Montana Proposed bill to raise Non resident base hunting fees over 500%

[cuerro viejo]

Let me know when nonresidents quit hunting Montana or my great, great, great grandkids.

Eventually everyone gets price out and for ever hunter that quits hunting Montana that’s one less continuing family that will most likely be sympathetic to helping fight anti hunting legislation in Montana.

Hope I’m wrong but that’s trend I shaw when Colorado’s recent lion and wolf legislation. I talked to a lot of hunters in states like TX, Okla, Kansas, Nebraska that no longer hunt there due to cost, they were not the least bit open to donating to help fight the legislation. Decreasing hunting number mean decreasing support.

 

[CorbLand]

Eventually everyone gets price out and for ever hunter that quits hunting Montana that’s one less continuing family that will most likely be sympathetic to helping fight anti hunting legislation in Montana.

Hope I’m wrong but that’s trend I shaw when Colorado’s recent lion and wolf legislation. I talked to a lot of hunters in states like TX, Okla, Kansas, Nebraska that no longer hunt there due to cost, they were not the least bit open to donating to help fight the legislation. Decreasing hunting number mean decreasing support.

The flip side to this is that increasing hunters on a limited resource, means longer and longer draw times which in turn can cause a decrease in hunters.

How many of us would have gotten into hunting if you could have only gotten a tag once every 10 years? Imagine your kids turns 10 and they can get a deer tag when they are 20.

 

[Lawnboi]

Shhhhhhh

They should hire Randy.

The flip side to this is that increasing hunters on a limited resource, means longer and longer draw times which in turn can cause a decrease in hunters.

How many of us would have gotten into hunting if you could have only gotten a tag once every 10 years? Imagine your kids turns 10 and they can get a deer tag when they are 20.

Either you can go once every 10 years and not make it for the rich, or you can make it so that ten year wait costs you 2k in fees. States just want their money for their cash cow.

I’d rather see opportunity go down reasonably for non residents than for them to just price out the blue collar guy. That’s coming from a blue collar guy. Unfortunately we are seeing both happen simultaneously.

Rich people are already hunting whatever they want every year in whatever state they want.

 

[CorbLand]

They should hire Randy.


Either you can go once every 10 years and not make it for the rich, or you can make it so that ten year wait costs you 2k in fees. States just want their money for their cash cow.

I’d rather see opportunity go down reasonably for non residents than for them to just price out the blue collar guy. That’s coming from a blue collar guy. Unfortunately we are seeing both happen simultaneously.

Rich people are already hunting whatever they want every year in whatever state they want.

I dont disagree but even when states threaten to cut NR tags, people get up in arms.

The west has seen expansive growth in recent years. A states ability to keep up with with resident demand is becoming nearly impossible. Add in the idea that has been planted in everyone's head that if your not hunting 5 states a year, what are you doing? States flat cant keep up.

If I remember correctly, Utah has seen about 5% increase in applications year over year for the last 4 years. That is a state that hasnt been able to keep up with resident demand for the last 20 years, let alone nonresident.

This is why I have been and will remain an advocate for states taking care of their residents first. Residents should see the most tags and it should be cost effective for them to hunt their own state. If they want to hunt as a NR in other states, they get to pay for that privilege.

My point is, it is not a black and white, easy answer like some people seem to think it is.

 

[mt terry d]

From $15 to $100. I don't see that as big problem. If I really wanted to hunt there, $85 increase would not hold me back. It might keep out the undesirables, but not likely.

Raise it to $10,000 and guarantee 95% who buy it will be undesirables.

 

[mtwarden]

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/0...nting-license-application-fees-by-300-to-400/

Got to share the love with Wyoming!

 

[wyogoat]

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/0...nting-license-application-fees-by-300-to-400/

Got to share the love with Wyoming!

Hey now. Stay on topic. This is focused on bashing Montana! Someone from Florida or Alabama will start a thread about the atrocities committed on them by Wyoming in the coming days…till then.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The flip side to this is that increasing hunters on a limited resource, means longer and longer draw times which in turn can cause a decrease in hunters.

How many of us would have gotten into hunting if you could have only gotten a tag once every 10 years? Imagine your kids turns 10 and they can get a deer tag when they are 20.

Of course, There are two sides to every coin. We need to be aware of all potentials, and find the middle ground.

 

[Mtndawger]

I dont disagree but even when states threaten to cut NR tags, people get up in arms.

The west has seen expansive growth in recent years. A states ability to keep up with with resident demand is becoming nearly impossible. Add in the idea that has been planted in everyone's head that if your not hunting 5 states a year, what are you doing? States flat cant keep up.

If I remember correctly, Utah has seen about 5% increase in applications year over year for the last 4 years. That is a state that hasnt been able to keep up with resident demand for the last 20 years, let alone nonresident.

This is why I have been and will remain an advocate for states taking care of their residents first. Residents should see the most tags and it should be cost effective for them to hunt their own state. If they want to hunt as a NR in other states, they get to pay for that privilege.

My point is, it is not a black and white, easy answer like some people seem to think it is.

You’re 100% correct on the whole post , but particularly on the “not a black and white easy answer”. Too many people just venting and griping and looking for easy answers that fit into their narrative. Too many assumptions and lack of knowledge and facts leading us down unproductive rabbit holes regarding virtually every aspect of western hunting. It’s not fashionable to say this but there actually are a lot of good people within these agencies working on and trying to balance the miriad of issues they face. There has never been and will never be perfect solutions.

 

[Mtndawger]

Eventually everyone gets price out and for ever hunter that quits hunting Montana that’s one less continuing family that will most likely be sympathetic to helping fight anti hunting legislation in Montana.

Hope I’m wrong but that’s trend I shaw when Colorado’s recent lion and wolf legislation. I talked to a lot of hunters in states like TX, Okla, Kansas, Nebraska that no longer hunt there due to cost, they were not the least bit open to donating to help fight the legislation. Decreasing hunting number mean decreasing support.

It would be good to know if what appears to be a trend is actually a problem. I saw a lot of the same rhetoric. Rhetoric is different than facts and we probably will only know them as we see it occur over time. The fight to defeat 127 wasn’t just about saving lion hunting, it was about fighting back against a large powerful lobby that would like to end our right to hunt period no matter where we live. The same playbook is being used by them in Arizona now.

It’s incredibly short sighted and idiotic for a nonresident to try to use their non support for initiatives like that as a lever to force a state to bend to their will. But those who just want to engage in grievance culture ( if I can’t hunt there than nobody should get to hunt there) hopefully are the minority and the fact the initiative was defeated tells what we need to know.

 

[Lawnboi]

I dont disagree but even when states threaten to cut NR tags, people get up in arms.

The west has seen expansive growth in recent years. A states ability to keep up with with resident demand is becoming nearly impossible. Add in the idea that has been planted in everyone's head that if your not hunting 5 states a year, what are you doing? States flat cant keep up.

If I remember correctly, Utah has seen about 5% increase in applications year over year for the last 4 years. That is a state that hasnt been able to keep up with resident demand for the last 20 years, let alone nonresident.

This is why I have been and will remain an advocate for states taking care of their residents first. Residents should see the most tags and it should be cost effective for them to hunt their own state. If they want to hunt as a NR in other states, they get to pay for that privilege.

My point is, it is not a black and white, easy answer like some people seem to think it is.

I agree too that residents should come first and I’ll even say tags should remain cheap for residents. As cheap as possible.

Government spending is ridiculous and it is insane that with the cash they are taking in for absolutely nothing (points, BS fees, ect) that these agencies can’t better manage the health of their herds. Now they are just asking for more, while continuing to change the rules to make it more expensive for the people who have been flipping the bill.

It’s just a kick in the balls for someone in my income range, that might hunt somewhere once a year as a vacation, to be getting nickel and dimed every year with an ever changing goal post. On top of that when I do come hunt I’m looked at as the bad guy by other hunters.

Worst come to I’ll come shoot coyotes.

Q people telling me to quit being poor and just up and move. If it were only that simple.

 

[CorbLand]

You’re 100% correct on the whole post , but particularly on the “not a black and white easy answer”. Too many people just venting and griping and looking for easy answers that fit into their narrative. Too many assumptions and lack of knowledge and facts leading us down unproductive rabbit holes regarding virtually every aspect of western hunting. It’s not fashionable to say this but there actually are a lot of good people within these agencies working on and trying to balance the miriad of issues they face. There has never been and will never be perfect solutions.

Yep. The vast majority of the time that people come up with "solutions" that solution is what will benefit them.

I agree too that residents should come first and I’ll even say tags should remain cheap for residents. As cheap as possible.

Government spending is ridiculous and it is insane that with the cash they are taking in for absolutely nothing (points, BS fees, ect) that these agencies can’t better manage the health of their herds. Now they are just asking for more, while continuing to change the rules to make it more expensive for the people who have been flipping the bill.

It’s just a kick in the balls for someone in my income range, that might hunt somewhere once a year as a vacation, to be getting nickel and dimed every year with an ever changing goal post. On top of that when I do come hunt I’m looked at as the bad guy by other hunters.

Worst come to I’ll come shoot coyotes.

Q people telling me to quit being poor and just up and move. If it were only that simple.

I dont disagree. Honestly, I think the biggest push really needs to come back to its ok to just hunt your home state and that its ok to be a causal hunter.

Government spending is hard to digest but the one thing about hunting is it is completely voluntary. Its not like FICA where you dont have a choice. As for the money brought in, dont forget that government agencies arent immune to inflation. They have to pay more just like everyone else. Wages, fuel, material, tires, vehicles, etc. It takes all of that to manage wildlife and it all continues to get more and more expensive.

Management as a whole is hard. Remember that with the west most of our animals reside on federally managed ground. There is a lot of red tape required when it comes to doing projects there. Habitat is one of the things that we really need to improve to help wildlife and its hard to get done. Its one of the negative sides of federally managed ground. Maybe all the NR should start putting pressure on your elected representatives to increase some funding to habitat work and/or reduce some red tape. Take 10% of what you spend on hunting each year and donate it to nonprofits that actually do work.

Pricing does suck. I get it. I cant afford to hunt out of state every year. I have to be selective on where I apply due to funds. Hell, some years I couldnt even afford to hunt as a resident. I get it.
But one thing that needs to be set as a ground rule for any of these conversations is. Wildlife is managed by the state for the residents of that state. Anything a state provides to a nonresident is a privilege.

As to your last bit, well I can only provide one thing



and yes, the picture above is meant sarcastically.

 

[cuerro viejo]

It would be good to know if what appears to be a trend is actually a problem. I saw a lot of the same rhetoric. Rhetoric is different than facts and we probably will only know them as we see it occur over time. The fight to defeat 127 wasn’t just about saving lion hunting, it was about fighting back against a large powerful lobby that would like to end our right to hunt period no matter where we live. The same playbook is being used by them in Arizona now.

It’s incredibly short sighted and idiotic for a nonresident to try to use their non support for initiatives like that as a lever to force a state to bend to their will. But those who just want to engage in grievance culture ( if I can’t hunt there than nobody should get to hunt there) hopefully are the minority and the fact the initiative was defeated tells what we need to know.

Don’t disagree on the short sighted, but most didn’t even realize the legislation was being introduced. If you don’t hunt there nor visit any where that would highlight that particular news cycle then it’s not surprising. With that said at same stand point someone comes on to RK and it is NR this and NR that, with anything hardly positive about NR, it’s not exactly a great promotion to monetarily oppose anti hunting rhetoric in states you don’t hunt. This thread is perfect example.

 

[dreamingbig]

All for it if they use the funds to pay for block management!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk