# Montana - I 161 Passes - Impacts Non-Resident Hunters



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

We stay away from politics unless directly related to wildlife so I thought I'd post this up for those that like to hunt in the Treasure State. In the election yesterday, what was called I-161 passed in a vote by the general public. This will greatly impact non-resident hunting in Montana. Among the previsions:

-Prices of non-resident tags will increase - Deer/elk combo goes from $628 to $897 and deer combo goes from $328 to $527

-The "guaranteed outfitter" tag has been eliminated. ANY NON-RESIDENT hunting in Montana must now draw a tag in the lottery. No tags are guaranteed for outfitters as in the past.

-The former guaranteed outfitter tags - all 5,500 deer/elk combo and 2,300 deer combo, will be placed back into the general drawing pool (where they were prior to 1995). This roughly doubles the size of the general drawing pool.

What this means:
Your non-resident tag in Montana will cost quite a bit more. But if you are a DIY kind of guy, your chances of drawing a tag GREATLY improved. But start saving now. Tying up that kind of money for the draw might be a bit painful if you don't prepare. And if you're an outfitter in Montana, you just took a major hit and might want to pick up another job.

A half-decent article - written prior to yesterday's election, is at the following link. As I learn more, I'll post up.


----------



## gooseblaster (Sep 2, 2009)

Do you have any idea if this will impact the upland game and waterfowl hunting?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

There will be no impact to upland or waterfowl hunting. This only deals with how non-resident big game tags are allocated.


----------



## Wind In His Hair (Dec 31, 2009)

Ouch, it makes me wish I would have not passed up some opportunities the past few years. I would still hunt there, but like Gary said, I'll need to be prepared.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

Thanks for the info. This will certainly impact my applications there. 
I personally think Utah should do likewise with the CWMU program... 10% being given through a draw to the public with severe restrictions of when, how long and what you can take is not right...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Its interesting to see what drove this thing. What happened as far as I can tell, is that once the outfitter setasides started in '95, then outfitters started leasing private ranches for exclusive hunting rights. Many of these, it is alleged, were places that a friendly request to hunt would usually be granted as long as you closed the gates and didn't shoot the cows. With the outfitters leasing exclusive rights, these areas were then closed to "the public," whatever that means. If outfitters have no guarantee of tags for their clients, then there will be no "high dollar" lease agreements, or so the argument goes. I'm not sure I buy that. 

Anyway, I'm not too sure this impacts resident hunters at all, as huntable private land is really easy to come by in Montana, as everybody knows someone with huntable land. And there is just so dang much, that supply and demand have kept ranchers from charging anything - there is always another rancher with land just as good who will let you on for free. 

For the non-resident hunter hiring a guide though - this is a big deal. Having a bunch of money is no longer a promise of a tag. Like it or hate it. And it increases opportunity (in theory) for the Joe-Hunter that just wants to hunt. This year, outfitters weren't able to use the 5,500 set aside tags they got, so those were made available to anyone that didn't draw, and after there was still a surplus, they were availble to anyone. And as of last week, there were still some tags available. So, I'm not sure Joe Hunter is missing out on anything. Of course, speaking only in my case, if I would have known I could get a surplus tag, I would have planned differently and would be in Montana next weekend shooting some deer. 

I'm just thinking of next year - putting me and my son in for deer tags - its now going to run me over a thousand bucks. And that pretty much sucks.


----------



## kokaholic (Apr 18, 2009)

Was there any change that you heard for non resident Bear tags?


----------



## Montanan (Nov 4, 2010)

I applaud the residents and voters of Montana. The guarantee to the rich has made Montana a playground for them. Ranchers have shut down their land to accept offers from outfitters for exclusive hunting rights. Some of the hunters in my area are paying over $7000 for hunts with outfitters. This has created a windfall for the landowners and enjoyment for outfitters with deep pocket clients. Several of my non-resident freinds have not been fortunate enough to draw a license for a few years and they will gladly agree to pay more the same chance as the elite.

This has been a subsidy for the outfitting industry for too long. It might be time that they have to get a real job. I hope that the next upset will be the days that the fishing outfitters have to use Montana's public rivers. This privilege has guaranteed retiring dead beats riches in their golden years. I hope it is changed too.

Good job Montana for finally standing up to deals made in Helena. The ranchers won't have to worry about abundant elk populations for too long as the wolves are depleted the majestic herds of the west. I hope that they will open their lands to wolf hunters in the near future.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Montanan - welcome to our forum! Great to have anther here. I hope you stick around and join in our discussions!

Couple of points - If hunters are paying $7,000 for an exclusive private land hunt in Montana, they are getting a screaming deal. I know that sounds like a bunch of money to most of us, but try a deer/elk combo hunt on private lands in Utah or Colorado, and you'll be in 2-3 times that. 

Second, one thing I learned about Montana when I lived there, is there are few states that stake a deeper claim on the rights of private property owners to do what they please on their own land. Private property rights are a VERY big deal there. So if a land owner can make money by allowing people to hunt on his/her land, I'm not sure what is so wrong with that. In my view, and as I viewed most folks in Montana, any access to private land is a great honor and priviledge that I respect in every way, and do not consider it anything I'm entitled to have. It is a gift to be a guest on private hunting land. Any sense of entitled access to private lands seems so against the principles that Montana stands for and holds very dear, even sacred. So to me, if a land owner wants to charge for hunting access, I respect that and really don't have a place to complain about it.

Third - you are correct that this has been a subsidy for the outfitting industry. But that said, the outfitters I know are not rolling in cash. There may be a few making good money, but none getting rich doing it. And all that I know, already have a couple of other jobs - ranch hands, teachers, etc.... because the outfitting thing doesn't cut it. I have to ask why the hostility towards outfitters? 

Fourth - I agree on your point on the elk. The wolves are making serious impacts, far greater than ever anticipated, to the elk herds. I look at what has happened in the Bitterroot and the areas surrounding YNP. The Gardiner hunt used to give out nearly 2,000 tags/year. And this year the hunt was closed. 

Last - I see no impact to residents from this initiative. None at all. There are no caps on hunting licenses for residents like there are in Utah, so a resident can still buy a tag as in years past. For non-residents, this does two things - one good and one bad. It puts all the outfitter tags back into the general lottery pool which will increase my odds of drawing, but it also jacks the price in a serious way.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

kokaholic said:


> Was there any change that you heard for non resident Bear tags?


Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know, this only impacts the outfitter set-aside tags for deer and elk, and the prices of the non-resident deer/elk combo tags. If there are changes to the bear tags, they were not covered in this citizen initiative.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Didn't we want the playing field leveled and make it so that it is not a rish man's hunt? I thought we were just fussing about the fact that if you have money you can have a good hunt but if you don't have the money the hunting is poor?

I understand that it sucks that tags went up but when you consider where you are hunting compared to other states that price doesn't sound to out of line?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Hoghunter - I'm not sure comparisons to Utah are really accurate. Good hunts can be had there without going onto private lands. A "poor man" can have a helluva great hunt on public lands there. And, outfitters can still negotiate exclusive hunting rights to private lands - they just can't guarantee a tag for their clients now. But the thing to me is that most of the outfitters I know of, guide on their own family's ranch lands, or on BLM/Forest Service lands (with proper permits). Sure, there are some outfitters paying other land owners, but I'd bet it is fewer than you'd think. 

Yea, the price increase sucks. But I'm viewing it as any other family entertainment vacation, to say, Disney or whatever. I can still hunt in Montana for about $100/day/person - and have an amazing experience. And that is what a trip to Disneyland will cost. So no, its not out of line in my opinion. Just sucks.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Hoghunter - I'm not sure comparisons to Utah are really accurate. Good hunts can be had there without going onto private lands. A "poor man" can have a helluva great hunt on public lands there. And, outfitters can still negotiate exclusive hunting rights to private lands - they just can't guarantee a tag for their clients now. But the thing to me is that most of the outfitters I know of, guide on their own family's ranch lands, or on BLM/Forest Service lands (with proper permits). Sure, there are some outfitters paying other land owners, but I'd bet it is fewer than you'd think.
> 
> Yea, the price increase sucks. But I'm viewing it as any other family entertainment vacation, to say, Disney or whatever. I can still hunt in Montana for about $100/day/person - and have an amazing experience. And that is what a trip to Disneyland will cost. So no, its not out of line in my opinion. Just sucks.


I admit I have no idea what is right and wrong in most of these cases. It just seems that no matter what happends with the laws, somebody thinks it is wrong. I think the law makers should not really worry to much about the hunter but more about the animals and use hunters as wildlife managment tools. I think the biggest thing for hunters to be worried about is a lose of land and ruining of habitat. I know for a fact that Louisiana has been turned from the "sportsman's paradise" and into a place where most of you guys on this forum would not even waste your time. Unless of course you had your own land and even then it is borderline!! I'm not bashing Louisiana I'm just saying that land lose and habitat destuction is the biggest killer to our heritage.


----------

