Am I misguided? MT non-resident tag cost.

[kingfisher]

I am a resident of Montana. When I initially went to college here years ago, it become apparent that many things in Montana are special in part due to a hesitation to cheapen things for non-residents. And it even seems Montana tries to protect opportunities for residents, in part by high charging non-residents. I benefit from this and in large part agree with it.

If my brothers draw a elk/deer combo tag, they are coming to Montana to hunt this year at a cost of $1100 per person for the licenses. As someone who cherishes hunting with my brothers, I wish this were different. My brothers typically hunt Colorado as NR, and can do so paying 600 for an elk permit. This year they want to hunt with me here in MT, which is a rare opportunity. I know Alaska allows special privileges to family members of residents. I am not sure at what cost. I suppose my biggest justification for my dissatisfaction is that hunting is typically rooted in family traditions, and that it pains me a bit that license cost limits the ability to keep that family tradition going. I wish states would reduce the cost of licenses for family members of residents, to make it easier for them to hunt together.

Do you feel that I am off base in thinking that states should make it easier for family members living in differing states to hunt together. I am not sure if I am changing my beliefs to suit my needs, or if there is something to this. Anyone have any arguments or beliefs for or against this.

 

[RdRdrFan]

I refuse to apply for elk or mule deer in Montana because the system sucks and is crazy expensive. I’m not someone who is afraid to lay money out there. I ran the numbers last week and I will end up with around $27k out there in app fees in most western states. I’ll get most of it back but approximately $2k stays out there even if I don’t draw anything.

With that said, Montana sucks for elk and mule deer draw and I just won’t do it.

As far as non-resident hunting goes, I have a different opinion. I think that all state owned land should be reserved for residents. I believe that all federally owned land should have equal draw odds for residents and non-residents. The only difference should be the cost of the tag.

Economically it would be a boon to those states. Won’t ever happen. But it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JPHuntingAUS]

Kinda having your cake and eating it too if you like other states having low cost nr tags but want yours to only do it for family so it benefits you.

You guys in the states need to start looking at yourselves as Americans not states. There's too many people who want hunting banned without division amongst us.

In my state a resident is anyone who lives in Australia and a non resident is just that, Someone who's not from this country. To boot license costs are the same no matter where you're from. Just as it should be, I don't think that someone from another country let alone another state or family should miss out on an opportunity to hunt here just to benefit me.

I might be crazy though.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Jon Boy]

I understand it being tough to get family and friends out here with such high tag prices, I face the same issues every year trying to get my friends and family out here. How ever the Montana combo tag is the best deal running for out of state license costs When you look at the big picture. You get 11 weeks of hunting for tons and tons of different units. Everyone seems to bring up Colorado prices when comparing to Montana. They usually forget to mention you are generally limited to a 5-10 day season in one to 5 units (generally)

I try and break it down for people this way, if you can afford to make multiple trips, hands down Montana trumps all. If you can only do a 5 day trip, Colorado or Idaho is a better deal. As far as discounts for non resident family and friends? I just don't think that would be fair. You guys should all plan a trip together to a different stat that is more affordable.

 

[TexasCub]

Residency is residency, that’s not to hard to understand. As far as Alaska goes the only benefit a family member has is being able to hunt goats,sheep and Brownies with a first degree kin WITHOUT having to hire a guide, but the non res tag price is the same.

 

[realunlucky]

Montana has coming home to hunt program so family can hunt together.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[MikeHoncho]

Definitely a double standard in your favor. Go hunt Colorado with you family.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

I am a resident of Montana. When I initially went to college here years ago, it become apparent that many things in Montana are special in part due to a hesitation to cheapen things for non-residents. And it even seems Montana tries to protect opportunities for residents, in part by high charging non-residents. I benefit from this and in large part agree with it.

If my brothers draw a elk/deer combo tag, they are coming to Montana to hunt this year at a cost of $1100 per person for the licenses. As someone who cherishes hunting with my brothers, I wish this were different. My brothers typically hunt Colorado as NR, and can do so paying 600 for an elk permit. This year they want to hunt with me here in MT, which is a rare opportunity. I know Alaska allows special privileges to family members of residents. I am not sure at what cost. I suppose my biggest justification for my dissatisfaction is that hunting is typically rooted in family traditions, and that it pains me a bit that license cost limits the ability to keep that family tradition going. I wish states would reduce the cost of licenses for family members of residents, to make it easier for them to hunt together.

Do you feel that I am off base in thinking that states should make it easier for family members living in differing states to hunt together. I am not sure if I am changing my beliefs to suit my needs, or if there is something to this. Anyone have any arguments or beliefs for or against this.

I don’t because it would be taken advantage of. Being I was born and raised in Montana, yet left for school and work I’m happy the state gives me a break, it used to be a really good break as I only paid $20 for a deer tag or $80 for elk or something like that. They have since raised the price to 50% of the NR tag price, still a good deal. I feel this is a great program for those of us born and raised there, received our hunter education there, have family there etc. I don’t think this should apply to people that just move there and want to bring their family to hunt at a reduced price, my family has over 100 years of roots in MT and I’m glad that my home state offers this for those of us that didn’t just move there.

Now I don’t take advantage of this program that often but I’m glad it’s there for years I go back, just wish it applied to Antelope.

 

[dotman]

I understand it being tough to get family and friends out here with such high tag prices, I face the same issues every year trying to get my friends and family out here. How ever the Montana combo tag is the best deal running for out of state license costs When you look at the big picture. You get 11 weeks of hunting for tons and tons of different units. Everyone seems to bring up Colorado prices when comparing to Montana. They usually forget to mention you are generally limited to a 5-10 day season in one to 5 units (generally)

I try and break it down for people this way, if you can afford to make multiple trips, hands down Montana trumps all. If you can only do a 5 day trip, Colorado or Idaho is a better deal. As far as discounts for non resident family and friends? I just don't think that would be fair. You guys should all plan a trip together to a different stat that is more affordable.

Yup, it’s almost cheaper to hunt deer and elk in MT then CO, $396 for deer and $670 for elk but I’ll still go to CO due to proximity.

 

[Brianb3]

Deer and elk combo w lisc is about the same in Mt ID Co about $1000. Supply n demand. Hunting management needs to be funded somehow and inflation is real so expect tags to go up. Be happy we get to do what we love and trust the state game departments have our resources as their top priority. I believe they get most of it right most of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldgoat]

I don't know man, not really that much more in the scheme of things, to be able to hunt with brothers, better chance of tagging out, way less crowded, not sure about the tags your talking, but c can't you come back and hunt rifle if you don't tag in archery season. Net gain in my opinion!

 

[COlineman78]

I understand it being tough to get family and friends out here with such high tag prices, I face the same issues every year trying to get my friends and family out here. How ever the Montana combo tag is the best deal running for out of state license costs When you look at the big picture. You get 11 weeks of hunting for tons and tons of different units. Everyone seems to bring up Colorado prices when comparing to Montana. They usually forget to mention you are generally limited to a 5-10 day season in one to 5 units (generally)

Most people coming from out of state only have 5-10 days and aren't going to be moving around much for the same reason, so I find that argument lacking for most NR hunters. It's getting much harder to draw a deer tag here in CO, so MT does have that going for it as well as the license costs keeping numbers down. I'd be happy if MT had the same NR costs as CO as it would lower hunter numbers in CO. That being said it's an economy of scale thing; my guess is that if MT lowered theirs then CO would have to increase theirs due to less hunters and they'd probably meet in the middle somewhere around 725-750 for Elk.

 

[bluetick78]

I wouldn't say "most" people coming from out of state can only hunt 5-10 days. I know of dozens of hunters from East Idaho that hunt whitetails in Southern Montana, including myself. I work all my Montana time in around my Idaho hunts, was able to spend 19 days there last year. Be careful how you categorize different groups of hunters, because you'll almost never be right. I'm just as much a nonresident as a hunter from the East Coast. I like Montana, it's a great state to recreate in, I have no problem paying their nonresident prices because the quality is there in terms of having ample game to hunt.

 

[COlineman78]

I wouldn't say "most" people coming from out of state can only hunt 5-10 days. Be careful how you categorize different groups of hunters, because you'll almost never be right. I'm just as much a nonresident as a hunter from the East Coast.

I just pulled up the 2016 reports for elk and deer in MT. The average time spent hunting for non-resident hunters was 8 days and resident hunters was 9.7 days. Deer is even worse at 5.2 days for non-res and 7.6 days for res. Colorado Archery Elk, which is a 30 day season, shows an average of 7.1 days spent hunting for all hunters (they don't break out res vs non-res).

While you and your buddies may live within a reasonable drive of the border, I'd still be willing to bet that you're well in the minority. Other than the folks on this forum, whom are a minority, most folks in the west will only hunt their home states due to the difference in cost. There were 18,168 non-res elk hunters and 26,486 non-res deer hunters in MT in 2016, so dozens is far from a majority.

Interesting stat though from the MT report: non-resident elk hunters were 27% successful while resident hunters were 20% successful. Similar for deer where non-res was 74% and res was 65%. So even though non-res hunters hunt less days they seem to be more effective; or at least less willing to eat tag soup.

 

[juan trueno]

So your OP is basically “I really like our high nonresident fees usually but in this instance they are impacting my life and my ability to do things how I want to do them and I would like to see changes made so that I do not wind up inconvenienced by this in the future”

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a Bummer man.

And though you talk about tradition and other lofty ideas It doesn’t sound like Montana IS your family tradition so you haven’t and aren’t losing anything. You’re just on the wrong end of The Stick this time. It’ll be ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iahunter08]

As a non resident i dont think MT is out of line for what you actually get, less crowding is worth something. As far as your family, they could come every yr and enjoy your hunt they dont have to have a tag to participate in helping you call, pack, etc. Just my opinion can still be a tradition just split tag cost for a couple people instead of everyone getting one every year and enjoy camp

 

[Jon Boy]

I wouldn't say "most" people coming from out of state can only hunt 5-10 days. I know of dozens of hunters from East Idaho that hunt whitetails in Southern Montana, including myself. I work all my Montana time in around my Idaho hunts, was able to spend 19 days there last year. Be careful how you categorize different groups of hunters, because you'll almost never be right. I'm just as much a nonresident as a hunter from the East Coast. I like Montana, it's a great state to recreate in, I have no problem paying their nonresident prices because the quality is there in terms of having ample game to hunt.

Funny, I hunt Idaho nearly as much as Montana! Heck this year ill likely have two elk tags for Idaho in my pocket!

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[bwlacy]

That sounds like a pretty good deal. An Iowa archery tag in the hard to draw zones will end up running you around $800 with the points you need. I've done that 3 times and probably will again someday.

I don't think family should get a break or non resident property owners, or any other non residents in any state. If it were cheap and over the counter you would have a ton of extra traffic and the hunting would suffer. We spend thousands on gear and our trucks, etc... The tag is the cheapest part of a hunt really.

 

[handwerk]

Lots of interesting points, I just sent in to Mt. my $1000+ and always fund my adult kids tags as they aren't in a position yet to pay the NR fees and although it's a lot of dough it is very important that we have that time together, this will be the 7th year hunting Mt, and now that we have our little cabin there it makes things a little easier.
To me another thing to keep in mind is having reduced tags for those young NR hunters, like the $99 elk tag my youngest son had in Colorado, at 14 he got a nice 5x5 and it hooked him for life, we need to keep it easy to get these kids started.

 

[mtmuley]

I just pulled up the 2016 reports for elk and deer in MT. The average time spent hunting for non-resident hunters was 8 days and resident hunters was 9.7 days. Deer is even worse at 5.2 days for non-res and 7.6 days for res. Colorado Archery Elk, which is a 30 day season, shows an average of 7.1 days spent hunting for all hunters (they don't break out res vs non-res).

While you and your buddies may live within a reasonable drive of the border, I'd still be willing to bet that you're well in the minority. Other than the folks on this forum, whom are a minority, most folks in the west will only hunt their home states due to the difference in cost. There were 18,168 non-res elk hunters and 26,486 non-res deer hunters in MT in 2016, so dozens is far from a majority.

Interesting stat though from the MT report: non-resident elk hunters were 27% successful while resident hunters were 20% successful. Similar for deer where non-res was 74% and res was 65%. So even though non-res hunters hunt less days they seem to be more effective; or at least less willing to eat tag soup.

Where did you find these numbers? mtmuley