New Law

Goosemaster

Goosemaster

Well-known member
We are going to push through a law,limiting out of state bird hunting, similar to South Dakota. The time has come. Also, let's get rid of these dog training people! Food for thought...
 
That attempt failed last year. The guiding industry has too much influence on legislators and the governor is pro guiding industry
at the expense of resident bird hunters. Look at how the current administration has been with the guiding industry and elk for example.
 
AKSkeeter said:
That attempt failed last year. The guiding industry has too much influence on legislators and the governor is pro guiding industry
at the expense of resident bird hunters. Look at how the current administration has been with the guiding industry and elk for example.
Click to expand...
Outfitters are low baggers.They should be outlawed.
 
Goosemaster said:
We are going to push through a law,limiting out of state bird hunting, similar to South Dakota. The time has come. Also, let's get rid of these dog training people! Food for thought...
Click to expand...
Since when did South Dakota limit non-resident hunting license, other than maybe waterfowl and big game.
 
I was in region 6 for 60 days, the first 10 days of the Pheasant season, there was plenty of hunters around, both res and non res. Went back for 1st 2 weeks in November, very few hunters around, almost all residents. Back again 1st of December till 18th, never saw a non res, a few residents. Closed out the last week of season, no hunters other than locals. I hunt both public and private, so what they should do is give the residents the 1st week on all public and block mgmt. The impact of limiting non residents in the long run is gonna hurt when the F&G has structured their budget on the non res license $'s. With less and less hunter recruitment coming up, this is going to hurt the bottom line. I personally have no problem with a 10 day or 2 week license, like North and South Dakota, I just don't want a cap on it. BTW I'm primarily a waterfowl hunter and I put 100's of miles on scouting, there are plenty of Pheasants around and if they have a good spring it's gonna be a good year for them.
On the dog training thing, that in my opinion should just be illegal, both res and non res, good thing about those guys is none of em are young.
 
Actually in Goose’s own strange way he makes a point. MT is really too easy on nonresident hunters and yes I am one. One cheap license for the whole season and allowing “professional “ trainers all the time and access. Other states don’t offer that good of a deal. Those dog trailers and big strings of dogs just piss off the locals. Other states give the residents first access to the public land birds and limited license times. I have been going there for 30 years and I cope by not going till Nov because of the crowds. I wouldn’t mind paying more and having less people. Yes I also drive a suburban but it has 150,000 miles and some dents.
 
This is a loaded debate. On one hand I see the need to preserve the states natural resources, but on the other hand should the benefits be limited to only those who reside in the state? We all have an agenda, some don't like outfitters, some don't like dog trainers, some don't like out of state hunters. What would happen to our economy if our personal agenda's took preference over what is best for the whole? Politics run amuck when people's personal agenda's rule. Sometimes I have to give up some of my agenda for the better of the whole. Does less out of state bird hunters help the natural resource of Montana or is it just the preference of certain individuals? Does an outfitter who guides under the state laws and game management need to be put out of work because certain people don't like him or his business model? What happens when someone doesn't like my particular business? Am I eliminated from the American dream because of someone else's agenda?
 
Any law like this certainly isn't too lower out of state hunting, it's to make more money. How many people pay for multiple licenses to go to SD for multiple trips a year? If SD was a "one license all year" model they wouldn't make as much money with the model they've had for however long now.

Montana just wants to make more money from non residents/guides. And if the money is going to habitat improvements, I guess I'm for it. But that's a big if.
 
Goosemaster said:
Since about 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know the laws in SD. If we are talking about licenses to hunt pheasants there is no limitation. You can buy as many as you want. Each license is valid for a total of 10 days.
 
It could come down to a seasonal possession limit for NR. You would be given X amount of tags and all birds in your possession must be tagged. Stranger game laws have passed. Pick a poison. At least expect a license increase.
 
Wind River said:
It could come down to a seasonal possession limit for NR. You would be given X amount of tags and all birds in your possession must be tagged. Stranger game laws have passed. Pick a poison. At least expect a license increase.
Click to expand...
If they did something like that I would never go to Montana just on principle haha
 
Dakotazeb said:
You obviously don't know the laws in SD. If we are talking about licenses to hunt pheasants there is no limitation. You can buy as many as you want. Each license is valid for a total of 10 days.
Click to expand...
Ok that's outrageous money! 1 ten day is 170 dollars!!
 
MABELS BIRD said:
I was in region 6 for 60 days, the first 10 days of the Pheasant season, there was plenty of hunters around, both res and non res. Went back for 1st 2 weeks in November, very few hunters around, almost all residents. Back again 1st of December till 18th, never saw a non res, a few residents. Closed out the last week of season, no hunters other than locals. I hunt both public and private, so what they should do is give the residents the 1st week on all public and block mgmt. The impact of limiting non residents in the long run is gonna hurt when the F&G has structured their budget on the non res license $'s. With less and less hunter recruitment coming up, this is going to hurt the bottom line. I personally have no problem with a 10 day or 2 week license, like North and South Dakota, I just don't want a cap on it. BTW I'm primarily a waterfowl hunter and I put 100's of miles on scouting, there are plenty of Pheasants around and if they have a good spring it's gonna be a good year for them.
On the dog training thing, that in my opinion should just be illegal, both res and non res, good thing about those guys is none of em are young.
Click to expand...
I am going to limit you to 10 days total.
 
Limit the license to 10 days and lower the bag limit 2 sharps 2 pheasant and 2 huns per day. If you dont want to limit the license raise the price. Dont have delayed seasons
 
goldenboy said:
This is a loaded debate. On one hand I see the need to preserve the states natural resources, but on the other hand should the benefits be limited to only those who reside in the state? We all have an agenda, some don't like outfitters, some don't like dog trainers, some don't like out of state hunters. What would happen to our economy if our personal agenda's took preference over what is best for the whole? Politics run amuck when people's personal agenda's rule. Sometimes I have to give up some of my agenda for the better of the whole. Does less out of state bird hunters help the natural resource of Montana or is it just the preference of certain individuals? Does an outfitter who guides under the state laws and game management need to be put out of work because certain people don't like him or his business model? What happens when someone doesn't like my particular business? Am I eliminated from the American dream because of someone else's agenda?
Click to expand...
Well said my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top