From a triage point of view, it's low priority. A good back pocket bill to use for accountability or a chance to talk with & educate legislators later, but not a clear & present danger.
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
From a triage point of view, it's low priority. A good back pocket bill to use for accountability or a chance to talk with & educate legislators later, but not a clear & present danger.
NDGuy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,558
What do my comments have to do with outfitters?
I was just curious how one would find zero reason to let NR's hunt their state.
We do not have the elk population to support letting NRs hunt. If we did, I am sure G&F would allow limited tag opportunities. We allow a shit load of people to hunt waterfowl & upland because we have the game to support it. Also charge $150 for licenses which is a big contribution to our G&F budget.
NDGuy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,558
In a way they do, there are multiple raffles every year that NRs can purchase chances for.My odds of drawing a bull elk tag in this damn state are pretty close to yoursBetween my Dad and I, I think we are 0-50 lol. They should set aside at least one tag for NR's so they can donate too. I wouldn't be surprised to see them offer one tag in the near future as they are missing out on a lot of easy money.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
Gotta say this isn't apples to apples ND barely has a hunt that justifies resident elk tags. Can't compare that to states such as MT or WY. Different sides of the coin and not a good argument. I believe everyone here understands the fact states don't have to allow 1 tag to be sold to a nonresident.
But speaking about facts Western state game agencies have put themselves in a position that they have to do so financially to survive at this point in the game.
Part of that problem is the $20 resident tags. Not all states out West fall into that category. So at the end of the day special interest groups such as outfitter associations and others have a legit argument about many topics because the state has put themselves in a corner with budgets if they don't sell X amount of NR tags. Sometimes it amazes me the difference between how Western states and Eastern states differ in budgets and management practices. I know those aren't apples to apples also though.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 792
Does your logic also apply for only Montana hunters allowed to apply for grizzly bear tags?
Schaaf
Well-known member
522What is 10% of 523?
Sorry, just bored and curious. Do you have a threshold number?
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 792
Senate finance canceled hearing?
Per website.
Per website.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You must have used the same calculator they are using for the 3rd round of stimulus - seems to have trouble getting the decimal place in the right spot
Checking on it.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,581
So, now that the bill has been amended where we at?
I didn't think I could support it at initial glance, but after studying for a day....what the heck I can live with it.
I didn't think I could support it at initial glance, but after studying for a day....what the heck I can live with it.
As long as you can only apply early or later, but not both.... I’m good with it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
What I'm saying, is that IF Montana, Wyoming etc. are going to allow NR to hunt here, there is a price to pay.
What many are constantly whining about is that WY and MT should charge NR's either substantially lower fees, or the same as R's to "broaden the tent".
When a State gives NR's access to their wildlife it HAS to be worth their while to do so or they may as well give R's more opportunity.
I'm not in favor or lowering NR fees under some lame argument that it will broaden the tent or give more access to more people.
My wildlife is worth more than to just give it away so the most common of "common man" NR hunters can participate. Or, more to the point, so that the NR's already affording it can do it cheaper so they can buy more ATV's, more rifles, and sitka gear...
Last I checked there was no law against moving to WY or MT
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think you're right, a better apples to apples comparison is ND moose permits. North Dakota issues more moose licenses than Wyoming and Montana and still don't give NR's a single tag.
Which is fine, their right.
What get's old is when Wyoming Residents mention wanting to stop giving NR's 20% of our moose tags, and lower it to 10%, every NR hunter from Florida to Washington has their hair on fire about it.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Right, and some do just that. Either become a resident or pay the NR fee's the State's citizens charge.Last I checked there was no law against moving to WY or MT
No reason to whine about it, everyone has options.
It's a fine line. I agree with you on NR hunters and the need to pay a larger amount, but you also have to take market considerations into account, which is why tying licenses to the CPI was a push for a few years.
But a couple of things that have been clanging around in the cranium: The outpouring of support we've seen in relation to a lot of bad bills comes from the same NR's that we charge high rates. In fact, on 143, it was the NR DIY sportsman that stood up quickly & went to bat for those in-state fighting this. That's worth note, and worth understanding the power that we have together, as residents & NR's, especially as DIY hunters.
I totally agree that the states have the right to set that cost of admission and use the funding as needed, which is why the amendment was a far better approach than the original bill. But if we get to the point where the product offered is not inline with expectations for quality and price, then the state will see a decline in some demographics hunting.
I don't think the $300 fee gets there with the B10, as it's still competitively priced with other states once you factor in the deer, elk, fishing, upland, etc that comes with the B10, but adding $300 the B11 probably will cut the DIY hard, and make them look elsewhere.
So, in our thought process, we should be reconciling the support resident hunters get from NR's who fight for us, as well as what the market will bear in those NR Tags. I'd rather have the army we have, and not bleed off support for DIY hunters & public land advocates.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
Anyone hates to watch their chances lower for something they love so much. But at the end of the day it's up to the state and those residents. There will always be someone to buy that tag and someone who jumps ship when things change. I'm just a grumpy SOB lately because I seem to be walking the plank looking out over the ocean. I have my line in the sand and two states have met it and a third is pushing the line I guess. I've got more hunting in my backyard than I can do in a lifetime. So I'm happy that I've gotten to experience what I have the last 20 years.
On another note I had no idea ND had so many moose. No wonder my buddy is always sending pics from the pipeline out there.
Last edited:
lastlight
Well-known member
Last I checked there was no law against moving to WY or MT
Add in Idaho and make it a cap, say 900k people total per state. Then a simple 5 question survey including “are there more than 2 genders” and if you answer yes then your access is denied.
One can only wish....
Probably need to move this to the ID or CA forum.
- Status
