Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
13,076
Location
Laramie, WY
That’s strange because I seem to recall threads on this forum (SB143) where hunters (both resident and non-resident) are asked to weigh in on recent legislation that affects hunters and conservation in a negative manner. Why ask if NRs have no say and no voice? Yet when tag allocations and prices come up residents hunters continue to insult NR hunters and are told to “shut up and color”.
Look...if ANY residents try to oppose SB143 its a good thing for NR's. Honestly, its no skin off the back of any resident how the NR tags are allocated. If you don't want to participate in opposing legislation that impacts DIY NR hunters...as a NR, don't.

I've written and called on both 143 and 505 and neither has any direct impact on me. I get a native MT license for deer, fishing, birds and could add an elk tag if I wanted all OTC. I don't hunt elk any more in Montana, so 505 has no real impact to me either way.

But, just because there's nothing directly in it for me, doesn't mean that I'm just not going to continue to do the right thing and take a few moments to become engaged in the process that DOES impact others....and most importantly the Wildlife. Somehow, everyone seems to forget the ramifications to wildlife, its all about license access, allocations, and price. Those issues aren't even really on my personal top 10 of issues that really do impact all our wildlife and public lands.

Guess I should just be like a lot of other NR's and quit advocating for public lands, whine about high fee's, and expect every state to give me more tags where I'm a NR.

That way, we can all be friends again.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
49
Look...if ANY residents try to oppose SB143 its a good thing for NR's. Honestly, its no skin off the back of any resident how the NR tags are allocated. If you don't want to participate in opposing legislation that impacts DIY NR hunters...as a NR, don't.

I've written and called on both 143 and 505 and neither has any direct impact on me. I get a native MT license for deer, fishing, birds and could add an elk tag if I wanted all OTC. I don't hunt elk any more in Montana, so 505 has no real impact to me either way.

But, just because there's nothing directly in it for me, doesn't mean that I'm just not going to continue to do the right thing and take a few moments to become engaged in the process that DOES impact others....and most importantly the Wildlife. Somehow, everyone seems to forget the ramifications to wildlife, its all about license access, allocations, and price. Those issues aren't even really on my personal top 10 of issues that really do impact all our wildlife and public lands.

Guess I should just be like a lot of other NR's and quit advocating for public lands, whine about high fee's, and expect every state to give me more tags where I'm a NR.

That way, we can all be friends again.
I am in total agreement with you on this. I’ll continue to call about 143 and 505 and anything else that negatively affects DIY hunters and wildlife conservation writ large.
 

Dougfirtree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,400
Location
Adirondacks
I think 6 plates get more hate than anyone now.
Aw, you guys are making me miss Montana, the only place I've ever lived where you could tell where someone was from by their plates. It adds a whole new dimension to road rage that you just don't get here (except with people from New Jersey).
 

mtmuley

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
8,371
Location
montana
Aw, you guys are making me miss Montana, the only place I've ever lived where you could tell where someone was from by their plates. It adds a whole new dimension to road rage that you just don't get here (except with people from New Jersey).
Can't tell that anymore. Too many designer plates. Besides, half the people here aren't from Montana anyway. mtmuley
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
887
What irritates a lot of the Residents of resource rich states....is that they just arent too keen on giving their resources away and/or being on the hook for all the costs of remediation.

Western States Legislatures and Politicians have a pretty clear history of getting hosed by the various businesses that extract our resources.

Certainly there are some that just oppose any kind of development, but IME/O its more a function of the what I already described. Tired of making peanuts and then expected to pick up the tab for cleaning up the mess.
Buzz, that's living in the past honestly. And way in the past, like before the clean air and clean water acts.
Take Stillwater mine for example. It's on a blue ribbon trout stream and right next to a wilderness area. I think even the most rabid leftists environmental nazis would agree they have been good stewards.
Same story with logging. The regulations in place now make it much more environmentally friendly than it was in the 60-70's. Plus, with logging you get the benefit of employment instead of just watching it burn.
 

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
869
Buzz, that's living in the past honestly. And way in the past, like before the clean air and clean water acts.
Take Stillwater mine for example. It's on a blue ribbon trout stream and right next to a wilderness area. I think even the most rabid leftists environmental nazis would agree they have been good stewards.
Same story with logging. The regulations in place now make it much more environmentally friendly than it was in the 60-70's. Plus, with logging you get the benefit of employment instead of just watching it burn.

Why not mention the Landusky gold mine in the Little Rockies as an example of modern mining??

Its benefits will last a long time.

Like everything, mining is neither all good or all bad. The Stillwater mine is an environmentally sound mine. Some of that likely is due to the geology of the area.

Hopefully you aren't in public relations, hanging pejoratives on people with differing views rarely causes anyone to change their mind.
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
887
Why not mention the Landusky gold mine in the Little Rockies as an example of modern mining??

Its benefits will last a long time.

Like everything, mining is neither all good or all bad. The Stillwater mine is an environmentally sound mine. Some of that likely is due to the geology of the area.

Hopefully you aren't in public relations, hanging pejoratives on people with differing views rarely causes anyone to change their mind.
Zortman-Landusky was originally mined in the 1860's FWIW. It is very much a legacy mine.
And if the shoe fits and it does, wear it.
 

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
869
Here is a link detailing the history of the Landusky mine. All mines, in time, become "legacy" mines. Much of the mining activity occurred in the later part of the previous century.


This mine no doubt played a part in Montanans banning cyanide heap leach mining.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,990
Location
SE Montana
You have got it all wrong on plate numbers. When it comes to plates, the one I see that signals proceed with caution far more than all others combined is #1. Yesterday you just avoid them at all costs.
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
887
Here is a link detailing the history of the Landusky mine. All mines, in time, become "legacy" mines. Much of the mining activity occurred in the later part of the previous century.


This mine no doubt played a part in Montanans banning cyanide heap leach mining.
The problems with the Zortman-Landusky mine started well before heap leaching was started. While cyanide is an eye catcher the real problem there is acid mine drainage which would have started as soon as the mine opened in the 1800's. Even with that said cyanide leaching started 41 years ago. Standards in respect to discharges and bonding requirements are vastly different now. Not to mention the fact that mining technology in respect to preventing pollution has also greatly changed.
 

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
869
The problems with the Zortman-Landusky mine started well before heap leaching was started. While cyanide is an eye catcher the real problem there is acid mine drainage which would have started as soon as the mine opened in the 1800's. Even with that said cyanide leaching started 41 years ago. Standards in respect to discharges and bonding requirements are vastly different now. Not to mention the fact that mining technology in respect to preventing pollution has also greatly changed.

Certainly, the mining industry's history of evironmental pollution has compelled all of the upgrades you mention. It's not like the industry said,, hey we want to run cleaner and spend more money doing it,,so please tighten up the laws.

You also mention that the real problem with Landusky was the geology. That is a common problem with mining.
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
887
Certainly, the mining industry's history of evironmental pollution has compelled all of the upgrades you mention. It's not like the industry said,, hey we want to run cleaner and spend more money doing it,,so please tighten up the laws.

You also mention that the real problem with Landusky was the geology. That is a common problem with mining.
No the real problem at Z-L was not geology. Stillwater mines sulfide ores as well. In fact most of the minerals in Montana are sulfide ores.
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
887
I would suggest getting back on the rails of the original post. If some of you want to debate the impacts of resource extraction, go start another thread on that topic.
Randy, I missed this post. Back on topic here.
 

88man

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,771
Location
Pa
Wow its the end of the world as we know it> Just thinking how many years until we can't launch a boat off a public state owned boat ramp in another state or outta county. You talk about crowding issues and angry residents waiting inline. Its coming.
 

diamond hitch

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
649
Location
Western Montana
I remember at half the price of resident elk tags the difficulty in coming up with the money to buy tags for my kids as they were growing up. Did we kill more game? Rarely! Short seasons and higher prices reduce interest in these family activities.

Blanket increases for MtFWP I don't think is the answer. The question is how are they spending it. I spent some time with the biologist in my district who has multiple districts to share knowledge and understanding of remote areas. There is no chance they could learn that without help. I also learned that they have no wolf, cat or bear people in my districts. We see the problems but more money isn't the answer at least until we figure out where it is going.

There can be some hard feelings among the residents when they can only hunt on the weekends but the non- residents are visible for weeks at a time.

For all the anti-ranchers on here and there are quite a few. The ranchers pay taxes on their land, buildings, and equipment in addition to each of their livestock. The hardest for me to swallow was the $.25/chicken tax.

I moved back to Montana when the license went on a lottery. Frankly I don't care if the combo tag for NR goes to $1000 plus another $1000 trophy fee for every bull you kill. If you don't like it - move.
 

BrentD

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
3,626
Location
In the middle
Sadly, any time the subject comes up, there is a lot of wailing and crying about how it prices out the little guy.

But it ignores the fact that the little guy can't really afford to hunt right now. I'd keep doe tags dirt cheap to answer that line of attack. That is a pure meat hunt for those making the case that they need game meat to feed their family.
It's not just the little guy anymore.

And doe tags or depredation tags aint gonna cut it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
95,233
Messages
1,429,884
Members
29,880
Latest member
Grepgaston
Top