I don't know a whole lot about the nuances of this debate, but can address the above question. I would personally take my chances with the lottery at existing prices. $550 for a general deer tag is more than I'm willing to pay most years. The price of even a DIY trip is enough that I have to pick and choose where I go. Being that I don't have a trophy producing 'honey-hole' in MT I would strongly consider other states that are cheaper as I generally just shoot smallish/average sized critters anyway. Likewise, the price of the combo would raise it high enough that I'd probably pass. In my stage in life, a week is about all I can get away for at a time, and I'm not sure I could give two tags the type of attenion I'd like in that amount of time. For that kind of scratch, I'll wait and take my times with LE tags. Just how I have to look at things in my situation.
Initiative to Eliminate MT Outfitter Sponsored Licenses
- Thread starter Meatatarian
- Start date
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,706
Last edited:
July 19, 2010
CONTACT INFORMATION: Terri Knapp, (406) 444-2807
Secretary of State Linda McCulloch Certifies 3 Ballot Issue Proposals;
I-161, I-164, CI-105 Qualify for November General Election Ballot
HELENA – Secretary of State and Chief Elections Officer Linda McCulloch today announced that three ballot initiatives have received enough signatures to qualify for the November General Election ballot. I-161, I-164 and CI-105 are set to appear on the ballot along with CC-2, which is the constitutionally required call for a Montana constitutional convention.
“Out of 26 proposed ballot measures, three have successfully met the requirements needed to qualify for the November ballot,” Secretary McCulloch said. “Even after we tabulate the remaining signatures, none of the other ballot issues will have enough signatures to qualify.”
http://sos.mt.gov/news/index.asp
CONTACT INFORMATION: Terri Knapp, (406) 444-2807
Secretary of State Linda McCulloch Certifies 3 Ballot Issue Proposals;
I-161, I-164, CI-105 Qualify for November General Election Ballot
HELENA – Secretary of State and Chief Elections Officer Linda McCulloch today announced that three ballot initiatives have received enough signatures to qualify for the November General Election ballot. I-161, I-164 and CI-105 are set to appear on the ballot along with CC-2, which is the constitutionally required call for a Montana constitutional convention.
“Out of 26 proposed ballot measures, three have successfully met the requirements needed to qualify for the November ballot,” Secretary McCulloch said. “Even after we tabulate the remaining signatures, none of the other ballot issues will have enough signatures to qualify.”
http://sos.mt.gov/news/index.asp
MNHunter
Well-known member
So i take it the initiative to get rid of outfitter sponsored licenses will be on the ballot and the initiative to ban trapping on public lands did not?
Any guesses on how the outfitter licenses initiative will fare?
Any guesses on how the outfitter licenses initiative will fare?
I-161
I-161 has been approved for the fall ballot and I hope this passes. Looking at some of the past posts, there seems to be a lot of misinformation. The elimination of the outfitter guaranteed tags would put all non residents into one draw. The rich would not be able to buy a guaranteed tag without a draw. It would place all tags at one level. Now set aside licences range from approx. $900-1500. The money goes into block management and varies every year. If licenses are undersold they reduce the cost and less money goes to
Block. Since the amout varies each year the fish and game is reluctant to add new areas since next year they may not have the funding. If the outfitter guaranteed tags are eliminated one price is charged for all nonresident licenses and more money goes into the Block management program. It would also level the playing field in drawings so that the rich are not guaranteed a chance to hunt in montana.
This will improve access since there will be more money to fund Block and less money to purchase leases to keep out the average citizen. Eastern montana is almost completely closed to private hunting due to the leasing of land by outfitters. We do not have the public lands of the western part of the state and access gets harder and harder each year. Many cannot find a place to hunt and we lose hunters every year. Lets take back our hunting heritage by making hunting easier for the average hunter.
I-161 has been approved for the fall ballot and I hope this passes. Looking at some of the past posts, there seems to be a lot of misinformation. The elimination of the outfitter guaranteed tags would put all non residents into one draw. The rich would not be able to buy a guaranteed tag without a draw. It would place all tags at one level. Now set aside licences range from approx. $900-1500. The money goes into block management and varies every year. If licenses are undersold they reduce the cost and less money goes to
Block. Since the amout varies each year the fish and game is reluctant to add new areas since next year they may not have the funding. If the outfitter guaranteed tags are eliminated one price is charged for all nonresident licenses and more money goes into the Block management program. It would also level the playing field in drawings so that the rich are not guaranteed a chance to hunt in montana.
This will improve access since there will be more money to fund Block and less money to purchase leases to keep out the average citizen. Eastern montana is almost completely closed to private hunting due to the leasing of land by outfitters. We do not have the public lands of the western part of the state and access gets harder and harder each year. Many cannot find a place to hunt and we lose hunters every year. Lets take back our hunting heritage by making hunting easier for the average hunter.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,385
I too don't like the outfitter sponsered license. But.....
My biggest gripe against I-161 is that it depends on unguided NRs to make up the difference in money that would go to fund BMP. Why don't we raise the price of resident licenses to make up the difference?
My reasons for stating this is because unlike some I don't consider every NR to be rich. Raising the NR fees will make it even harder for my NR family and friends to hunt in Montana. When the cost of a license becomes a majority of the cost of the hunt, that is going to put a major crimp on the ability of NRs who are not rich to hunt in MT.
A couple of what ifs. If I 161 passes and due to the increased license fees the average NR hunter is priced out of regularly applying, the NR license will become nearly guarrenteed.
If I were a wealthy NR and could be assurred of drawing every year my line of reasoning would be to find some land to lease without having to go through the bother of using an outfitter.
This could actually lead to more leasing and not less.
I don't think this problem will be resolved until resident hunters take more of the burden of funding BMP.
My biggest gripe against I-161 is that it depends on unguided NRs to make up the difference in money that would go to fund BMP. Why don't we raise the price of resident licenses to make up the difference?
My reasons for stating this is because unlike some I don't consider every NR to be rich. Raising the NR fees will make it even harder for my NR family and friends to hunt in Montana. When the cost of a license becomes a majority of the cost of the hunt, that is going to put a major crimp on the ability of NRs who are not rich to hunt in MT.
A couple of what ifs. If I 161 passes and due to the increased license fees the average NR hunter is priced out of regularly applying, the NR license will become nearly guarrenteed.
If I were a wealthy NR and could be assurred of drawing every year my line of reasoning would be to find some land to lease without having to go through the bother of using an outfitter.
This could actually lead to more leasing and not less.
I don't think this problem will be resolved until resident hunters take more of the burden of funding BMP.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
rosco
New member
Not being a regular Montana hunter, I haven't read this till now..Just had to see what was getting so much attention. first, BigShooter sure is a bright one, lol.
It would be a win-win if a few things were changed on 161, but politics being what they are, it looks like it will be a half-assed bill.
And Buzz makes an excellent point, that is so glaringly obvious its stupid...Asking for voluntary donations to BMP would go a long way. I know me and my friends donate handsomely to Wyoming's program, as we've had excellent hunts on walk in access area's, I don't see why Montana's BMP wouldn't get the same from hunters who use the land...But that makes too much sense for politicians, I guess.
It would be a win-win if a few things were changed on 161, but politics being what they are, it looks like it will be a half-assed bill.
And Buzz makes an excellent point, that is so glaringly obvious its stupid...Asking for voluntary donations to BMP would go a long way. I know me and my friends donate handsomely to Wyoming's program, as we've had excellent hunts on walk in access area's, I don't see why Montana's BMP wouldn't get the same from hunters who use the land...But that makes too much sense for politicians, I guess.
