Is this true

[Rat Fink]

I think they will sell them all no problem. With the MOGA rallying their people to book up and sell hunts, and enough NR hunters that were in wait and see mode, we wont have any problem selling the leftovers. I know of at least half a dozen NR that will probably get in on this opportunity. I hope they all sell so we can tell all of the I-161 naysayers to go take a hike.

 

[Big Fin]

I hope they all sell so we can tell all of the I-161 naysayers to go take a hike.

I hope they sell them all, too.

But, I am still not convinced that I-161 did anything positive. If it did, I would like to know what that would be.

And I would be more than willing "to go take a hike" on the topic, if it becomes apparent it accomplished anything.

 

[Drake4]

I hope they sell them all, too.

But, I am still not convinced that I-161 did anything positive. If it did, I would like to know what that would be.

Here is the positive that I always hoped would come out of it....

Hopefully we realize that it is now time for RESIDENTS to start funding our own land access programs. Let's get it figured out, so we do not have to rely on non-res. tag fees to fund Block Management.

That's my thought, but I may be just off the short bus as well.

 

[Rat Fink]

Well at a minimum it created fairness in the draw for all NR's, removed an unholy relationship between Outfitters and the State, and has forced Outfitters to compete on an even field. As far as access goes, it will take a few years to see how it worked, and it could be good or bad. But I am willing to try it for now, and hope that some landlocked public lands get freed up. I know of 2 places that it already has.

 

[Rat Fink]

Here is the positive that I always hoped would come out of it....

Hopefully we realize that it is now time for RESIDENTS to start funding our own land access programs. Let's get it figured out, so we do not have to rely on non-res. tag fees to fund Block Management.

That's my thought, but I may be just off the short bus as well.

I agree with that. I would have no problem paying for an access stamp that would be required for everyone, or at LEAST to use a Block Management Area.

 

[thecrittergitter]

As a small business owner in MT, i'm glad to see the Outfitters having to work to maintain their clients. I don't have anything against outfitters in general, what i have a problem with is that is BS for the state to "guarantee" their success as a business but then not only not guarantee many of us the same success, but quite often, make it even more difficult to succeed by regulating things to death.

I looked at 161 from more of a business aspect than the hunting aspect of it when i , but I also think that all licenses will get sold and it should put the question to bed whether it was a good idea or not as far as tag sales go.

The landowner issue, well, hard to tell what impact it will have there..........

And I really have a hard time believing that so many people would let the increase in fees totally govern their hunt when they would have so much time and money invested into it anyway.............Its not like going to CO, or NM, or AZ, or UT, ..etc.... to hunt instead would be any cheaper for a deer and elk tag?

 

[Lawnboy]

How would this open more private land to the public? Makes no sense to me. IF I owned land and had great hunting you would only see friends and family at best on my property. With that said I couldn't belly ache too much about damages from game if I wasn't allowing enough animals to be shot or hazed off my property either. The only way a landowner is going to open up land is if they have a financial gain for it. Block Management does pay out some but for me it wouldn't be enough to allow people I don't really know to roam my property. So leasing at various rates is what is driving the access issue on private land.

 

[Drake4]

How would this open more private land to the public? Makes no sense to me.

We have hunted antelope on one of many BMA's out east. It is kind of a hit and miss spot...big ranch though. The owner has talked to an outfitter about leasing it so he didn't have to deal with BMA. The outfitter backed out this year due to uncertainty. The owner is continuing with BMA in order to make a couple thousand bucks.

If the outfitter would have pulled the trigger, this place would not be in BMA next year.

It will never open any "Turners" or "Meth Elk Ranch" but for the couple thousand acre farmer/rancher Joe....it may.

 

[Lawnboy]

Good point and example.

 

[thecrittergitter]

How would this open more private land to the public? Makes no sense to me. IF I owned land and had great hunting you would only see friends and family at best on my property. With that said I couldn't belly ache too much about damages from game if I wasn't allowing enough animals to be shot or hazed off my property either. The only way a landowner is going to open up land is if they have a financial gain for it. Block Management does pay out some but for me it wouldn't be enough to allow people I don't really know to roam my property. So leasing at various rates is what is driving the access issue on private land.

When you get that ranch, can I be on the "friend" list?

 

[Oak]

I'm bad at math. What would the difference in revenue be this year with 2,000 fewer B-10 licenses sold at the higher price, vs. selling out last year at the lower price?

 

[Lawnboy]

When you get that ranch, can I be on the "friend" list?

I missed out on my dream ranch. Was only short around 42 million. Maybe next time. You can hunt only as long as you provide me some billboard signs saying No Trespassing.

 

[Horn Seeker]

But, I am still not convinced that I-161 did anything positive

YEah... That....

I guess Drake points out at least one example.... But from what I saw, the initiative was simply to hammer the outfitters....

 

[belly-deep]

How would this open more private land to the public? Makes no sense to me. IF I owned land and had great hunting you would only see friends and family at best on my property.

**NEWS FLASH***

not everybody thinks like you

I've killed most of my antelope on land that did not belong to my friends or family...how do you think I got on there???

 

[shoots-straight]

I hope they sell them all, too.

But, I am still not convinced that I-161 did anything positive. If it did, I would like to know what that would be.

And I would be more than willing "to go take a hike" on the topic, if it becomes apparent it accomplished anything.

Fin, sometimes weening the little ones off of the tit is painful. The little one cries a lot, the world seems to come to an end, especially for the little tit sucker.

In 1995, the outfitting Industry as a whole was working. They might not have been in expansion mode, but none the less, was working. When we went to OSL, we put the Fox in charge of the hen house, and we know the rest of the story. I don't think things will be worse in coming years. I didn't have any delusional ideas of what was going to happen. I expected that the growth, that the outfitting industry as a whole was enjoying, will come to an end. The only way for it to continue, was at the expence of the resident hunter.

Somthing had to give, and the growth the Outfitting Industry went through had to stop. The resource is at a breaking point. They eventually would have elbowed us off of the table. Look how strong that little organization has got sense the 1995 decission.

It will be a struggle for a while. That's life as they say. Things will level off in time. The tie to the Dept had to be cut. If that means we make up some of the difference then so be it. It's time to move on.

Montana got really bad press this year, money is tighter than last, resources are lower. I don't think it's panic time. Just yet!

If we end up loose a lot of money, then you can say "I told you so" until then lets just wait and see.

 

[wingman1]

I missed out on my dream ranch. Was only short around 42 million. Maybe next time. You can hunt only as long as you provide me some billboard signs saying No Trespassing.

Hey Lb were you horn hunting 10 days ago on the ranch you bow hunt? I was flying over it and saw a guy with horns on his back. Looked like you. Dude was packing some serious antler.

 

[Lawnboy]

NEWS FLASH

That's great and I'm right there with you. Currently own 1 acre of land. Any private I get to hunt I have no relation to them. Just nice folks that I know. I even hunt some block management. Knocking doors and helping out in the off season can get you very far.

I just am a little tired of people getting mad because someone owns some land and won't let them hunt. Ridiculous.

 

[mdunc8]

I just am a little tired of people getting mad because someone owns some land and won't let them hunt. Ridiculous.

Agreed. Once I'm rich and famous, there's about half a dozen people I'd be willing to let hunt my property.

 

[mdunc8]

I'm bad at math. What would the difference in revenue be this year with 2,000 fewer B-10 licenses sold at the higher price, vs. selling out last year at the lower price?

Assuming they sold out both years and my numbers are correct, FWP got $15.6 million last year and just over $15.5 million this year. If they only sell 15,000 tags this year, they get about $13.7 million. That's only for the tags. Doesn't include fees or conservation license.

 

[Big Fin]

Shoots - Trust me, I want to see all good things come of it. I agree with the principles that everyone stated in this thread.

But, I don't see any weaning going on with 100% draw odds, and they are lining up their clients to buy the leftovers, at a lower price than they paid last year.

Only pain seems to be on the self-guided guy.

My question is whether or not any of the principles stated in this thread got accomplished. I hope they do get accomplished.

If we can sell all our tags at this higher price, I am happy, as it means we had underpriced them in the past. That would be a great realization. Will be interested to see how many of those were self-guided versus guided hunters. Not sure how we will know.

As on person pointed out, I hope the end result of I-161 is that residents want to start funding more of their own access program. That would be great news.

We tried to get some of that in 2003 and 2005, and was told to get the hell out of town. And, it was many of the resident hunters who tell us to get out of town. Same as when we asked for a resident fee increase.

Having been down that road before, I just don't see the resident signing on for that deal. This site is full of active guys. If you want to see the inactive guys get active in politics, propose a $20 user stamp for Block Management. Propose a $25 license fee increase. Even if you exclude the young and the old, these guys come out of the woodwork to bitch about those kind of things.

I am all in favor of removing the outfitter setaside we had. Didn't like it from the start. Just not sure we accomplished that. Some want to say it is no longer wirtten in statute. Right, it is not in statute anymore, but if it is in practical application, not sure it was worth the political capital spent on the initiative.

I am willing to wait and see. Will be interesting. I know the bill to enhance the payment limit to Block Management cooperators was pulled, as FWP stated they will probably not have the money to pay what they have done historically. I cannot tell you if that is their estimate based on expected I-161 events, but it is a bad outlook on the future.

I hope all the licenses sell after the deadline, that we have full Block Management funding, and we can increase the program. I hope next year we have more applicants than we had this year.

With that, no more from me. Will wait and see how it works out over the next couple years. If it doesn't work, we as residents better be willing to dig out our wallets and start funding much of what we should have been funding all along.