Is this true

[thecrittergitter]

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.

No, wasn't him..................it was me. a 13 horn weekend isn't too bad. I would post pictures but since its a secret spot, i don't want anyone knowing about it

 

[Ben Lamb]

NEWS FLASH

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

Agreed.

Also getting tired of folks who constantly have their hand out to take our license dollars to pay for coyote control for sheep producers, and both the state and federal bank accounts for all kinds of subsidies, and then complain when too many of "our elk" eat "their grass" without actually working with FWP to correct the situation. Then those same landowners show up at the legislature asking for set-aside tags for themselves, or eliminating the role of the commission and FWP in wildlife management, so they can profit off of "our elk" because they feed them.

It's a double edged sword for both the sportsman and the landowner. 161 was an attempt to get back to the equitable distribution of tags for the Non-resident. Now, as retribution for that, we have SB 400, SB 255, HB 361, HB 285, HB 151, HB 339, HB 372, and HB 387.

Whether 161 will ever open up lands that have been leased in prime areas, I doubt. But it could, especially if we put our heads together to make Block Management work better for landowners than it does now.

As Fin noted, we're still undersold on the 17,000 cap. The OSL's were part of that cap, correct? So if we are 1600 licenses under, then the outfitters have guaranteed tags for those clients who want to come and hunt in MT. Landowners will still get a payoff for leasing their lands, and not much has changed due to I-161's passage from the licensing standpoint.

 

[Lawnboy]

He said that it looked like me. You're waaay uglier Couldn't of been you I was carrying 15 in the crew cab. Need to have a new buckle sewn on.

 

[174in]

I am sure all of the tags will get sold myself.Even though they are high people that have had sucsess hunting Montana in the past will whine about the price hike but will bite the bullet when they relize they can just buy the tag instead of just sending for the draw.

 

[Lawnboy]

Ben I totally agree that we need to make it more beneficial for the Block Management guys. My point was that for a couple thousand dollars at best it would not be worth my time and headache dealing with people. I'd be willing to pay more for tags if I thought this might entice landowners to get on BM.

As far as landowners complaining about critters see the middle of post 27. I'm with you.

 

[shoots-straight]

We need to insure that the resource is there first. If it's not worth the money to come here, then they won't. This is another reason to do away with Barrett's 2003 law.

If I lived in any other state, I would choose 3 or 4 other states to hunt before Montana. I don't think the price is the biggest factor. It's the resource!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I hope you don't expect me to read the stuff I'm lashing out against!

I like the idea of a BMA stamp. One thing is for sure, the funding issue will only get worse, and if the resident doesn't come up with an answer, then the Legislature will. After this year, I'd rather have the hunters and anglers of MT develop a plan than the folks in the capitol.

 

[Drake4]

I like the BMA stamp too. I can imagine the people that would start complaining though.

I've said this before, but $85 is ridiculous for the resident sportmens tag...everything needs to go up.

 

[Mudranger1]

so let me get this straight...Is Montana the state that has two draws normally? one for a general tag then if you get that one you can put in for a special draw? and what your saying is that they didn't sell enough to have the first draw?

 

[drahthaar]

I don't believe for a second that the average joe hunter(that isn't reading hunting forums) realizes how spoiled and lucky we are in this state, and will pitch a giant hissy fit if so much as $5.00 is added to anything. I just went and bought the sportsmans with bear, a bow stamp, and a turkey tag. $103.50 That is a lot of good cheap hunting and fun. Throw in an antelope, or lion, or hopefully a wolf tag later on, my gosh.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I-161 severed a fiscal and administrative relationship between a state agency and a for-profit private industry. That was positive in my opinion.

 

[Rat Fink]

Just out of principle, I would rather see tags be slightly undersold in a FAIR system, than see tags be sold out for the lower price and undersold on the higher price in a 2 tiered system where wealth buys your way in. What we have now is completely fair to all non residents. No one can argue that.

 

[Brudno]

I think just going from 60% draw odds to not having enough apps to require a draw is saying alot about the backlash from the price hike, regardless of whether or not they sell out of tags, which I believe they will, by July at the latest when people who have a higher intrest in quality vs oppurtunity, realize they didnt come up as lucky as they wanted to in the draws, faced with the decision of hunting OTC in Colorado vs Montana, I think enough people will buy the tags up. However that is all dependent on how well the word gets out that Montana has tags for sale OTC, which should come as a surprise to many, but I think for the average guy, there going to stick with what they know and head to Colorado or Idaho like they do every year, your key is definetely targeting the guys who hope to see more than just a raghorn.

Before anyone says where else can you buy a deer and elk tag for the same price as a Montana combo tag, simply consider the average DIY hunter has 7-10 days to make there hunt happen, they'd rather buy a cheaper single species tag, than a more expensive combo tag. You guys have a very liberal season length, but the window that NR's can hunt isnt any bigger because of that.

Just my NR perspective, which happens to be shared by many I know.

 

[belly-deep]

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

Oh, I must be mixed up. I thought the general sentiment on this website was against private property rights

 

[Lawnboy]

Not with me. I can see both sides. It's not the American way if we can't have what the others have. Fairness doctrine I guess

Can I borrow somebodies Ford King Ranch for the weekend? You really should let me use it because I don't have one and frankly it's not fair that you do.

 

[onpoint]

Personally, Belly, I'm not against private property rights, I'm against the special interest driven creation of the percieved war between private and public rights...but that's awhole different post in itself. I am in %100 agreement with those in this thread that stated that we MT'ers can do ourselves a huge favor by taking the actual responsibilty to fund more of what we have ourselves. Nothing more needs to be added to that statement.

 

[onpoint]

I lied. I will add that part of the reason I voted for I-161 was because I want resident hunters to pick up more of the tab for block management. If the end result is we don't, and we see a reduced or "gone" program, maybe we don't deserve it. Drathaar earlier said something about us being spoiled....maybe it's time the spoiled kids get a reality check. I hunt BMA, heavily, and will gladly pay another fee to continue.

 

[belly-deep]

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.

I think we need to wait a few years and see how this thing pans out.

A lot of guys might be upset over the price increase for a while. A few years down the road, they'll come around.

We've got a few factors working against selling all of the licenses right now. The economy, bad press (in the form of wolf hysteria), etc. The outfitters may have guaranteed tags this year for their clients, but every coming year is a guessing game.

If you want an example of a good thing to come out of I-161, I would say the outfitting industry got a good wake-up call with I-161. They might be more cooperative in the future, but that could be wishful thinking.

Time will tell. Its a little short-sighted to condemn I-161 already.

If you were to calculate the days/$$, Montana would be, by far, the cheapest state to hunt. We have long seasons that run concurrently for different species, most of the state can be hunted on a general tag, and we have rut rifle hunts for deer. I still think MT is a pretty good deal for NR hunters.

 

[belly-deep]

I lied. I will add that part of the reason I voted for I-161 was because I want resident hunters to pick up more of the tab for block management. If the end result is we don't, and we see a reduced or "gone" program, maybe we don't deserve it. Drathaar earlier said something about us being spoiled....maybe it's time the spoiled kids get a reality check. I hunt BMA, heavily, and will gladly pay another fee to continue.

I agree, a BMA stamp would be a great idea.

BMA reform in general would be useful. There is a whole bunch of BMAs that are completely worthless to hunt on. Those guys shouldn't be getting any money for that.

 

[onpoint]

I agree, a BMA stamp would be a great idea.

BMA reform in general would be useful. There is a whole bunch of BMAs that are completely worthless to hunt on. Those guys shouldn't be getting any money for that.

Agreed, hunters might collectively look into ways to have some input into the BMA selection process.