2015 Private lands Leased to Outfitters map

[katqanna]

FWP's 2015 (what happened to 2013, 2014 maps?) Private Lands Leased To Outfitters map

On the 2011 Private Lands Leased to Outfitters Map, it listed 6.93 million acres leased.
On the 2012 Private Lands Leased to Outfitters Map, it listed 6.79 million acres leased.

They didnt even list the outfitter leased acreage on the current 2015 map. Information from Steve Gallus, Board of Outfitting, states leased acreage is 18.6 million acres. Comparing the two maps, there has been a ####ing explosion of outfitter leased lands.

This is probably why the MBO (Montana Board of Outfitters) didnt get the correct map format to FWP for the last couple of years and why this has been so hard to obtain (thanks Joe Perry on the PL/PW council).

This probably also explains the huge A$$ push for elk shoulder seasons, the mule deer either sex changes, etc.

 

[Pierre]

Here is the map of outfitted lands based on info submitted to FWP. It is 18.6 million acres! Of course the caveat is the map is inaccurate due to the change in reporting by Outfitters. This is the first map we’ve seen since 2012. We have hounded both BOO and FWP for the last several years. So we go from 7 million acres to 18.6 million…. The Governor did an amendatory veto of HB 274 from 2013 mandating the map info. Promises to do better have come from the outfitters and the board but they seem a bit hollow. When? Hiding things?
The Board of Outfitters is working on rule packages that should be out soon. Perhaps we all better look closely. If you are unhappy with inaccurate data, send comments to MOGA (MOGA <[email protected]>) or the BOO at Steve Gallus <[email protected]> or both. If we can’t get accurate data how are we supposed to trust reduced reporting requirements for outfitters? The Governor's office, Director Hagener and Pam Bucy have been helpful in obtaining the map.

 

[teamhoyt]

I don't know about a lot but some of these properties are in bm. It seems odd that that isn't correct unless is considered a lease. But it doesnt include all the bm.

 

[katqanna]

This isnt a map of private lands in block management. It is a map of private lands leased to outfitters only. It doesnt even include private lands that are outfitted by the owners, just leased to outfitters.

 

[RobG]

Considering the "Private Lands with Authorized Outfitting" include parts of Yellowstone, Glacier, state lands, and wilderness areas I'm not sure what to believe. Maybe this is the Cruz/Trump plan to pay off the debt.

 

[Big Fin]

Interesting, but not surprising. In fact, something rather expected in a state that is 2/3 private land, with super long seasons, relatively high non-resident tag prices, with most the state general deer, and a statute that dictates how many non-resident deer/elk tags are to be issued.

Additionally, there are some societal/demographic changes that accelerate the trend. The largest demographic in the hunting world is currently in their economic "Golden Years." Disposable income is extremely high for that segment of hunters and outfitted hunts are a very viable option, so demand for outfitted hunts is currently high, lowering the economic risk of leasing property for hunting. Many traditional working ranches in Montana are being sold to out-of-state folks who have little tolerance for hunting, let alone public hunting, and leasing to an outfitter makes sense to them.

What it points out to me is how important public lands are to the hunting culture of Montana. It also shows me that we need to focus more of our effort on better management of the public lands that support so much hunting pressure and not let those lands become increasingly sterile in terms of wildlife productivity. At least as it relates to high-value species of elk and mature mule deer, I think it has been demonstrated, with some exceptions, that state and federal agencies would be better off directing money to make the hunting better on public land than trying to compete against the social/demographic trends that are driving much of the elk and mature mule deer hunting on private lands.

 

[shoots-straight]

What it points out to me is how important public lands are to the hunting culture of Montana. It also shows me that we need to focus more of our effort on better management of the public lands that support so much hunting pressure and not let those lands become increasingly sterile in terms of wildlife productivity. At least as it relates to high-value species of elk and mature mule deer, I think it has been demonstrated, with some exceptions, that state and federal agencies would be better off directing money to make the hunting better on public land than trying to compete against the social/demographic trends that are driving much of the elk and mature mule deer hunting on private lands.

]We definitely need to enhance our public lands to hold more game. We need to persuade our elected officials to finace this as much as possible. We need to find other avenues of help to pay for these "enhancements".

Then, after all this gets going, we need to figure out how to convince our State that there's room for more game. Objectives are the real problem right now.

Kill off every predator, farm alfalfa over all the open public lands, and you still can't grow one single elk. We actually need to reduce our population by around 30% according to law, and policy. That's going to happen shortly and without a big change, nothing else matters.

I'm at a loss for words, why MOGA isn't screaming at the top of their lungs over this elk reduction. When we tried to raise elk in the Root, they cried fowl, because their bottom lines would be effected.

How can they make more money with less elk? Unless the residents move over?

 

[BuzzH]

I'm at a loss for words, why MOGA isn't screaming at the top of their lungs over this elk reduction.

How can they make more money with less elk? Unless the residents move over?

Easy, they aren't selling "elk" per say, they're selling opportunity.

I talked with a guy from Cody that used to guide for one of the big names up that way. He said the outfitter booked 3 time slots. The first hunt success was near 100%, second hunt, maybe 40%, and the last hunt was lucky to be 10%. Essentially, every legal bull was taken from the area, every single year.

But, the outfitter was a good BS artist and booked every slot, every year and claimed a 50% over-all success rate...which wasn't a lie, but wasn't exactly telling the whole story either.

It will be the same way in Montana with 30% less elk...there will still be ENOUGH elk left to get NR hunters to believe that Montana is an elk hunters Paradise. Flash a few glossy grip and grins of a good bull taken on a private lease...and you have fools and their money getting in line to be parted with.

The outfitting industry has changed for the worse. They don't care about the resource, could give a chit about resident hunters, could give a chit about DIY NR hunters, or anyone else. Its all about their clients, their "right" at 100% of the resources, and their need to make a living from OUR wildlife resources.

They don't do jack chit to regulate their own industry, they don't do anything to limit the number of outfitters, etc. To top it off, many aren't even residents of the States they operate in, don't hire locals to guide, etc. In a final show of not caring, the outfitters themselves don't, or barely, contribute anything to the MFWP financially.

They would book a hunt for the last elk in Montana if they could make money on it and never even blink an eye.

Sad...but the reality of the outfitting industry these days. I know that's painting with a broad brush, there are some good ones out there that really do care, a huge tip of the hat to them. But, you need that broad brush to properly cover a majority.

If I were one of the few good outfitters, I would be doing one of 2 things:

1. Working to clean up my own industry.
2. Putting as much distance between myself and the majority of other outfitters as possible.

 

[RobG]

I don't want to discount the loss of access due to outfitting, but the map is total bullsh*t.

For example, my old haunts on Swan Lake aren't leased for outfitting, nor are there private inholdings in the Bob near the headwaters of the South Fork. There are many more obvious errors in this map.

 

[Walkathon]

Sort of confused by the map. Looks like some publically accessible BLM included in the lease areas. Maybe I'm not zooming in enough

 

[----]

Yeah, that map is certainly not showing what it says it is.

 

[shoots-straight]

I think the map shows private lands that are outfitted, maybe not leased.

 

[shoots-straight]

All public lands are "Potentially" outfitted lands too.

Lets be clear on what the map shows.

 

[RobG]

All public lands are "Potentially" outfitted lands too.

Lets be clear on what the map shows.

That can't be it. It has blocks in Yellowstone and Glacier, and areas around Swan Lake that include summer homes of people I know quite well. Also, many areas that are open to outfitting like the Bob aren't shown. The map is full of bogus info.

 

[StykbowMT225]

I see many errors in the map. The good news is this was supplied by BOO. I'll bet when the dust settles, they wished they had spent more time on it. Some of the areas are BMA's, and have been for several years. Some of these ranches charge for access, but have never had an outfitter in at least the last 20 years. I wonder if they could break this out be species as well.

 

[Pierre]

The map is incorrect, no doubt. Scary none-the-less. They are mandated to provide data for the map...unfortunately, we trusted that it would be accurate. The fact remains that MOGA has lead this stall in the production of the map and it will soon be time to comment on those rule packages the BOO is working on to limit mandatory outfitter reporting.
It is certainly their job to produce accurate data so the map can be produced....something they obviously have place no value in.
Remember folks, if you want a change, get off your butts and comment to both MOGA and the BOO.
Joe
Buzz, you bring up an interesting side note. Public land outfitters have always shared the resource with other hunters. They sell a true experience where success rates reflect true fair chase hunts. Why they allow the privte land outfitter dominated MOGA to speak to them, I don't know. I would send a friend to a public land outfitter if they want an experience, never to a high success private land outfitter.

 

[Eric Albus]

Did any of you crying wolf bother to read the "fine print" at top of the map? The print that sez, "private lands with possible agreements".... the map has no credibility....

There are several ranches in BM here in Reg. 6 that are listed on the map, and I see a few in Reg. 7 also...and I see some ranches that have no outfitting colored in brown as well.... but hey, what do I know.......I guess it is not what I know in this instance, it is who I know and where there ranches are.... good grief is all I can say

 

[The Hedgehog]

The map is way wrong. But wasn't the passing of I-161 the reason outfitters don't really have to report much?

 

[Eric Albus]

161 took some accounting away, but not nearly enough.... in my not so humble opinion.

 

[Pierre]

So Eric, are you going to ask Taber and Arnaud of BOO why the reporting is so inaccurate that we have a chit-map? Repeat, map info mandated by the amendatory veto. Is this effort what we can expect in the line of reporting from outfitters?
When your industry is responsible for this kind of effort, is that crying wolf. Is it too much to ask for you folks selling hunts for public trust critters to accurately report?
Honesty is always the best policy, period!
Joe