LOL!
 
Winter die off...is going to be a real factor....45+ inches of snow and -30 this weekend....we are finding dead whitetail in our stackyards....dead mule deer on the hillsides, antelope heading south from Canada, most will not be going back...

so yes, winter die off is a consideration....
 
I guess the F&G better step in and make sure the area isnt hunted this next season to give the game a chance to recover,the older bucks/does are the first ones to die off in a winter kill,no reason to be outfitting the area after a "biological" disaster like a bad winter.Talked to my partner who lives N/E of Jordan,no sign of winter kill in his area thus far.
 
When we lose deer we cut back our numbers of hunters...just like the last time we had blue-tongue 8 years ago.... I told most of our rifle hunters to stay home and I refunded their deposits....funny thing how management works...conversely last year when our population was getting out of hand we allowed MORE free hunting for the residents than we took paying hunters...and I did not even put a restriction on what anyone harvested....I learned a long time ago...if you want someone to kill does you have to allow them to shoot bucks....so we did just that...from what numbers I gathered there were 300-350 deer taken(and not just does) off of one farm.

If FWP had a conscience they would end the buck hunting in Reg. 6 for 4-5 years for mule deer. I would be the first one to stand up and applaud them for it.
 
We have not hunted the areas that are so decimated, like the breaks, have not taken a buck from there in 5-6 years, and another over-hunted area north of me no bucks from there for last 3 years....
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-08-11 AT 06:01PM (MST)[p]Too bad your TV friends didnt give the deer a break after the blue tongue broke out,they were filming episodes on the milk river WHILE the deer were dieing from it,they drug several dead/dieing deer out of the waterholes and then proceeded to shoot deer.There was a 2 part episode filmed while this was going on the Buckmaster "ranch".They were hunting in the soybean field planted to draw deer off other outfitter leases and they had the deer so congregated the die off was much worse that it should have been,great "biological" management the outfitters up there have going on.Heres an article written by your realtree buddies,even though they knew there had been a big die off they took the whole crew back up there to kill more deer,sure wish we had more "operations" like this in our state!

http://www.teamrealtree.com/hunting/articles-and-how-to/milk-river-magic
 
Seems you are pretty well known,heres a youtube thread where one of your hunters is still trying to recover a deer he shot wit you and you wont return his calls...
 
The last time we had any EHD we lost about 20% of the deer where the RealTree Crew hunts...not exactly a major die off...if it had been we would have cut the number of hunts way down, so nice try.

As for the guy who is complaining about not getting his deer head from the taxidermist, how can that be any fault of mine?
 
If you would bother to read the post...the hunter says that the taxidermist will not return his call.....I have always returned the calls, and e-mails. Everytime I have spoken w/ the taxidermist he tells me "the head has been sent"....am I the the taxidermists keeper, am I responsible for his dereliction? I have contacted the sheriff about him, and he says there is nothing we can do him....coincidentally the deputy also has a few heads at the same taxidermists shop, and is trying to help us get the heads/capes from him and send them to their rightful owners....if you would like the deputies name and number I will gladly give them to you.
 
I assume he used that taxidermist at your recommendation,Am I correct?Probably not legally responsible but its not a good thing to have clients out there throwing your name around the internet telling people you wont help them get their heads from your local taxidermist,if I were in your situation I would make a personal effort to go recover that rack and get it to him to stop the badmouthing ALL over the net,I found several links to the same story.Anyway thought you would like to know its out there.Only 20%?That seems like a pretty hard hit to a deer population,of course when you are planting soy bean to bring in every deer in the river system it probably isnt that big a deal.This year the area will get a break,with your diligent management and the lack of outfitter tags they should have a chance to recover.
 
I have always tried to keep all business local, and have several local taxidermists that have cards at our lodge. If you read his posts you would see that I have made efforts get his antlers and cape back....the taxidermist in reference is a total derelict...and will not open the door when I have gone to his place of business(numerous times)....and when I have seen him on the street he tells me that the heads are shipped...and I am not the only one w/ this problem w/ him....many local hunters also have heads/mountain lions/ect.. w/ this clown...and the sheriff says nothing can be done to him...i have promised a beating and now he just avoids me...I am at a loss of what to do....and no, its not my responsibility to make the a taxidermist fulfill his obligations...but it is impossible to get blood from a turnip, or derelict in this case.


20% is really not much of loss across the board, which was why in the last part of Michael's article he says, "we thought it would knock down the big buck sightings the next year, but we were pleasantly surprised".
 
Ill bet the surrounding properties without various crops planted just to bring in deer saw the effects of a 20% loss.
 
Realtree and others have alot of the surrounding properties leased and those that are not leased are locked up unless you know the landowners and get permission. It is not as if the deer only live on this one place.

I hunt adjacent to both Eric's place and the other Realtree leases. In fact on one of the Realtree places is where my kids have taken their first deer. We have never had a restriction placed on us about whether to just kill does or small bucks.

Almost all of the prime whitetail habitat in the Milk River Valley is locked up because it is worth money to raise deer on those lands. Just because the outfitters do not lease does not mean that access is going to improve. We are never going back to the days of just going hunting like when I was a kid, we didn't real need to ask we just went. Those days are over.

The repeal of the OSL is now the law of the land unless the legislature really does go through with the threat to do away with I161. I guess we will see how it shakes out but one thing is guaranteed it is not going to improve access, at least on this side of the state.

Nemont
 
Thanks for the good words Nemont...you are a class act and welcome to come see me anytime about hunting.

Funny thing that you should bring up some of the legislative foo-foo-rah about repealing the OSL...I just spoke w/ our local legislator the other day about that very thing, to see how the wind was blowing in Helena ..he asked me "what are your thoughts on it"....to which I replied "the people have spoken, leave it stand where it is". He told me that it was a good thing I felt that way because once voted on the legislature would most likely not overturn it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-11 AT 03:00PM (MST)[p]It was voted on they CANT just overturn it.Your outfitter buddies dont have enough pull in the capital to overturn bills regardless of how many legislators you buy.Its too bad your area is locked down by greed,there are 2 new spreads signed up for block managment near our place that were being leased by an outfitter from WY for the last 10 years,progress is being made.
 
We dont require money to let people hunt,if you can draw one of the 30 bull tags in our area your welcome to hunt our place as long as you respect the rules(walk in only).Several large bulls have been taken off our place by complete strangers who had the foresight to ask for permission,we allow a few hunters in every year after any lucky family members have filled a drawn tag,if we dont draw any tags they are welcome whenever.The neighboring ranch to the north of us has the same exact access rules,combined the 2 places cover some of the best big bull areas in the zone.Not every "rancher" in MT is looking to make a buck off the wildlife,we make enough off our cattle/grain to keep the ranch in the family,everyone has day jobs and we dont take anything for granted.
 
You are 100% spot on Buzz. One of the other issues was the location of the leases, often boardering puplic land and locking up the access routes. I have personally had run ins with outfitters and their guides while parking to access some of these areas. The outfitters have trucks parked at some of these access points and do their best to intimidate others from going in. Unless you know the area well the average NR would have to take them for their word and go elsewhere.
 
Sounds like we hunt the same spot,wait a minute thats anywhere you go in MT!That constant harassment and attempted intimidation is why sportsmen have turned against the outfitters,they cut their own throats with their greed and ignorance.
 
+1 crosshairs & nonya.I agree 100%.They finally got what has been a long time coming IMO.
 
I like that fact they passed 161 and I do run hunts in Montana. And no it wont stop the leasing of private land! I hope it really ends up being a win win for everyone!!!


Justin Richins
R&K Hunting Company Inc.
www.thehuntingcompany.com
 
There are several landowners that I personally know around the Dillon area that are planning to take their land out of block management in response to I-161.
They read an article by one of the writers of the bill that basically stated that this bill is intended to inhibit landowners from being able to use hunting as a business.
This is a major push towards the Public Trust Doctrine which is Socialist, and completely undermines private property rights. Private property rights are one of the most important freedoms that has made the USA the greatest country in the world.
This attack on private property rights is why many landowners are not happy with this initiative.

Private property is private property whether it's your backyard or your ranch.

One of the bigger ranches in Montana feels I-161 is an attack, and in respose is taking land out of Block Management and leasing it to a local outfitter.
 
> They read an article by one of the writers of the bill that >basically stated that this bill is intended to inhibit >landowners from being able to use hunting as a business.

MTGuide, could you dig up a copy of this article? From the sounds of it, you haven't seen, so you probably can't help me out on that. However, if you can find it, I would like to form an opinion on what is "basically stated". thanks....

> This attack on private property rights is why many landowners
>are not happy with this initiative.

Could you also show where I-161 attacked any private property rights? thanks again....
 

Similar threads

Founder
Montana Mule Deer, Whitetail, Antelope, Archery Elk
Replies
0
Views
535
Founder
Founder
liecabucks
Seeking Wyo points partner.
2
Replies
155
Views
7k
TKMulePacker
TKMulePacker
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2019110295083406.jpg
3D59007D-D4A7-4754-A543-2B0B96B14445.jpeg
IMG_1465.jpeg
IMG_9382.jpeg
D137ED25-28BB-404A-A973-42397A6A186E.jpeg
1608184034684.jpeg
P1089049.jpg
001.JPG
Screenshot_20230912_191947_Chrome.jpg
9F31734C-B8E8-4C4A-B803-D4BB11B8210B.jpeg
IMG_6511.JPG
3370961F-1D21-4182-8E36-6738D3824A3F.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom