MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"

[Irrelevant]

I think Wys game management is better by most metrics,

Some very broad brush metrics brought to you by Chat:

WY offers ~42k NR deer and elk tags; Montana about 2x that to NRs, 80k.
WY sells ~130k R deer and elk tags; MT sells a little less than 300k tags to Rs, 2.3x
WY is 97k sq miles; MT is 147k sq miles, 1.5x

Montana simply sells too many tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana simply sells too many tags.

I agree - to an extent. Because the tags are so comically cheap - i think theres a sizable population that buys them and doesnt hunt much or at all. A fishing lic is 31 dollars or 16.50 for people older than 62 or younger than 17. A sportsman without bear is 64.50 and 32.25 . Its basically 30 more dollars to "just have it" for someone who goes fishing.

Nearly every NR tag is going to get hunted.

 

[mountainlaurel3]

By not hearing the appeal from the lower court in the Wyoming case, they essentially have said that they agree with the ruling.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, but alas, it's not true from a constitutional law perspective. They could have any number of reasons to decline to take up the case.

That being said, if I was in Montana I'd be crossing corners whenever I pleased, while being sure to locate the exact corner and not step foot on private land. Just like in WY, if it came to a civil claim, good luck to the plaintiff's attorney re: showing damages for the violation of their airspace.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree - to an extent. Because the tags are so comically cheap - i think theres a sizable population that buys them and doesnt hunt much or at all. A fishing lic is 31 dollars or 16.50 for people older than 62 or younger than 17. A sportsman without bear is 64.50 and 32.25 . Its basically 30 more dollars to "just have it" for someone who goes fishing.

Nearly every NR tag is going to get hunted.

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

 

[mtmuley]

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

You would be surprised at the amount of people that buy a tag "just in case". Not everyone is a hunter. And those are the ones that would complain about a cost increase the most. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

That is the case, i know several people like that.

A very vocal contingent are against that. And a majority are against paying more without cuts to NR.