SB 380 Increase Non resident tags in Montana

Big Fin said:
As one Bozeman-based outfitter explained it to me this way.

The non-resident deer tag is now the only NR tag in Montana that is still oversubscribed - more applicants than licenses. Now that non-residents have the right to get a refund on the elk-deer combo tags and only keep the deer portion, many outfitters are advising their clients to apply for the deer-elk combo tag, then apply for a refund of the elk portion. They are then guaranteed a deer tag that they would not be guaranteed had they went into the deer only tag. A way to circumvent the deer drawing odds.

Not sure how widespread this idea is with non-residents or how many outfitters are telling their clients to do this as a way to get around the deer only tag, but I know at least one outfitter claims it is a common practice among outfitters and why outfitters do not want any changes to the refund policy. This exact point was an issue of worry that many hunters voiced when the refund bill, HB 607, was passed in 2011. We were assured that the refund would not be used that way.



Carry on ......
Click to expand...


This is def happening Big Fin with the outfitters and thier clients. I checked my elk permit odds and since the new legistation the number of non resisdent elk permits applied for in the area in the breaks I apply for yearly have at least tripled in most cases in several zones. I think the guides in those areas are telling clients hey apply for this elk permit if you draw it great you can take a great elk also for XXX amount and if you don't draw then you have a deer tag and get your elk portion refunded no loss. They would have to be idiots not to apply in a hope to draw. Matter of fact I made a call and the 1 non res tag last year I put in for was given to a guy such as this with no points.... I have had to totally forget applying for the tags I have put on for 7 years b/c of the terrible odds of drawing now and apply to a zone I have never stepped foot in.

You guys I gotta say have a terrible problem out there right now and for your sake I hope the state can fix it one way or another very soon or FWP will have a rough go budget wise and a lot of great programs will fall to the wayside in your state. I know you guys are on it but it seems the Outfitters are really giving you guys hell on this junk. Keep up the fight.
 
You need to consider your last phrase about "repercussions for certain actions", because a lot of what you have or are trying to oppose or promote, may cause you and your peanut gallery to come up short later on.
Click to expand...
Shooter, how short were we on I-161? How short were we on I-143?

After the resident hunters see how short the department is on revenue and they start paying more for resident licenses, we'll have this conversation again.

I don't think me, and my "peanut gallery" will have much of a problem.

You see Shooter, I have what's called the majority on my side. Like 170,000 + of them. How many do you have? Peanuts!
 
Last edited:
Shoots.......you shouldn't assume something that you know absolutely nothing about. Yes I am a MOGA member. You didn't answer my question as to why the signature gatherers for
I-161 were flapping their soup coolers about "increased access" if it wasn't the main objective, which most of us know it was.

Buzz.....FYI....you really should get your facts straight on the whole WYOGA, MOGA, IOGA thing. That whole issue was adressed about three days after it first took place between Randy and I.....which in all actuality was between Randy and I.... not Randy, Buzz and I. If you don't believe me, ask him. I guess that if a person admits that he was wrong and can actually own up to it, then he probably isn't too spineless.

As far as an attempt to "suck up" to him, it's really not an attempt at all. Give credit where credit is due. He does have some good ideas.....so I told him. Not really "sucking up" in my book. If you ever had a decent solution to any of these problems I would tell you the same thing.......but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Shooter, I knew your a MOGA member, and they are the ones that pushed for more non resident tags. You knew that though didn't you?

You never answered my question either.

I happen to be one of the signature gatherers and never once did I purpose to potential signers that it was about accessing private property. It was about fairness, something MOGA has no concept of.

You know Shooter, there were dozens of bills that were attacking wildlife this session, and also a bunch that attacked the Department on various things. I never saw MOGA there once supporting the resource or the Department. They only showed up on predator bills, and when they had their hand out. Your a member so does the shoe fit?

Does MOGA do what Mac wants or do they poll their membership?
 
Shoots Straight......if you (or anyone else for that matter) think that by choking back the numbers of non-residents, all of the outfitters will be gone and that all of this private ground will open up.....you should set your bong down and step away, because it will not happen. When landowners lease their property to someone, they are leasing the right to access it.
Click to expand...

Shooter, SB 380 is what this thread is about. It was brought by MOGA. While much of the western 1/3 of the state is trying to maintain or build herds of Elk and deer by reduced opportunity, brought on by sportsman demanding the department cut tags, here comes MOGA with their hand out again.

Every session MOGA brings some sort of reduced tags scheme so a special interest group can trade a newly designed tag for one of the 17,000 combos. We all know that it frees up those tags for outfitter clients to use. Also it perpetuates leasing, just as the OSL did.

We are now over 30,000 non resident elk, and deer tags, and the department is loosing 4.9 million dollars because of it. MOGA was involved in most, or at least testified in favor.

For the record if a landowner wants to lease his lands, that's his right. How we tax that opportunity is my right as a voter.

How about it Shooter, you in favor of more tags at a reduced rate?
 
Big Shooter said:
Buzz.....FYI....you really should get your facts straight on the whole WYOGA, MOGA, IOGA thing. That whole issue was adressed about three days after it first took place between Randy and I.....which in all actuality was between Randy and I.... not Randy, Buzz and I. If you don't believe me, ask him. I guess that if a person admits that he was wrong and can actually own up to it, then he probably isn't too spineless.

As far as an attempt to "suck up" to him, it's really not an attempt at all. Give credit where credit is due. He does have some good ideas.....so I told him. Not really "sucking up" in my book. If you ever had a decent solution to any of these problems I would tell you the same thing.......but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Paschke,

If you wouldnt have made an ass of yourself, and got your facts straight first, there would have been no reason to address your false accusations regarding Randy, MOGA, WYOGA, IOGA and the RMEF or any reason to admit you were wrong...savvy?

I've a feeling you arent one bit remorseful for your actions on that whole deal...only trying to save the last shred of credibility you wrongfully assume you have.

You fired off a letter based on nothing but your hatred for DIY hunters, Randy, and those that represent same. Your self serving attitude bit you in the ass, and will continue to do so.

You're a troublemaker and MOGA would be wise to kick you to the curb. You are the problem and arent interested in any kind of solution that doesnt make you a bigger profit.

I must have missed the part where you owned the email you wrote, your open apology to Randy, MOGA, WYOGA, IOGA and the RMEF....

You've done nothing but drive a wedge between outfitters and DIY resident/non resident hunters and also between various OGA's.

But, you couldnt care less, its all about Rod Paschke and his profitting from the publics wildlife resources at any cost, and your self serving agenda. Always has been...and always will be.

Congratulations?
 
Last edited:
Res. vs Nonres. tags and fees....

We continually here from nonresidents that Montana big game tag regulations are unfair to nonresidents. Albeit the other big game states have difficult draw regulations for nonresidents as such. New Mexico states that to enter the coveted big game drawings a nonresident must purchase a big game license. MT does not require a $140 nonresident big game license to draw o even purchase an over the counter tag. In Africa there are countries that have what is called a VAT tax, this being a "value added tax" that is tacked on to the hunt and trophy fees. Is this a bad idea? I ask this for opinions as I believe MT has a very good system that is indeed fair to residents and nonresidents alike. I suggest that if nonresidents from other states do not agree with MT regulations they hunt elsewhere. This argument has been beat to death by nonresidents and am sure that this will not be the end. If the nonresidents desire better odds perhaps a move to our great state is in order. I continually here that many want to move to MT. Yes, please do, contribute to our communities, pay taxes. Support our schools, support our friendly towns, counties, cities. But, to complain from afar is a hollow argument. MTG
 
Here's the vote count:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation?P_VOTE_SEQ=H1860&P_SESS=20131

48-51
 
It's posted now. I was hoping that we had turned a couple of our reps. We didn't even though MSA had endorsed two from the Root that voted for it.

It's a good day.
 
Appreciate those doing the heavy lifting. The process seems to work most of the time.
 
Big Fin said:
Smoke and mirrors. We already have an earmarked account for this exact purpose. It currently has over $370,000 in the account. No one is willing to sell their public land access to FWP, so it will do the same amount of good as if it were put in a coffee can out in front of the Capitol building.

And, now that we have HB 5 and its amendments to make it illegal for FWP to purchase land or hunting easements, not sure what good this account would do if the bill does pass.

Maybe I am missing something, but to me, that section is further indication of how little research goes into some of these bills. This is a duplication of a poorly received program and it is being paraded around to try make it sound more palatable to the uninformed legislators who have limited background on these issues.
Click to expand...
brownbear932008 said:
This is def happening Big Fin with the outfitters and thier clients. I checked my elk permit odds and since the new legistation the number of non resisdent elk permits applied for in the area in the breaks I apply for yearly have at least tripled in most cases in several zones. I think the guides in those areas are telling clients hey apply for this elk permit if you draw it great you can take a great elk also for XXX amount and if you don't draw then you have a deer tag and get your elk portion refunded no loss. They would have to be idiots not to apply in a hope to draw. Matter of fact I made a call and the 1 non res tag last year I put in for was given to a guy such as this with no points.... I have had to totally forget applying for the tags I have put on for 7 years b/c of the terrible odds of drawing now and apply to a zone I have never stepped foot in.

You guys I gotta say have a terrible problem out there right now and for your sake I hope the state can fix it one way or another very soon or FWP will have a rough go budget wise and a lot of great programs will fall to the wayside in your state. I know you guys are on it but it seems the Outfitters are really giving you guys hell on this junk. Keep up the fight.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Don’t you suppose that the huntin fool, cabelas tags and about 100 other application services may be doing this? The number of outfitters doing this amounts to a small percentage.
It affects no R hunter in that NR are guaranteed “up to 10%”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Big Fin
More Discounted Non-residents licenses for Montana
19 20 21
Replies
417
Views
32K
ismith
ismith
Ben Lamb
SB 281: Reducing the number of antleress B tags for Non--Residents
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Jock Conyngham
J
Ben Lamb
HB 773 - NR Reduced Price Caps
Replies
5
Views
868
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
Monster Day at the Montana Capitol
Replies
7
Views
1K
Flynarrow
F
P
Finally an equitable balance between resident and non resident shed hunting access.
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
7K
Watts307
Watts307
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,057
Messages
1,945,295
Members
34,995
Latest member
Infraredice

Share this page

Back
Top