Montana 143

arwaterfowler

Active Member
Dec 4, 2011
229
15
Omaha, NE
Yep. I though there was already a thread on this subject. Maybe not. Anyways, a bad deal for the NR DIY guys and good for the outfitters. It will be interesting to see how the bill is amended. The bill's sponsor mentioned that he would amend the 60% Outfitter allocation to reflect the historical % of NR's that use Outfitters. Quick discussion was that about 40-45% of the NR with general tags hire an outfitter. I hope for some transparency with that number. It seems very high to me, however, I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosquito

tim

Veteran member
Jun 4, 2011
2,159
729
north idaho
It used to be this way, and then it changed, 5-7 years ago. I wonder what was not working, that they want to go back to it?
Also, remeber states have more responsibilty to its residents, than non residents, so maybe they are trying to protect resident paychecks.
Just something to think about.
This bill has no effect on me, since i have never hunted in montana. So i am not to concerned about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosquito

MTHusker

Member
Apr 22, 2013
136
15
In 2010 Montana voters passed an initiative to do away with the outfitter sponsored tags. Why a state senator would try and circumvent the will of the people is beyond this Montanan. I have tried to contact my state senator, Casey Knudsen, but as of yet I have not heard back from him. It is a sad day when state senators listen to a few greedy individuals instead of all of their constituents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: idcwby and mosquito

Muley bound

Active Member
Mar 12, 2013
200
299
Wisconsin
I too have never hunted Montana, but I do put in for bonus points for sheep and goats. If this would affect me drawing one of those tags down the line, I’d be pissed.
I received an email that New Mexico is now putting forth a bill to get rid of the outfitter pool, change things with landowner elk tags, and some other items as well. Lot of changing going on across the states here!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosquito

mosquito

Active Member
Nov 1, 2012
289
412
NE ohio
Yep. I though there was already a thread on this subject. Maybe not. Anyways, a bad deal for the NR DIY guys and good for the outfitters. It will be interesting to see how the bill is amended. The bill's sponsor mentioned that he would amend the 60% Outfitter allocation to reflect the historical % of NR's that use Outfitters. Quick discussion was that about 40-45% of the NR with general tags hire an outfitter. I hope for some transparency with that number. It seems very high to me, however, I don't know.
If so i missed it , my bad
 

mosquito

Active Member
Nov 1, 2012
289
412
NE ohio
I am a nonresident so i have an opinion but its not worth much .... i just don't like the idea of commercializing any part of public wildlife. Its bad enough already. I would much rather see a tag price increase. I realize they are trying to help bring in income to outfitters but i don't like it. Outfitters win but surrounding business i think will loose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muley bound

RICMIC

Veteran member
Feb 21, 2012
1,672
1,204
Two Harbors, Minnesota
I am not speaking in support of this, especially when much of my hunting has taken place in WY wilderness areas that requires NRs to use an outfitter. One positive for both the outfitter and client is that it adds some degree of getting a tag when booking with an outfitter. In many cases you have to book a couple years in advance with reputable outfitters, only to play the lotto for the actual draw. I suspect that outfitters have to "overbook" to ensure that their camps are full, as most have a short period of time that pays for the entire years expenses. I am not an outfitter, nor do I have any financial interests with one, other that as a client. I prefer to hunt DIY, and solo when I can, but the biological clock has forced me towards more guided hunts than I had ever envisioned when I was younger. I haven't hunted Montana, but it could happen someday if I don't wait too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winchester

Muley bound

Active Member
Mar 12, 2013
200
299
Wisconsin
I am not speaking in support of this, especially when much of my hunting has taken place in WY wilderness areas that requires NRs to use an outfitter. One positive for both the outfitter and client is that it adds some degree of getting a tag when booking with an outfitter. In many cases you have to book a couple years in advance with reputable outfitters, only to play the lotto for the actual draw. I suspect that outfitters have to "overbook" to ensure that their camps are full, as most have a short period of time that pays for the entire years expenses. I am not an outfitter, nor do I have any financial interests with one, other that as a client. I prefer to hunt DIY, and solo when I can, but the biological clock has forced me towards more guided hunts than I had ever envisioned when I was younger. I haven't hunted Montana, but it could happen someday if I don't wait too long.
Well said man!