Like many other nonresident hunters, I thought I-161 would never pass BUT.....  it has and  the State will now charge more for tags in 2011... Heck of a way to promote hunting in a poor economy by RAISING the cost $200 a tag......   

As copied from the Montana fish and game site.......

I-161 revises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses.
It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.

As I understand, the general public perception behind  I-161 was outfitter-sponsored nonresident  tags were unfair as it allocated tags away from the general draw. In addition it supposedly ear marked these tags for wealthy  nonresident  hunters and decreased the odds for the average hunter.... After seeing the number of tags that were left over in 2010, have to say what a crock..... and to for them to state "the increased cost is to to provide hunting access,  preserve and restore habitat." OK, so now the rancher that has 125 K acres of private land will benifit....... I am all for preserving and restoring habitat but sell that line of BS to someone else...... Just maybe someone figured out that if people refuse to pay that for a tag, then nobody will hunt and the deer herd will grow, producing larger bucks... (Sounds like the tree huggers talking)
Guess there will be more non-resident tags available or not sold. Wonder what the smaller outfitters think about this..... probably the same as most nonresident hunters having to shell out an extra $200 if they want to hunt Montana next season....

But then again, it may just mean that  more nonresident 's will be able to draw the area the outfitter has next year and pay less for the tag to hunt his ranch?  As one outfitter told me, he kept the cost of his hunts lower to offset the costs of the sponsored tags. Thus far, he has decided NOT to increase the costs for his hunts, but will reduce the lenght from 5 to 4 days........  Wonder what others will do??
What are your thoughts????

although I don't care for the price increase I would rather see the average hunter have a chance at these tags; I know for a fact that a majority of the outfitter tags go to the professional hunters like Bill Jordan, the Lakoskies, mike waddel, etc. My brother is a resident in montana and acts as my guide when I draw a tag; I usually put in for the big game package but I may only beable to do the non resident deer for 2011, I'll just have to put a little more aside for the future years.

this is kinda a double edged sword as the hunts will no longer go to the highest bidder i assume most outfitters will not lease as much land as they will not get the busness they have had in the past some land owners will open their land to bma as to still get paid some will shut there land down completly only time will tell luckly I hunt forest service land and the private land i do hunt you can usally find me there working in the summer im not worried about my tags going up because they seem to every year anyway

Good feedback and i think the bottom line will be more tags available to NR's in the general draw. Looks like we will pay more, but maybe this will help the odds....

I think it is great. I hate to see hunting become a rich mans' sport any more than it already has.

About time. They need to put in for tags just like the rest of us. I am not gauranteed a tag for antelope! I have to put in for one and hope I get drawn,the process should be straight across the board fair.
I do believe that the cost should be more concurrent with other states big game non-resident tags.

I live and hunt in Montana. Recently there was another attempt by the Outfitters to re-enact the Outfitter guranteed Outfitter licensing. So far it is getting little if any legislative action, but I am keeping my eye on it.
Those license took millions of acres of land from the resident and non-resident hunters. Agreed, that most of that land is private, but much of it is also BLM and Forest service. It is my humble belief that Outfitters can use marketing and advertising to gain their clients?

Nothing against Montana, but they can keep a $900 mule deer tag.... should be interesting to see how many left over non-resident tags they havethis year. Seems Colorado has better odds to draw and the tags for now (Thank God) are way cheaper. New Mexico also has a pretty good deal, but no preference points. So the way I see that is it is fair across the board.. Only exception is they are way low on the percentage of non-resident tags allocated.
Figure some shallow minded forlks that don't see the bigger picture may say, "Good, that is one less non-resident in Montana hunting this year"
Sorry if people actually feel that way, but the big picture is the State has over priced "their deer" tags for most non-res to be interested... so, in my opinion it is truely becoming a ' Who has the most money can hunt our state game" that I know I do not want to play.....