Great post Big fin,,,,,one point to add and this is the land owner who would or has had his land in the Block Management Program but then pulls it and leases it to an outfitter because the money is better we are loosing BMU to outfitter leases every year
Gearing up for 2008
- Thread starter wyomingtim
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
If theres a penny to made, count on the outfitters stepping on both resident and NR hunters (other than those willing to shell out for a guided hunt).
I've been saying it for years...outfitters flat do not give a shit about the average DIY hunter...either resident or non-resident. All the average guy is to them is competition to the same animals they're selling to their clients...and thats exactly how you're thought of if you arent booking a hunt with them. They'd make it illegal for anyone to hunt on their own if it meant more $$$ for them.
I even question how much they really care about wildlife. I think most only like wildlife because it means money to them.
And as much as I hate to admit it, 280 has a very valid point regarding the BMP. A landowner would be dumb to lease it to the state when they could lease it to an outfitter for more.
The only choice we (average sportsmen) have now is to take away as much opportunity as we can from outfitters. Unfortunately that usually means a limit on NR's as they constitute a bulk of outfitters revenue.
So, when you dont draw a tag Schmalts...thank the MT guides and outfitters association. Another blaring example of how the commercialization of wildlife damages hunting and opportunity for everyone. Commercialization of wildlife simply does not work.
I've been saying it for years...outfitters flat do not give a shit about the average DIY hunter...either resident or non-resident. All the average guy is to them is competition to the same animals they're selling to their clients...and thats exactly how you're thought of if you arent booking a hunt with them. They'd make it illegal for anyone to hunt on their own if it meant more $$$ for them.
I even question how much they really care about wildlife. I think most only like wildlife because it means money to them.
And as much as I hate to admit it, 280 has a very valid point regarding the BMP. A landowner would be dumb to lease it to the state when they could lease it to an outfitter for more.
The only choice we (average sportsmen) have now is to take away as much opportunity as we can from outfitters. Unfortunately that usually means a limit on NR's as they constitute a bulk of outfitters revenue.
So, when you dont draw a tag Schmalts...thank the MT guides and outfitters association. Another blaring example of how the commercialization of wildlife damages hunting and opportunity for everyone. Commercialization of wildlife simply does not work.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
http://greatfallstribune.com/assets/doc/G1946081219.DOC
There you go.
By the way you might want to read clear down on the last paragraph for additional information.
Their tune changes when an outfitter stops by and offers a couple grand to close it up to the public so his half dozen NR archery clients can have exclusive next year. Very good step in the right direction in my opinion.
I am glad decisions aren't based on what a cheesehead saw one year when he was hunting pronghorn for a couple days.
Bambistew
Well-known member
In the regulations... on page 86 of the 2007 Regs the total number of applications says that 1883 people applied for 900-00. The number I listed above for NR was on their web page somewhere... can't find it at the moment, but it broke down that 1883 number down to Res/NR. Also if you look at the 2008 regs (page 92) it says that 1615 applicants applied for the 900 tags...
Now that I think about it...I'm guessing the numbers listed are first choice only and the ones in the GF Tribune include the 2nd choice applicants as well? Either way, that’s something to ponder... To me that says that there aren't that many NR bow hunters booking a 'bowhunt', but a whole lot of hunters that put in for rifle and will settle for an archery tag if they don't get it. It would be interesting to know how many bow hunters actually hunt with an outfitter every year. IMO I would bet the majority of those second choice applicants are DIY hunters just looking to fill a spot in their calendar because they didn’t draw their rifle tag.
I’m not sticking up for NR or Residents just being a realist. I agree with what all you guys are saying, but if you think that limiting the outfitters by a few hundred antelope tags is going to stem leasing... you need to wake up. Even if they get half as many archery hunters, they’ll just raise their prices for all hunts a little and absorb the loss. Once it goes to a limited draw, those tags become more valuable as do the outfitted hunts for them.
The next step will be 'hunt clubs' leasing up ranches. It's happening everywhere, and is what our sport has been rendered too. IMO hunters are sick of fighting for their own piece of the pie, and if throwing down $500-1000+ with a group of friends makes that headache go away there's a line out the door willing to do so. Access to private land keeps getting harder and harder to come by. If it’s available to lease... it will get leased either by residents, NR hunters or outfitters. Like it or not, there is a lot of “money” moving into Montana.
Face it NR hunters have the money and means to pay for hunts and or trespass fees... Look at all us, most us go on out of state hunts every year, some go on multiple hunts, and we don't bat an eye when it comes time to shelling out the cash for a tag. If it cost you an extra $1000 for rights to hunt deer and antelope on a 12,000 acre ranch with a few other guys, would you do it? In the grand scheme of things, that’s not much money.
IMO the only way to curb the leasing binge is to outlaw outfitting, and or ban NR from hunting in your state. I don’t see either happening. NR tag fee’s make up way to much of the F&G budget, and banning outfitting… well I don’t think the State has enough money to fight that battle in court. Even doing that isn’t a guarantee that the average guy will have opportunity to hunt private land.
I’m 100% for banning outfitting everywhere. IMO the industry has single handedly ruined the sport.
How is the Block Management paid for again? Maybe its time for residents to start picking up the slack so the state has the money to outbid the outfitters?
Now that I think about it...I'm guessing the numbers listed are first choice only and the ones in the GF Tribune include the 2nd choice applicants as well? Either way, that’s something to ponder... To me that says that there aren't that many NR bow hunters booking a 'bowhunt', but a whole lot of hunters that put in for rifle and will settle for an archery tag if they don't get it. It would be interesting to know how many bow hunters actually hunt with an outfitter every year. IMO I would bet the majority of those second choice applicants are DIY hunters just looking to fill a spot in their calendar because they didn’t draw their rifle tag.
I’m not sticking up for NR or Residents just being a realist. I agree with what all you guys are saying, but if you think that limiting the outfitters by a few hundred antelope tags is going to stem leasing... you need to wake up. Even if they get half as many archery hunters, they’ll just raise their prices for all hunts a little and absorb the loss. Once it goes to a limited draw, those tags become more valuable as do the outfitted hunts for them.
The next step will be 'hunt clubs' leasing up ranches. It's happening everywhere, and is what our sport has been rendered too. IMO hunters are sick of fighting for their own piece of the pie, and if throwing down $500-1000+ with a group of friends makes that headache go away there's a line out the door willing to do so. Access to private land keeps getting harder and harder to come by. If it’s available to lease... it will get leased either by residents, NR hunters or outfitters. Like it or not, there is a lot of “money” moving into Montana.
Face it NR hunters have the money and means to pay for hunts and or trespass fees... Look at all us, most us go on out of state hunts every year, some go on multiple hunts, and we don't bat an eye when it comes time to shelling out the cash for a tag. If it cost you an extra $1000 for rights to hunt deer and antelope on a 12,000 acre ranch with a few other guys, would you do it? In the grand scheme of things, that’s not much money.
IMO the only way to curb the leasing binge is to outlaw outfitting, and or ban NR from hunting in your state. I don’t see either happening. NR tag fee’s make up way to much of the F&G budget, and banning outfitting… well I don’t think the State has enough money to fight that battle in court. Even doing that isn’t a guarantee that the average guy will have opportunity to hunt private land.
I’m 100% for banning outfitting everywhere. IMO the industry has single handedly ruined the sport.
How is the Block Management paid for again? Maybe its time for residents to start picking up the slack so the state has the money to outbid the outfitters?
Bambi, my quick take.
The number you posted may be correct, but I don't think it takes into account the 900 tags that were purchased OTC. I would guess nearly all residents are purchasing the 900 in this manner.
Also, I don't think there are any second choices for 900. I always just buy mine right off and skip any drawing, so not certain.
The link SS attached has good numbers and the trend is obvious (good information).
BTW, I am not against outfitting, just outfitter sponsored tags.
The number you posted may be correct, but I don't think it takes into account the 900 tags that were purchased OTC. I would guess nearly all residents are purchasing the 900 in this manner.
Also, I don't think there are any second choices for 900. I always just buy mine right off and skip any drawing, so not certain.
The link SS attached has good numbers and the trend is obvious (good information).
Absolutely, but at least now (hopefully in my opinion) there is a cap on that number.
BTW, I am not against outfitting, just outfitter sponsored tags.
smalls
Well-known member
I didn't think any of the 900 tags were OTC mtmiller... aren't they all part of a no quota application? Can you just "buy" the tag prior to the June 1 deadline?
Another thing to consider, a lot of guys may apply for that tag and not even use it unless they draw the deer-elk combo. I didnt bow hunt MT last year so I didnt even hunt the lopes, the the tag was eaten and was purchased only as a backup hunt. I did get the deer-elk combo in the alternates drawing but bow hunting was pretty much over by then.
I agree with Bambi, you MT guys need to stand up to the real problem, and that is outfitter welfare. Limiting NR in the drawing will only bring on one more thing, and here is my "official prediction" that the outfitters will then lobby for an outfitter sponsored lope hunt with 100% draw.
I agree with Bambi, you MT guys need to stand up to the real problem, and that is outfitter welfare. Limiting NR in the drawing will only bring on one more thing, and here is my "official prediction" that the outfitters will then lobby for an outfitter sponsored lope hunt with 100% draw.
That would be shooting themselves in the foot. So if that happened a guy would first have to draw the NR combo tag knowing that there would be 33 less open areas to bow hunt? I think they would end up not selling anything unless they lumped the combo and limited entery all into one drawing.
Basicly, if a guy draws a combo and doesnt draw a limited entry with 33 less units gone where the hell is his tag good for?
Nemont
Well-known member
The other 2/3 of the state.
Yep, from page 5 of 2008 tentatives. I can't find the 2007, but I am pretty sure it was the same language.
Antelope Multi-region Archery Only
Either-sex archery only license.
License limited to specific regions.
Must be applicant’s first and only choice.
May purchase this license at License Providers /Internet.
Deadline to apply/purchase is June 1.
R $14 NR $200
Bambistew
Well-known member
I agree that will have way more of an impact than a few lope tags, but I don't think it will be substancial either.
Bambistew
Well-known member
If thats the case, why don't the numbers in the regs match the numbers SS put up? Makes me wonder how reliable all the numbers are.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Feel free to beat feet to God's country 280....no quotas on NR peckerwoods here.
Muleyslyr
New member
Bambistew....."The next step will be 'hunt clubs' leasing up ranches. It's happening everywhere, and is what our sport has been rendered too. IMO hunters are sick of fighting for their own piece of the pie, and if throwing down $500-1000+ with a group of friends makes that headache go away there's a line out the door willing to do so. Access to private land keeps getting harder and harder to come by. If it’s available to lease... it will get leased either by residents, NR hunters or outfitters. Like it or not, there is a lot of “money” moving into Montana."
Great point!
Admittingly, I am one of those guys this year. I was asked to go in on a lease with 7 other guys, 5 of which are non-resi's, to have exclusive rights to hunt over 22,000 acres in the N. Central part of the state. I don't know if by doing this I am helping create the problem or just jumping in while I still have a chance. As much as I hate to say it but if I don't do it you know some one else will. These guys have had the lease for the last two seasons and don't intend on letting it go.
I was also one of the non-resi's last year to purchase one of the unit 900 tags on-line. I was fortunate enough to hunt some private, BLM, and Block Management land over there. But in talking with some of the landowners in and around there they are ALL being pressured by either outfitters or "buddy groups" to lease their land. If this continues to happen, I agree with the some of you that the Block Management properties will be no more....for the most part.
With that all being said and being a non-resi, DIYer, I really have mixed emotions about all this. Do you guys think I'm adding to the problem????
And one more question.....If a landowner leases out to an outfitters or even "buddy groups" are they able to get landowner permits for those individuals?? If so, wouldn't that also be a good reason for people to get leases?
Great point!
Admittingly, I am one of those guys this year. I was asked to go in on a lease with 7 other guys, 5 of which are non-resi's, to have exclusive rights to hunt over 22,000 acres in the N. Central part of the state. I don't know if by doing this I am helping create the problem or just jumping in while I still have a chance. As much as I hate to say it but if I don't do it you know some one else will. These guys have had the lease for the last two seasons and don't intend on letting it go.
I was also one of the non-resi's last year to purchase one of the unit 900 tags on-line. I was fortunate enough to hunt some private, BLM, and Block Management land over there. But in talking with some of the landowners in and around there they are ALL being pressured by either outfitters or "buddy groups" to lease their land. If this continues to happen, I agree with the some of you that the Block Management properties will be no more....for the most part.
With that all being said and being a non-resi, DIYer, I really have mixed emotions about all this. Do you guys think I'm adding to the problem????
And one more question.....If a landowner leases out to an outfitters or even "buddy groups" are they able to get landowner permits for those individuals?? If so, wouldn't that also be a good reason for people to get leases?
