Newberg says a $40 elk tag (or whatever it cost) is a $25,000 elk tag for residents.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmy

WKR
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
407
Location
California
It's not like nobody can afford to hunt Montana. Sure, everyone would like something to cost less. Be dumb not too. But that money goes to good use(hopefully).
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,769
Well, to be fair, RS has its share of megathreads.

I live in a state with a high cost of living per the map above. It also happens to be a state with zero elk, zero mule deer, zero prongalopes, zero sagebrush, zero mexican food, and zero 9000’+ mountains. On the plus side, we do have 5 months of winter interspersed with rain/thaw cycles, about the same# of cloudy days on average than Seattle, ridiculous one-sided politics, and kind of ok whitetail hunting if you like really dinky deer in the woods. So I think I took the pay cut without even getting a tag out of the deal?? Clearly Im doing something wrong.

When I travel west it takes me time and $ no matter how I do it. Frankly, an extra 700 or even 1400 a year isnt ridiculous in the scope of what any trip like that will take. I suspect the majority of people complaining about NR tag prices and allocations are actually western hunters who have grown used to hunting neighboring states.
 
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
2,473
Location
Timberline
I limited my career opportunities by choosing to stay in Wyoming after earning an advanced degree. However, in the post-pandemic remote work era, opportunities have grown and career sacrifices are narrower.

Yes, to a point. There is a very unhealthy trend of "old timers" pushing for everyone to return to the office and do away with remote...
 

AG8

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
120
"Good thing" would depend on who you ask. I lived/worked in a very rural area pre-plandemic. It was pleasant, quiet and very enjoyable. Because of seemingly EVERYONE's ability to work remote, all of our "public land owners" have decided they need to be here also.
We can thank Starlink for that. Although I can’t complain, I signed up for it too 😂
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
2,450
Location
San Antonio
"Good thing" would depend on who you ask. I lived/worked in a very rural area pre-plandemic. It was pleasant, quiet and very enjoyable. Because of seemingly EVERYONE's ability to work remote, all of our "public land owners" have decided they need to be here also.
That's my point, everyone can do it which negates Newberg's video and makes it irrelevant. He may have been right if he put the video out 5 years ago, but even then as somebody else stated they live in another area with high cost of living with lower pay comparatively and no elk so they're getting doubled.
 

Archer86

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
516
Location
WYOMING
That's my point, everyone can do it which negates Newberg's video and makes it irrelevant. He may have been right if he put the video out 5 years ago, but even then as somebody else stated they live in another area with high cost of living with lower pay comparatively and no elk so they're getting doubled.
remote work has been steadily trending on the decline and more and more company's are starting to require a set number of the days in the office. They might have more opportunities for it then before but not what everyone was hoping for I am sure.
 

Archer86

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
516
Location
WYOMING
Agree.

Notably, HT has a thread on this. 24 pages!!!

Roksliders hunt.
HuntTalkers talk.
Give it time this one just started today and it's at 3 pages by tomorrow someone will be crying about wyoming not giving enough opportunity and it will crush the 24 pages in half the time unless the mods shut it down.
 
Last edited:

Mosby

WKR
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
1,939
First, there isn't any correlation whatsoever between local cost of living and what Montana charges for out of state hunting. Second....Federal taxpayers pay billions to fund the State of Montana operating budget. Third....Montana residents didn't pay for the Federal land or even all of the related costs for the State land.

"For every dollar Montana sends to Washington, Montana receives $1.47 in federal revenue. Montana state budget relies heavily on federal funding. Montana's state budget is $12.6 billion for FY22 and FY23, nearly half (49%) of which comes from federal funding. May 25, 2022".

People should live wherever they want but OOS state hunting charges and allocations are getting a bit disproportionate, when you consider who is actually generating the revenue and paying the taxes for that specific state. I could make the argument that the cost to hunt Federal land for OOS hunters in Montana should be no different than residents. We are both paying an almost equal share of the state's expenses. Residents pay it directly...OOS residents pay it indirectly(for those of us who pay Federal taxes) but the money is ending up in the same pockets.
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,769
Thats perhaps a good point if it holds up in relation to other states—example, many federal taxes are kicked back to the states via a formula. Pittman robertson is an example, it funds a third of my state’s DNR, but it’s federal money allocated to the states based on a formula because much of that $ came FROM the state. Highway spending is similar. There’s tons of examples. I dont think it’s a 1:1 kickback so it may not be a perfect analogy—sounds like MT is a winner in this regard—but at a minimum it’s not like any state doesnt have a significant % of their budget paid for in matching federal $ and similar—some more, some less, but it’s always there. My guess is federal highway $ and similar allocated based on mileage in the “national interest” in having a nationwide transport system accounts for many rural/larger states budgets looking like that. Not sure if its super relevant to this or not.
 
Last edited:

Archer86

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
516
Location
WYOMING
First, there isn't any correlation whatsoever between local cost of living and what Montana charges for out of state hunting. Second....Federal taxpayers pay billions to fund the State of Montana operating budget. Third....Montana residents didn't pay for the Federal land or even all of the related costs for the State land.

"For every dollar Montana sends to Washington, Montana receives $1.47 in federal revenue. Montana state budget relies heavily on federal funding. Montana's state budget is $12.6 billion for FY22 and FY23, nearly half (49%) of which comes from federal funding. May 25, 2022".

People should live wherever they want but OOS state hunting charges and allocations are getting a bit disproportionate, when you consider who is actually generating the revenue and paying the taxes for that specific state. I could make the argument that the cost to hunt Federal land for OOS hunters in Montana should be no different than residents. We are both paying an almost equal share of the state's expenses. Residents pay it directly...OOS residents pay it indirectly(for those of us who pay Federal taxes) but the money is ending up in the same pockets.

Most of those tax payers don't hunt so in turn don't give a sh!t about nr ability to hunt out of state and don't care about the amount nr are allocated. They just care about the ability to recreate how they see fit and they can ski and hike and mountian bike drive through national parks all they want.

The tax argument is dumb when you look at how many hunters there are as a whole and then how many of those hunters are traveling hunters the fact is every tax payer is paying for NR hunters to have the ability to hunt out of state and be provided these opportunities nr hunters don't pay the 47 cents extra Montana get its mainly funded by non hunters that can use the resources they want just fine
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2023
Messages
76
First, there isn't any correlation whatsoever between local cost of living and what Montana charges for out of state hunting. Second....Federal taxpayers pay billions to fund the State of Montana operating budget. Third....Montana residents didn't pay for the Federal land or even all of the related costs for the State land.

"For every dollar Montana sends to Washington, Montana receives $1.47 in federal revenue. Montana state budget relies heavily on federal funding. Montana's state budget is $12.6 billion for FY22 and FY23, nearly half (49%) of which comes from federal funding. May 25, 2022".

People should live wherever they want but OOS state hunting charges and allocations are getting a bit disproportionate, when you consider who is actually generating the revenue and paying the taxes for that specific state. I could make the argument that the cost to hunt Federal land for OOS hunters in Montana should be no different than residents. We are both paying an almost equal share of the state's expenses. Residents pay it directly...OOS residents pay it indirectly(for those of us who pay Federal taxes) but the money is ending up in the same pockets.
Yet you forget the state holds the animals in trust for the residents of said state. Go hike and camp all you want, if they say you can’t hunt then that’s that not a thing you can do about it
 

pirogue

WKR
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
1,149
It's a valid point. A buddy I graduated with (same degree, essentially identical careers) paid 185k for a decent house on about an acre in Iowa. Awesome whitetail hunting literally from his back deck.
I'd pay about 500k or more for the same here in Colorado, and our salaries are within 5k of each other.
That's not the reason for the price difference, but the lifestyle here is expensive.
We could give the NRs cheap tags but keep them in the limited quota. Draw odds will change their minds about cost in a hurry.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk
Does your buddy rub it in that he is in a state that doesn’t import wolves? A value that is a plus and minus depending on the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top