Montana deer tag costs

[runningmt]

Simple economics of supply and demand.

 

[OverlordBear]

If I haven’t bagged anything in the season I ll will shoot the first thing I legally can because I like the meat too much to go without. I like big racks but I like meat even more. And it is still cheaper than golf and the grocery store lol.

 

[coleslaw]

Plenty of big deer in Montana, They tend to live where people are not. Get off of the beaten path and you may surprise yourself. Or dont get off the beaten path and save them for me

Yep. Plenty of deer where I was last year. There are more regions than just region 7... Montana is a big state and it holds a lot of deer and hiding places.
Sure, there were lots of dinks, but it was fun being able to watch and pick through them and find " the one" chasing a doe.
$700 with the preference point is a bit much, but I'd go again in a heartbeat if I wasn't chasing elk in Wyoming this year.

 

[antlerradar]

How nice was the "the one"?

 

[Wildabeest]

I think that the Mt NR mule deer hunter has always tended to take home a deer if they could. I think it would be a bit foolish to try to manage deer age structure through the price of the tags. If the road hunter was to pass the young bucks, the next truck will kill it. If we are going to have older class bucks it will be through changes in season timing or length. I do not fault anyone for shooting any legal animal that makes them happy. I personally think we as hunters should quit pointing our finger at other hunters that are hunting legally, because we are dissatisfied with the age class of available bucks. With Montana's mule deer season the way it is, there is no way we will ever brow beat our way to better big buck hunting. IMO

Totally agree. Different people hunt for different reasons. Personally, I’m a meat hunter. But I don’t begrudge trophy hunters. I’d appreciate if they didn’t begrudge me either. We all have a much more dangerous adversary, so we need to align against the real threats and not get distracted with internal squabbles about shooting legal non-trophies.

 

[EYJONAS!]

Why does it seem like all the meat hunters decide to take a young buck then? Because they "taste" better than an older deer. I'm calling bullshit on that. Last time I checked especially if your hunting mid November and their rutting around they all can be pretty skanky unless handled properly.

Hell we got districts you can take 3 elk in now...... if I'm "meat" hunting I'm not looking for deer.

 

[brownbear932008]

Sorry I'm not paying for a 670$ tag to go meat hunting. I can do that in my backyard for free. I can pass 30-40 does a day on the place I hunt here. Mulie meat also isn't good enough to write home about usually anyway. Alfalfa fed Whitetails are much better IMO.

 

[Dl1969]

Would like to think most nonresident hunters are out of the truck enjoying the land and trying to harvest a quality animal

 

[HalfAce]

I have a few handfuls of points that I want to get rid of on a permit unit. If I didn’t have the points i would not be applying. 2,800 miles round trip and a $700 tag to shoot an 18” deer? That’s not for me.

 

[EYJONAS!]

Would like to think most nonresident hunters are out of the truck enjoying the land and trying to harvest a quality animal

They come for the watering holes......

 

[LopeHunter]

Simple economics of supply and demand.

Is that how wildlife should be priced? If so, Joe Sixpack will get squeezed harder. Why differentiate between residents and nonresidents if want to maximize revenues? Set one price so that every tag sells. If have 50 bighorn tags and 50 hunters are willing to pay $10,000 or more then $10,000 is the new price. Simple supply and demand. Or, put all 50 tags on eBay and get $10,000 for the 50th tag but a lot more per tag for the first 49 tags offered. Might as well maximize revenues along the supply and demand curve. Maybe sell 10 fewer tags and get more revenues if letting the herd age a bit is attractive to Richie Rich.

No need to drag in issues of fairness or opportunity. Dollars talk, bs walks. I predict a lot of not just nonresident but foreign nationals will be hunting bighorns and mountain goats and moose and rut elk and rut deer tags very soon under this supply and demand approach. Or, were you just wanting to have supply and demand for nonresidents? That seems a bit short-sighted as a free economist. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

 

[ImBillT]

Here's a thought. Hunt your own state.

Yet I’m supposed to put a lot of my other principles aside and vote for politicians that care about public land in your state.

ID is raising prices, WY and NM cut tags. MT was already too expensive for me. UT and NV are almost impossible to draw. Public land is getting lower and lower on the list of things I consider when voting.

 

[ImBillT]

Is that how wildlife should be priced? If so, Joe Sixpack will get squeezed harder. Why differentiate between residents and nonresidents if want to maximize revenues? Set one price so that every tag sells. If have 50 bighorn tags and 50 hunters are willing to pay $10,000 or more then $10,000 is the new price. Simple supply and demand. Or, put all 50 tags on eBay and get $10,000 for the 50th tag but a lot more per tag for the first 49 tags offered. Might as well maximize revenues along the supply and demand curve. Maybe sell 10 fewer tags and get more revenues if letting the herd age a bit is attractive to Richie Rich.

No need to drag in issues of fairness or opportunity. Dollars talk, bs walks. I predict a lot of not just nonresident but foreign nationals will be hunting bighorns and mountain goats and moose and rut elk and rut deer tags very soon under this supply and demand approach. Or, were you just wanting to have supply and demand for nonresidents? That seems a bit short-sighted as a free economist. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I can’t agree more. Every time I see someone say that prices should be increased because all the tags are selling I just think “we already have that system! It’s called private land, and you claim that you don’t like it!”

 

[BuzzH]

Yet I’m supposed to put a lot of my other principles aside and vote for politicians that care about public land in your state.

ID is raising prices, WY and NM cut tags. MT was already too expensive for me. UT and NV are almost impossible to draw. Public land is getting lower and lower on the list of things I consider when voting.

You're full of crap, Wyoming didn't cut tags to NR's.

Also, if the only value you find in public lands is your ability to draw a tag, then you never were a public lands advocate to start with and never will be.

I've never drawn a tag in UT or NV, but just because I haven't, doesn't mean I don't find value in the public lands found there. I just filled out my 21st applications for UT and 17th for NV...I wont ever quit supporting public lands there, even if I NEVER draw either state. Public lands are more important to me than drawing a tag or the price I have to pay to draw, or whether or not a state raises NR fees. Hunting is a small ancillary benefit of public lands.

The bullchit threat of "If I don't draw my preferred NR tag in UT or NV or____(fill in the blank) state, and pay what I think is fair, then I'm going throw my sucker in the dirt, stomp my feet, and hold my breath and not care about public lands anymore," is wearing thin.

What a joke.

 

[BuzzH]

I can’t agree more. Every time I see someone say that prices should be increased because all the tags are selling I just think “we already have that system! It’s called private land, and you claim that you don’t like it!”

In what state do private land owners own the native wildlife?

Answer: The state of fantasyland/make believe.

 

[ImBillT]

You're full of crap, Wyoming didn't cut tags to NR's.

Also, if the only value you find in public lands is your ability to draw a tag, then you never were a public lands advocate to start with and never will be.

I've never drawn a tag in UT or NV, but just because I haven't, doesn't mean I don't find value in the public lands found there. I just filled out my 21st applications for UT and 17th for NV...I wont ever quit supporting public lands there, even if I NEVER draw either state. Public lands are more important to me than drawing a tag or the price I have to pay to draw, or whether or not a state raises NR fees. Hunting is a small ancillary benefit of public lands.

The bullchit threat of "If I don't draw my preferred NR tag in UT or NV or____(fill in the blank) state, and pay what I think is fair, then I'm going throw my sucker in the dirt, stomp my feet, and hold my breath and not care about public lands anymore, is wearing thin.

What a joke.

You’re right, WY didn’t cut tags. My mistake. They were looking at some major changes that may not have passed. As someone who couldn’t afford to float the money to get in on the random and is just buying points there this year, I didn’t commit everything in WY to memory. Again, sorry I accidentally included WY as cutting NR tags.

Unlike you, I don’t believe that land being private automatically means that the land is destroyed or that wildlife can’t thrive there. In fact, the vast majority of wildlife in the US primarily resides on private land. The biggest differences between private land and public land is who decides how it gets used, and who gets to use it. When you tell me that you can hunt on a piece of land but I can’t, it might as well be private. If you want me to donate to something I will never get to use or enjoy, that is essentially a charity, which is great, but there a numerous charities that are higher on my list. Children’s homes, homeless shelters and outreach programs, food banks, battered women’s shelters etc. The list could go on considerably before I would get to the “keep this land out of private hands but please don’t actually come here and use it the way I use it fund”.

As a WY resident, you get to do plenty of hunting. I’m happy for you. Unlike you, if I’m going to hunt elk without paying to hunt on private land, I have to wade through the gauntlet of limited NR hunting opportunities. For mule deer, I’m extremely lucky to have made friends with a very generous land owner, but I’m one of nine hunters on three sections(down from eleven), and the adjacent properties are hunted as well, so it’s a wonder I’ve been able to kill the deer that I have there. If I want a chance of hunting mule deer the way most people do, again, I’m resigned to wading through the limited public hunting opportunities afforded to NR’s by other states. Believe it or not, it’s painful to see what is already expensive and difficult to come by become more expensive and more difficult to come by. Your state may have every legal, and perhaps even every moral right to do whatever you want to NR hunters, but I’m bewildered by the idea that I’m supposed to like it.


Regarding politics, public land was already low on my list, but yes, if I can’t hunt on it, it gets even lower. Why? Because I’m not going to drive to MT to walk around.

Don’t forget, my post that you quoted was in response to a hunter telling another hunter to stay in his home state. That happens to be something that you yourself do not do. You may disagree with many of the things that say, but surely you are not entirely on his side.

 

[ImBillT]

In what state do private land owners own the native wildlife?

Answer: The state of fantasyland/make believe.

In MANY states, land owners either receive tags, vouchers for tags, or private land tags are OTC, and land owners charge a boatload of money for you hunt there. You know exactly what I’m talking about. Why did you bother with this post?

 

[R*and*Y]

Hunting in Montana is one of my greatest hunting trips.

 

[timmy]

You’re right, WY didn’t cut tags. My mistake. They were looking at some major changes that may not have passed. As someone who couldn’t afford to float the money to get in on the random and is just buying points there this year, I didn’t commit everything in WY to memory. Again, sorry I accidentally included WY as cutting NR tags.

Unlike you, I don’t believe that land being private automatically means that the land is destroyed or that wildlife can’t thrive there. In fact, the vast majority of wildlife in the US primarily resides on private land. The biggest differences between private land and public land is who decides how it gets used, and who gets to use it. When you tell me that you can hunt on a piece of land but I can’t, it might as well be private. If you want me to donate to something I will never get to use or enjoy, that is essentially a charity, which is great, but there a numerous charities that are higher on my list. Children’s homes, homeless shelters and outreach programs, food banks, battered women’s shelters etc. The list could go on considerably before I would get to the “keep this land out of private hands but please don’t actually come here and use it the way I use it fund”.

As a WY resident, you get to do plenty of hunting. I’m happy for you. Unlike you, if I’m going to hunt elk without paying to hunt on private land, I have to wade through the gauntlet of limited NR hunting opportunities. For mule deer, I’m extremely lucky to have made friends with a very generous land owner, but I’m one of nine hunters on three sections(down from eleven), and the adjacent properties are hunted as well, so it’s a wonder I’ve been able to kill the deer that I have there. If I want a chance of hunting mule deer the way most people do, again, I’m resigned to wading through the limited public hunting opportunities afforded to NR’s by other states. Believe it or not, it’s painful to see what is already expensive and difficult to come by become more expensive and more difficult to come by. Your state may have every legal, and perhaps even every moral right to do whatever you want to NR hunters, but I’m bewildered by the idea that I’m supposed to like it.


Regarding politics, public land was already low on my list, but yes, if I can’t hunt on it, it gets even lower. Why? Because I’m not going to drive to MT to walk around.

Don’t forget, my post that you quoted was in response to a hunter telling another hunter to stay in his home state. That happens to be something that you yourself do not do. You may disagree with many of the things that say, but surely you are not entirely on his side.

Private land is great, I’m glad that’s where you hunt.

 

[ImBillT]

Private land is great, I’m glad that’s where you hunt.

I don’t think you understood my point. I believe you took it exactly the opposite way it was meant.

I do hunt some private land, but I don’t pay to hunt it, and it’s pretty heavily hunted by others also.