Montana deer tag costs

[Tiredofthebickering]

In what state do private land owners own the native wildlife?

Answer: The state of fantasyland/make believe.

Although it's not what you meant, FL has different seasons, different bag limits, and different methods of take for private land vs. public land. Not to mention that they can receive extra tags for various. It can feel like they own the wildlife at times.

 

[tjones]

My buddy actually just called 10 minutes ago and said this year was his last at around I think he said $670. The two deer they took last year were so small they didn't even take photos after 5 days of hunting hard. He has been going about 10 years

Then why did he shoot them?

 

[EYJONAS!]

Then why di he shoot them?

BINGO...... because the sense of defeat overwhelms so the thought so I'm not going home empty handed on a 670 dollar tag plus the 1500 the trip cost me enters the mind. Who in the hell says "I was so disappointed I didn't even want to take a picture with my buck" WTF is that.

If the state I call home and recreate in on a daily basis and bring my kids into provides disappointment to whomever that guy is then he can keep his 2200 dollars and go somewhere else that's a prime example of one of the issues we have here.

 

[BuzzH]

You’re right, WY didn’t cut tags. My mistake. They were looking at some major changes that may not have passed. As someone who couldn’t afford to float the money to get in on the random and is just buying points there this year, I didn’t commit everything in WY to memory. Again, sorry I accidentally included WY as cutting NR tags.

Unlike you, I don’t believe that land being private automatically means that the land is destroyed or that wildlife can’t thrive there. In fact, the vast majority of wildlife in the US primarily resides on private land. The biggest differences between private land and public land is who decides how it gets used, and who gets to use it. When you tell me that you can hunt on a piece of land but I can’t, it might as well be private. If you want me to donate to something I will never get to use or enjoy, that is essentially a charity, which is great, but there a numerous charities that are higher on my list. Children’s homes, homeless shelters and outreach programs, food banks, battered women’s shelters etc. The list could go on considerably before I would get to the “keep this land out of private hands but please don’t actually come here and use it the way I use it fund”.

As a WY resident, you get to do plenty of hunting. I’m happy for you. Unlike you, if I’m going to hunt elk without paying to hunt on private land, I have to wade through the gauntlet of limited NR hunting opportunities. For mule deer, I’m extremely lucky to have made friends with a very generous land owner, but I’m one of nine hunters on three sections(down from eleven), and the adjacent properties are hunted as well, so it’s a wonder I’ve been able to kill the deer that I have there. If I want a chance of hunting mule deer the way most people do, again, I’m resigned to wading through the limited public hunting opportunities afforded to NR’s by other states. Believe it or not, it’s painful to see what is already expensive and difficult to come by become more expensive and more difficult to come by. Your state may have every legal, and perhaps even every moral right to do whatever you want to NR hunters, but I’m bewildered by the idea that I’m supposed to like it.


Regarding politics, public land was already low on my list, but yes, if I can’t hunt on it, it gets even lower. Why? Because I’m not going to drive to MT to walk around.

Don’t forget, my post that you quoted was in response to a hunter telling another hunter to stay in his home state. That happens to be something that you yourself do not do. You may disagree with many of the things that say, but surely you are not entirely on his side.

Bunch of hogwash in that post.

You clearly don't understand the difference between public land and public wildlife and who controls each.

Just because you cant draw a STATE tag to hunt STATE wildlife doesn't mean anything in regard to how much say, or not, that all 340 million US citizens have on what happens on Federal Public Lands. There is value in public land to all Americans...from economic reasons, to recreation, to intrinsic values.

You seem very selfish and hung up on just YOUR ability to hunt state controlled wildlife on federal public lands...its very fortunate that a vast majority of US citizens are not so self centered.

Even though I'll likely never see a vast majority of the 600+ million acres of Federal lands, I still find an abundance of value in just knowing that others have places to hike, hunt, fish, berry pick, bird watch, camp, and even simply dream about those places.

Federal public lands are a unique thing, something a majority of Americans value...its unfortunate you're only concerned with what you can take from them. I'm also glad that many before me didn't have your selfish attitude...for that I'm grateful.

 

[RidgeRoamingRichard]

Man, forest facebook has really gone downhill. Think I'll check back after bear season opens and we all have bigger fish to fry.

 

[brownbear932008]

Then why did he shoot them?

I couldn't really tell you. I suspect a couple of reasons #1 they had around 2K wrapped up in the trip and wasn't coming home empty handed and #2 they both do enjoy the meat. Both of these guys have to save year round to afford this trip as they are blue collar and work hard to afford it. I'm not going to judge as to "why" they were legal animals. But that's the mentality that is going to go along with a pricey tag 90% of the time.

 

[ImBillT]

Bunch of hogwash in that post.

You clearly don't understand the difference between public land and public wildlife and who controls each.

Just because you cant draw a STATE tag to hunt STATE wildlife doesn't mean anything in regard to how much say, or not, that all 340 million US citizens have on what happens on Federal Public Lands. There is value in public land to all Americans...from economic reasons, to recreation, to intrinsic values.

You seem very selfish and hung up on just YOUR ability to hunt state controlled wildlife on federal public lands...its very fortunate that a vast majority of US citizens are not so self centered.

Even though I'll likely never see a vast majority of the 600+ million acres of Federal lands, I still find an abundance of value in just knowing that others have places to hike, hunt, fish, berry pick, bird watch, camp, and even simply dream about those places.

Federal public lands are a unique thing, something a majority of Americans value...its unfortunate you're only concerned with what you can take from them. I'm also glad that many before me didn't have your selfish attitude...for that I'm grateful.

So it’s not selfish to tell someone to hunt in their own state, but it is selfish, when told to hunt in my own state, to express that I’m even less excited to support the system that they want to keep all to themselves? Makes sense.

You’re right about all Americans having equal say in what happens on public lands. That’s one reason that people telling non-residents to hunt in their own state is probably not the best idea. Montana hunters aren’t exactly an attention getting demographic at the federal level. They just might want hunters from other states on their side as well, and telling them to stay in their own states doesn’t do that. There are a lot of people on this forum that want everyone to make public land policy their number issue at the ballot box. I’m not there. Telling me to stay in my home state is not getting me there. Call that selfish if you want.

It wasn’t about MY ability to hunt a state. It was about ANY NR’s ability to hunt a state. Selfish I know.

None of this was directed at the state of Montana or all of its residents. It was directed a single poster who was doing Montana no favors.

 

[ImBillT]

Although it's not what you meant, FL has different seasons, different bag limits, and different methods of take for private land vs. public land. Not to mention that they can receive extra tags for various. It can feel like they own the wildlife at times.

And that’s exactly my point. We already have a system the market controls the cost of hunting. I don’t think “we sold all the tags” is a good reason to raise the price on NRs. It would be sad for public land hunting to become out of reach for all but the wealthiest among us.

 

[BuzzH]

So it’s not selfish to tell someone to hunt in their own state, but it is selfish, when told to hunt in my own state, to express that I’m even less excited to support the system that they want to keep all to themselves? Makes sense.

You’re right about all Americans having equal say in what happens on public lands. That’s one reason that people telling non-residents to hunt in their own state is probably not the best idea. Montana hunters aren’t exactly an attention getting demographic at the federal level. They just might want hunters from other states on their side as well, and telling them to stay in their own states doesn’t do that. There are a lot of people on this forum that want everyone to make public land policy their number issue at the ballot box. I’m not there. Telling me to stay in my home state is not getting me there. Call that selfish if you want.

It wasn’t about MY ability to hunt a state. It was about ANY NR’s ability to hunt a state. Selfish I know.

None of this was directed at the state of Montana or all of its residents. It was directed a single poster who was doing Montana no favors.

Who is telling you that you have no access to Federal lands?

Nobody.

They're telling you if you don't like the cost that the Residents decide you have to pay for access to their wildlife as a NR, to stay home and hunt on the cheap where you're a resident.

If I don't like how much a state charges for their wildlife, I just make the easy decision to not pay it. What I don't do is threaten to not support public land because that state chooses to charge a price that I don't feel is worth it for their wildlife resources. That's akin to threatening to sue your auto mechanic for a plumber not fixing the clog in your drain...makes no sense.

You seem to not recognize that wildlife and land ownership are mutually exclusive and who controls what.

Hunting is one part of why I advocate for Federal Public Lands. Even if I were to choose to completely give up hunting and fishing, public lands would still be near the top of my advocacy importance.

Obviously, not the case for you.

 

[mikieb]

If you don't like the price of the deer tag in Montana....

Price a Colorado tag.... Take the price of the tag and then, add the cost of 6-7 preference points to get the tag... and where are you at ?

 

[jt13]

I will gladly pay the higher price to enjoy the fantastic hunting that I have been able to experience in Montana. That being said, I would obviously prefer to pay less and have residents pull more of the weight but understand that as long as NR's continue to buy all the tags theres no reason to not put the burden on them. Willing seller, willing buyer, and the residents win in the deal.

 

[ImBillT]

Who is telling you that you have no access to Federal lands?

Nobody.

They're telling you if you don't like the cost that the Residents decide you have to pay for access to their wildlife as a NR, to stay home and hunt on the cheap where you're a resident.

If I don't like how much a state charges for their wildlife, I just make the easy decision to not pay it. What I don't do is threaten to not support public land because that state chooses to charge a price that I don't feel is worth it for their wildlife resources. That's akin to threatening to sue your auto mechanic for a plumber not fixing the clog in your drain...makes no sense.

You seem to not recognize that wildlife and land ownership are mutually exclusive and who controls what.

Hunting is one part of why I advocate for Federal Public Lands. Even if I were to choose to completely give up hunting and fishing, public lands would still be near the top of my advocacy importance.

Obviously, not the case for you.

I may have made too much of the “just hunt in your own state” comment, but I took it to be quite antagonistic to NRs. If you really want hunters all over the country to support public land in the west, being antagonistic to NRs is NOT helping your cause, and it’s never going to.

Politically, public land will likely never be as important to me as certain other issues, and unfortunately a high percentage of politicians who I agree with on those important(to me) issues also have public land very low on their radar. I do believe that public land is largely a very good thing, and has its place. It’s unlikely that I’ll ever be convinced to vote for someone who is 180 degrees counter to everything else that I believe in just because they are a public land advocate and the politician that I agree with on everything else is not. The only solution is for myself and people like me to convince politicians that we otherwise agree with that they need to have a more public land friendly stance. Telling me and other non-westerners to stay home and hunt in their own state isn’t how you get people on your side. Telling people “please support your public land over here where I live, but please stay where you live and if you come here, I’d prefer you didn’t hunt here” and then relying on them to believe that the existence of public land is intrinsically good and expecting them to be “unselfish” is not a winning strategy. Again, I may have taken that particular comment the wrong way.

My issue with price is a different one. I do believe that public land is in general a good thing, and I believe access to, and hunting on public land is important. I believe that it’s something that the public should be able to afford. Using the argument that all the tags were sold, so the price can be raised, will do nothing but price out the average person. Private land owners may not “own wildlife”, but when they control access and hunting permission, particularly in situations where they are issued tags or tags are OTC, land owners might as well own the wildlife. Generally speaking, that situation is not one that I want the public land and public tag situation to resemble. Public land and public tags should be affordable to the general public. The comparison to private land was to illustrate that we already have a highest bidder system in place, where anyone with the money can essentially buy a hunting opportunity. Again, it doesn’t matter that the land owner does not technically own the wildlife, in many situations he almost does, and he might as well...and I’m not entirely against that, but I am entirely against public land and public hunting turning into that.

 

[Blacktailbc]

If you don't like the price of the deer tag in Montana....

Price a Colorado tag.... Take the price of the tag and then, add the cost of 6-7 preference points to get the tag... and where are you at ?

Most (if not all) Colorado deer tags that take 6-7 points are exponentially better hunting than a MT general tag.

 

[mikieb]

Most (if not all) Colorado deer tags that take 6-7 points are exponentially better hunting than a MT general tag.

Ok.... Ya.... you do have a winning argument there...

 

[AggieHunter]

This is why I plan to take advantage of youth cost while I can!

 

[timmy]

Most (if not all) Colorado deer tags that take 6-7 points are exponentially better hunting than a MT general tag.

Tags that take 0-3 points are way better than a Montana general deer tag.