Montana license fee increases..........

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Bambi,

I think we have a crybaby...

I just got the NR application a couple days ago.

The big game combo is $643, elk combo is $593, and the deer combo is $343.

Last year was exactly the same.

I have a solution for those that think $643 is too much...dont apply.

Either that or try living without a new truck, new rifle, new rangefinder, new atv, new binoculars, $5 cups of coffee, $5 cans of tabacco, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
 

Craig

Very Active Member
I think the outfitter Non res Licenses went up about $100 or so. $1195 for a Non res Big game combo ( Outfitter sponsored) That is a lot of money.

i will stick with the $642 Big game combo. I can't afford a guide anyway.
 

Bambistew

Very Active Member
haven't got my app yet so I was wondering if I should expect some 'sticker' shock. Not sure if MT is in the cards this year or not though :(
 

NeMont

Long Time Member
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-07 AT 11:18AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-07 AT 11:10?AM (MST)

The Outfitter sponsored tags are sold on a supply and demand basis so if demand goes up so does the price.

I will fight every legislative session to never allow land owner vouchers just because you own the land. You can own the land but you do not own the game animals on it. Buying a ranch does not guarantee you tags, that isn't sick at all. Owning a ranch in Montana has never meant you get a tag.

Most guys who own horse farms in Tenn. spend more on horse feed in a week then the entire guided/outfitted cost of the annual hunting trip to Montana.



Nemont
 
D

DougW

Guest
Amen Nemont.

I was going to reply regarding the statement about the "guaranteed" issue but you've taken care of that for me. Thx.
 

huntnphool

Active Member
Well said Nemont, I have 640 acres, and access to another 17,000 and have to apply just like everyone else every year. Last year was my first draw in 3 years. Of course I drew 5 strait years prior to that so I can't complain;^)..............rf
 
L

live2huntmuleys

Guest
With 640 acres in MT you should have owner preference? The problem is the more out staters the tougher it is for the average guy to get access. Why would a private land owner let a local guy hunt when an outfitter will pay in some cases $1 an acre for deer hunting ground.
 

Bambistew

Very Active Member
More out of staters? There's a cap and has been a for years.

You should be so lucky to get a lease for $1 an acre. Water foul leases out here go for upwards of 10$ or more, some deer leases go for $20.

You want to increase opportunity, end the outfitter subsidy.
 
L

live2huntmuleys

Guest
I agree let get rid of the subsidy, but the fact is we wont. The money that they bring to the state, and the amount of jobs outfitting provides here is to high to go back.

The $1 an acre leases I am talking about are in excess of 50,000 acres. Not a lease an average guy is going to be able to afford.
 
O

old_man_of_the_hills

Guest
I am glad that no out of staters can own land in MT and get resident licenses. Actually, it would be SICK if they could...

I have no problem with out of staters who come and hunt just like me, but when they start leasing/buying up all of the land in my state it reminds me why I dislike them so much.

So quit whining or go someplace else because MT has changed enough already thanks to people that have your mentality (and not for the better)
 
S

sheepeater

Guest
Ill sell you a ranch though, what you can do is get landowner preference tags in limited draw areas.
 

huntnphool

Active Member
"I have no problem with out of staters who come and hunt just like me, but when they start leasing/buying up all of the land in my state it reminds me why I dislike them so much."

Thats a bit of a ignorant statement isn't it Old Man? I mean, disliking someone just beacause they have the means to purchase land in a state they don't reside in? Are you kidding me? Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and think about how the Native Americans see you...............rf
 
O

old_man_of_the_hills

Guest
>Thats a bit of a ignorant
>statement isn't it Old Man?
>I mean, disliking someone just
>beacause they have the means
>to purchase land in a
>state they don't reside in?
>Are you kidding me? Perhaps
>you should take a look
>in the mirror and think
>about how the Native Americans
>see you...............rf

I'm sure the Native Americans don't like me living in "their" state, but if you look at history, then you would realize that the Native American tribes that are in various locations now are only considered "native" because they were the ones that were there when the white men came. Competing tribes were constantly displacing other tribes and taking over prime land. Many of the "western" tribes were actually living in the east long ago. Giant civilizations rose and fell before whites even set foot on American soil, so like it or not, what whites did was nothing new. The only difference is that whites had the technology and population to accomplish it. By the way, my grandmother was Lakota.

And also, I don't dislike people because they can buy land in a different state. I dislike them when they buy it and then whine about it.
 

PleaseDear

Long Time Member
Reads like the same non-res. fee for my Combo elk/deer as '06.....

Must not be any SFW up in Montana....

Robb
 

huntnphool

Active Member
If you actually read my post, you wont find any whining, sniveling or otherwise complaining anywhere in it, I was simply stating fact. I get no preferential treatment for owning property, I have to apply just like everyone else.............rf
 

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