shoots-straight
Well-known member
Did you bother to read any of my posts?
2015 Private lands Leased to Outfitters map
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
Did you bother to read any of my posts?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
161 took some accounting away, but not nearly enough.... in my not so humble opinion.
No I-161 did not take any accounting away. It had nothing to do with "Accounting" HB 274 did that back a couple of sessions ago. Ed Greef was the sponsor.
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/HB0274.pdf
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Joe, give me a break.... do you really think that Tabor or Arnaud have anything to do with these maps? This is something that FWP printed up, and again..read the fine print...2012 map says "authorized hunting outfitters"...the 2015 map sez "with possible agreements" that would pretty much take in the whole state...there could be "possible agreements" on every acre..maybe we should count the acres 8 times as there could be 8 outfitters operating on the same private land....now we have more private land outfitted on than the state actually contains... sounds like a good liberal spin to me..."we have more acres outfitted on than are actually in the STATE itself"... maybe you and Kat can get that one out to the public.
If us outfitters have to keep track of the acres leased, and the hunters taken, why don't YOU have to account for the folks you allow to hunt your place as well... maybe we need to go to the legislature and have every landowner who allows hunting keep track of the "public's trust" that is harvested off his/her lands....I can hear you whine now, "but I'm not charging a fee".....do you think the deer/pheasant/elk gives one shit if you charged for access? My best guess is they don't care, dead is dead. However, you are allowing unfettered access to the publics trust...and you should keep track this way I can be sure you are not over-harvesting "our resource" off "your property"....or is turn-about no longer fair play?
If us outfitters have to keep track of the acres leased, and the hunters taken, why don't YOU have to account for the folks you allow to hunt your place as well... maybe we need to go to the legislature and have every landowner who allows hunting keep track of the "public's trust" that is harvested off his/her lands....I can hear you whine now, "but I'm not charging a fee".....do you think the deer/pheasant/elk gives one shit if you charged for access? My best guess is they don't care, dead is dead. However, you are allowing unfettered access to the publics trust...and you should keep track this way I can be sure you are not over-harvesting "our resource" off "your property"....or is turn-about no longer fair play?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Certainly Tabor and Arnaud had nothing to do with building the maps. They most likely had lots to do with the passing of HB 274 that de regulated the outfitters so they didn't have to report acres leased.
If your not charging for access on your place then why would we want you to report? Outfitted clients is another story though. Your utilizing a public resource for commercial gain and that needs reporting.
Good luck on your threat of getting all landowners to report for access.
If your not charging for access on your place then why would we want you to report? Outfitted clients is another story though. Your utilizing a public resource for commercial gain and that needs reporting.
Good luck on your threat of getting all landowners to report for access.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
shoot, I did not make a threat.... I would no more go to the legislature for that than fly to the moon, and I would never say that the private landowner should have to report what is harvested, just made an analogy...did not mean to confuse.
....so explain to me why "outfitted clients" are another story? I can see where you could make a case for keeping track of animals taken on FS, BLM, CMR, ect., (if the information was used for a biological management, instead of punitive actions)
....so explain to me why "outfitted clients" are another story? I can see where you could make a case for keeping track of animals taken on FS, BLM, CMR, ect., (if the information was used for a biological management, instead of punitive actions)
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
shoots, I stand corrected...161 did not take away the accounting...it was the catalyst to take away some of the accounting...like all the rules we had to live by in order to have the OSL....No OSL... fewer rules....MOGA did not come forward with any legislation while we had the OSL..part of the bargain, we kept our end of it.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Eric, if you feel you kept up you side of the bargin, I guess who am I to say otherwise. Now the agreement was for the outfitters to keep their numbers around 590 or so. (might be off on that).
The total numbers of outfitters did not increase much but what we found out is landowners were being "HIRED" as Guides under a Outfitters license. They outfitted their own places and tossed a bone to the outfitter for access in payment of using his license. It's still going on. Guides numbers have increased because of this loophole.
The total numbers of outfitters did not increase much but what we found out is landowners were being "HIRED" as Guides under a Outfitters license. They outfitted their own places and tossed a bone to the outfitter for access in payment of using his license. It's still going on. Guides numbers have increased because of this loophole.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
shoots, 161 closed that loop hole...now a landowner no longer needs an outfitter to secure license for a hunter as the draw has been 100%. The outfitter has been cut out of the equation.
The number was around 450 hunting outfitters when we had the set aside license. Not totally certain as to numbers today, but believe it to be lower. Will find out and give an update.
The number was around 450 hunting outfitters when we had the set aside license. Not totally certain as to numbers today, but believe it to be lower. Will find out and give an update.
billy banger
New member
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 24
That I heard is that the Board of Outfitters told Joe Perry, who had been pressuring the Board of Outfitters & FWP to produce the map, that he was told that the map was not accurate. The reason being is that the Montana Board of Outfitters (which is under the MT Dept. of Labor & Industry) was using a new software program that was not compatible with the old software and that is why the Map was not accurate. But in Joe's haste to smear the outfitting industry he released the Map knowing the info in the Map was possibly tainted.
Joe stated in his post "They are mandated to provide data for the map...unfortunately, we trusted that it would be accurate". Joe was told the map was not ready for release, but decided to release it any way. Joe wants to put the blame on the private land outfitters and MOGA for not reporting, but the fact is outfitters have always reported their land use to the Montana Board of Outfitters as required.
Joe stated in his post "They are mandated to provide data for the map...unfortunately, we trusted that it would be accurate". Joe was told the map was not ready for release, but decided to release it any way. Joe wants to put the blame on the private land outfitters and MOGA for not reporting, but the fact is outfitters have always reported their land use to the Montana Board of Outfitters as required.
BuzzH
Well-known member
MOGA does a good job of "smearing" itself...its MOGA's fault if their "software program" wasn't compatible, and their own map wasn't ready for release.
How about if MOGA gets its crap together?
As per always, its somebody else's fault for their lack of accountability.
How about if MOGA gets its crap together?
As per always, its somebody else's fault for their lack of accountability.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
well....MOGA has nothing to do with the map, and has NO REQUIREMENT to report anything to the state,....that would be the Outfitter of record to the BOARD OF OUTFITTERS (why do I have to keep explaining this???)
Here is how it works for those literate enough to follow along in English.... Outfitter reports acreage to controlling agency (Board of Outfitters under the Dept. of Labor and Industry) they (state) puts together the MAP....get it?? MOGA has NOTHING to do with it....
so, as per always........ , I hope finally it sinks in.
Here is how it works for those literate enough to follow along in English.... Outfitter reports acreage to controlling agency (Board of Outfitters under the Dept. of Labor and Industry) they (state) puts together the MAP....get it?? MOGA has NOTHING to do with it....
so, as per always........ , I hope finally it sinks in.
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Joe, is it true what billy just posted?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Eric,
The last thing MOGA should trouble itself with is assuring that proper reporting is done by outfitters...I don't care if its BOA, MOGA, State or an FWP requirement.
Seems like a pretty lame organization that wouldn't involve itself with a map showing private land leases held by the outfitting industry in Montana.
But, like I said, its easier to just make excuses than actually be proactive in things that impact the outfitting industry.
Whatever the membership fees are to be a MOGA member, I would demand a refund.
The last thing MOGA should trouble itself with is assuring that proper reporting is done by outfitters...I don't care if its BOA, MOGA, State or an FWP requirement.
Seems like a pretty lame organization that wouldn't involve itself with a map showing private land leases held by the outfitting industry in Montana.
But, like I said, its easier to just make excuses than actually be proactive in things that impact the outfitting industry.
Whatever the membership fees are to be a MOGA member, I would demand a refund.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Buzz, I am sure you would....and it does not surprise me...
Being a conservative, I would drop my MOGA membership if they demanded that I report anything to them....MOGA is a business association...not a data collection agency, not a police body...just a voice for the outfitting membership....might be why we don't have anyone armed and in uniform.
Being a conservative, I would drop my MOGA membership if they demanded that I report anything to them....MOGA is a business association...not a data collection agency, not a police body...just a voice for the outfitting membership....might be why we don't have anyone armed and in uniform.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Eric,
So, MOGA has nothing to do with the Montana Board of Outfitters then???
That's funny...found this on the MOGA website. At the very least, I would be asking your MOGA rep. to pay attention to things that impact your industry while they "participate to protect interests of the Outfitting industry".
http://www.montanaoutfitters.org/membership-benefits/
MOGA members serve on numerous important Boards and Commissions that include but are not limited to the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Council and Montana Board of Outfitters Regional Advisory Councils. Consistent, informed and active participation is critical to protecting the interests of the Outfitting industry. The complexities of the Outfitting industry are not well understood and having knowledgeable representatives who seek win/win solutions to important problems is critical to the success of MOGA and the membership. Hundreds of hours are expended by MOGA membership in this area.
So, MOGA has nothing to do with the Montana Board of Outfitters then???
That's funny...found this on the MOGA website. At the very least, I would be asking your MOGA rep. to pay attention to things that impact your industry while they "participate to protect interests of the Outfitting industry".
http://www.montanaoutfitters.org/membership-benefits/
MOGA members serve on numerous important Boards and Commissions that include but are not limited to the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Council and Montana Board of Outfitters Regional Advisory Councils. Consistent, informed and active participation is critical to protecting the interests of the Outfitting industry. The complexities of the Outfitting industry are not well understood and having knowledgeable representatives who seek win/win solutions to important problems is critical to the success of MOGA and the membership. Hundreds of hours are expended by MOGA membership in this area.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
So, there is a map. An unreliable map that includes land parcels that should not be shown as outfitted and omits other parcels. Nice job everyone. Let's hire a parrot to crap on a state map next time and release that to the public. Just who is the person leading the recent map project that is beaming with pride? Did the person do their best efforts? Are they okay? Who pays that person? Tax payers? Outfitters? They say to follow the money when there is a blockade in the road, er, map.
katqanna
Well-known member
I cannot speak for Joe, as to whether or not he was told by the Board of Outfitters that this 2016 map was not accurate. But I have spoken to FWP over the last couple of years, asking for the current maps and was told by FWP's GIS person that since 2012, BOL provided the legislatively required information to them, but in a format that FWP could not make the map. This has been the repeated statment that I have gotten over the last couple of years.
This has been 3 years of this now. When I saw the Administrative Rules of Montana pertaining to the map,"The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks or the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council may use board data to create a map depicting all private land where any outfitter is authorized to operate. All inquiries for outfitter records shall be reviewed and considered in relation to this rule and the competing interests between the public's right to know and the rights of privacy involved in the particular records requested," I sent it to Joe and asked, as a council member, if he could push for this map? There was no good reason why it has been years since the last map was created.
ARM 24.171.408 - "Also, while total acreage of private lands where any outfitter is authorized to operate is a matter of public record, where a particular outfitter is authorized to operate is a confidential matter between the landowner and the outfitter."
This has been 3 years of this now. When I saw the Administrative Rules of Montana pertaining to the map,"The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks or the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council may use board data to create a map depicting all private land where any outfitter is authorized to operate. All inquiries for outfitter records shall be reviewed and considered in relation to this rule and the competing interests between the public's right to know and the rights of privacy involved in the particular records requested," I sent it to Joe and asked, as a council member, if he could push for this map? There was no good reason why it has been years since the last map was created.
ARM 24.171.408 - "Also, while total acreage of private lands where any outfitter is authorized to operate is a matter of public record, where a particular outfitter is authorized to operate is a confidential matter between the landowner and the outfitter."
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
Buzz...are you just contrary, or having trouble with comprehensive reading?
MOGA has nothing to do with the Board of Outfitters(BoO) and their operations....the BoO office staff are state employees, however some of the BoO board of directors are Outfitters, and some of those outfitters belong to MOGA, some of the BoO directors are public members and one is a fishing outfitter..
Do I care about how many acres are leased by outfitters in the state? No is the short answer. It is none of my business what landowner decides to do with their ranch....they can lease it, block manage it, or light it on fire for all I care.... but that is the joy of having more than enough to do...keeps me out of other folks business
MOGA has nothing to do with the Board of Outfitters(BoO) and their operations....the BoO office staff are state employees, however some of the BoO board of directors are Outfitters, and some of those outfitters belong to MOGA, some of the BoO directors are public members and one is a fishing outfitter..
Do I care about how many acres are leased by outfitters in the state? No is the short answer. It is none of my business what landowner decides to do with their ranch....they can lease it, block manage it, or light it on fire for all I care.... but that is the joy of having more than enough to do...keeps me out of other folks business
Sorry, not avoiding any questions, been at meetings for 3 days straight. Eric, This has been going on a long time now...no map since 2012. When Steve gave me the map info, he told me it was incorrect. Up to that point it was a standoff with FWP and Boo with each pointing the finger at the other. The last Boo meeting I attended, I was told the official board position was that "it had complied with the law". FWP did not produce the map all these years because they said the data provided was inaccurate. Boo had changed software.
I put the map out and said immediately it was inaccurate. As I see it, it is Boo responsibility to give the FWP data to produce a map. That includes that it be accurate and in a form that can be used. We have seen a lot of excuses but fact is the map hasn't been able to be produced "accurately" and that is certainly implied in the law. MOGA was responsible for HB 274, cut and dried! And all the promises from your lobbyists have not been kept. You folks spent a huge amount of time and money and lobbying on this bill. Do you expect us to take your word when promises are made? Both Arnaud and Taber are on the Boo of outfitters and I recall no efforts on their part to push for accurate info to produce the map. They aren't charged with just promoting MOGA agenda, but are charged with oversight of the industry for all the citizens of the state.
So MSA agreed to put out the map in hopes that it would draw attention to a problem Boo nor Moga wanted to address. We are tired of promises. PLPW and sportsmen want the map. You got the bill passed but as its authors, do you feel no obligation to see any follow thru?
Director Hagener, Pam Bucy, and the Gov's office have all been helpful.
We could offer a solution: Boo and Moga join us in pushing to get accurate data to the Dept. for the map. Get it done NOW so it is available for PLPW and an upcoming legislative session. Your industry should follow thru on your promises. We don't care about how its done; old software, new, raw, whatever just get the job done and possibly improve your image.
I put the map out and said immediately it was inaccurate. As I see it, it is Boo responsibility to give the FWP data to produce a map. That includes that it be accurate and in a form that can be used. We have seen a lot of excuses but fact is the map hasn't been able to be produced "accurately" and that is certainly implied in the law. MOGA was responsible for HB 274, cut and dried! And all the promises from your lobbyists have not been kept. You folks spent a huge amount of time and money and lobbying on this bill. Do you expect us to take your word when promises are made? Both Arnaud and Taber are on the Boo of outfitters and I recall no efforts on their part to push for accurate info to produce the map. They aren't charged with just promoting MOGA agenda, but are charged with oversight of the industry for all the citizens of the state.
So MSA agreed to put out the map in hopes that it would draw attention to a problem Boo nor Moga wanted to address. We are tired of promises. PLPW and sportsmen want the map. You got the bill passed but as its authors, do you feel no obligation to see any follow thru?
Director Hagener, Pam Bucy, and the Gov's office have all been helpful.
We could offer a solution: Boo and Moga join us in pushing to get accurate data to the Dept. for the map. Get it done NOW so it is available for PLPW and an upcoming legislative session. Your industry should follow thru on your promises. We don't care about how its done; old software, new, raw, whatever just get the job done and possibly improve your image.
Similar threads
