American prairie. What's the issue?

[Big Shooter]

Oh, you mean the $720,400 that outfitters paid exactly zero of?

Thanks for your usual contribution of exactly nothing. It's always sportsmen that pick up the tab. Thanking them would be like thanking myself.

Letting others pay your way as usual.

Your fees to the various land management agencies dont even cover the administration of the permitting and enforcement. That's an agency problem like I already said.

There is no struggle bus to ride, outfitters provide zero to wildlife management.

Oh….so you mean the same sportsman that the outfitting industry brings to the table?! The ones that pay full boat for a tag……plus an extra fee for the Outfitter Preference Point….that you don’t pay? Some of the same sportsman that hunt private property that you have no access to due to your sense of entitlement and terrible attitude? The same sportsman that leave 5 times more money here than you do when you ”Come Home to Hunt” on a less expensive license? Yep…..those are the same sportsman that are helping to fund access programs for a guy like you…..as well as the other folks on here that aren’t quite so narrow minded or as important feeling as you are.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh….so you mean the same sportsman that the outfitting industry brings to the table?! The ones that pay full boat for a tag……plus an extra fee for the Outfitter Preference Point….that you don’t pay? Some of the same sportsman that hunt private property that you have no access to due to your sense of entitlement and terrible attitude? The same sportsman that leave 5 times more money here than you do when you ”Come Home to Hunt” on a less expensive license? Yep…..those are the same sportsman that are helping to fund access programs for a guy like you…..as well as the other folks on here that aren’t quite so narrow minded or as important feeling as you are.

Every nr tag Montana issued would sell out if every outfitter disappeared tomorrow.

Your grievance on the NR native tag is with the dummies you voted for.

I testified against the nr native license.

Again, you and the rest of the outfitters pay nothing for game management.

Admit it and move on.

 

[DFS]

Albus and Bigshooter aren’t on the wrong side of wildlife management. I wouldn’t take their jobs as outfitters either. Outfitters serve a purpose in the hunting community like it or not. Access will not magically open up if we get rid of outfitters like many believe. Eliminating outfitters will only congregate more hunters.

Only time will tell if APR is friends of hunters. I know my prediction.

 

[BuzzH]

Albus and Bigshooter aren’t on the wrong side of wildlife management. I wouldn’t take their jobs as outfitters either. Outfitters serve a purpose in the hunting community like it or not. Access will not magically open up if we get rid of outfitters like many believe. Eliminating outfitters will only congregate more hunters.

Only time will tell if APR is friends of hunters. I know my prediction.

Right, they just don't pay to fund it...and I don't believe hunters would be any more congregated without them either.

 

[mtmuley]

Right, they just don't pay to fund it...and I don't believe hunters would be any more congregated without them either.

I can't believe some members still bother to be involved here. mtmuley

 

[Big Shooter]

Every nr tag Montana issued would sell out if every outfitter disappeared tomorrow.

Your grievance on the NR native tag is with the dummies you voted for.

I testified against the nr native license.

Again, you and the rest of the outfitters pay nothing for game management.

Admit it and move on.

I would not disagree that every NR tag would sell out if every outfitter disappeared tomorrow. But….can you imagine how much more overcrowded your public ground would be if that was the case?? WOW! That would truly be something!

I have no grievance on the NR Native tag, nor did I say that I did. Was just stating a fact.

I applaud you for testifying against the NR Native license. I would tell you to pat yourself on the back, but guessing after so many years of doing just that your shoulder is probably shot.

So do you and your uncle Joe think that outfitters should all be paid members of conservation groups so that we contribute to game management?

 

[Big Shooter]

Albus and Bigshooter aren’t on the wrong side of wildlife management. I wouldn’t take their jobs as outfitters either. Outfitters serve a purpose in the hunting community like it or not. Access will not magically open up if we get rid of outfitters like many believe. Eliminating outfitters will only congregate more hunters.

Only time will tell if APR is friends of hunters. I know my prediction.

One of the most sensible statements on this thread. Thank you for the kind words Doug.

 

[Big Shooter]

I can't believe some members still bother to be involved here. mtmuley

It’s like watching a bad car wreck….you just can’t look away!

 

[mtmuley]

It’s like watching a bad car wreck….you just can’t look away!

I like to hear all angles and perspectives. Some members just push their agenda. On everything. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

I would not disagree that every NR tag would sell out if every outfitter disappeared tomorrow. But….can you imagine how much more overcrowded your public ground would be if that was the case?? WOW! That would truly be something!

I have no grievance on the NR Native tag, nor did I say that I did. Was just stating a fact.

I applaud you for testifying against the NR Native license. I would tell you to pat yourself on the back, but guessing after so many years of doing just that your shoulder is probably shot.

So do you and your uncle Joe think that outfitters should all be paid members of conservation groups so that we contribute to game management?

Here's another fun fact...had to verify before I posted, but with a mind like a steel trap that tends to remember everything, I was right, as per usual:

"87-2-526. License for nonresident to hunt with resident sponsor or family member -- use of license revenue. (1) In addition to the nonresident licenses provided for in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510, the The department may offer for sale 500 B-10 nonresident big game combination licenses and 500 B-11 nonresident deer combination licenses. The licenses may that must be used only as provided in this section and as authorized by department rules. Sale of licenses pursuant to this section may does not affect the license quotas established in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510. The price of licenses sold under this subsection must be the same as nonresident big game combination licenses and nonresident deer combination licenses offered by general drawing pursuant to is one-half of the fee set for the equivalent license in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510. (2) A license authorized in subsection (1) may be used only by an adult nonresident family member of a resident who sponsors the license application and who meets the qualifications of subsection (3). The nonresident family member must have completed a Montana hunter safety and education course or have previously purchased a resident hunting license. A nonresident family member who receives a license pursuant to subsection (1) must be accompanied in the field by a sponsor or family member who meets the qualifications of subsection (3). (3) To qualify as a sponsor or family member who will accompany a nonresident licensed under subsection (1), a person must be a resident, as defined in 87-2-102, who is 18 years old or older and possesses a current resident hunting license and who is related to the nonresident within the second degree of kinship by blood or marriage. The second degree of kinship includes a mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, spouse, grandparent, grandchild, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, stepson, and stepdaughter. The sponsor shall list on the license application the names of family members who are eligible to hunt with the nonresident hunter. (4) If the department receives more applications for licenses than the number that are available under subsection (1), the department shall conduct a drawing for the licenses. Applicants who are unsuccessful in the drawing must be entered in the general drawing for a nonresident license provided under 87-2-505 or 87-2-510, as applicable. - 16 - Authorized Print Version - HB 140 ENROLLED BILL HB0140

(5) All money received from the sale of licenses under subsection (1) must be deposited in a separate account and must be used by the department to acquire public hunting access to inaccessible public land, which may include obtaining hunting access through private land to inaccessible public land."

Still want to argue about who's paying what? You're welcome.

I don't things would change a bit, hunters both R and NR would lease the places that outfitters do now and hunting pressure on those lands would stay the same or maybe even increase. Didn't Albus claim that hunting clubs and R and NR hunters lease more than outfitters already?

 

[Big Shooter]

Here's another fun fact...had to verify before I posted, but with a mind like a steel trap that tends to remember everything, I was right, as per usual:

"87-2-526. License for nonresident to hunt with resident sponsor or family member -- use of license revenue. (1) In addition to the nonresident licenses provided for in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510, the The department may offer for sale 500 B-10 nonresident big game combination licenses and 500 B-11 nonresident deer combination licenses. The licenses may that must be used only as provided in this section and as authorized by department rules. Sale of licenses pursuant to this section may does not affect the license quotas established in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510. The price of licenses sold under this subsection must be the same as nonresident big game combination licenses and nonresident deer combination licenses offered by general drawing pursuant to is one-half of the fee set for the equivalent license in 87-2-505 and 87-2-510. (2) A license authorized in subsection (1) may be used only by an adult nonresident family member of a resident who sponsors the license application and who meets the qualifications of subsection (3). The nonresident family member must have completed a Montana hunter safety and education course or have previously purchased a resident hunting license. A nonresident family member who receives a license pursuant to subsection (1) must be accompanied in the field by a sponsor or family member who meets the qualifications of subsection (3). (3) To qualify as a sponsor or family member who will accompany a nonresident licensed under subsection (1), a person must be a resident, as defined in 87-2-102, who is 18 years old or older and possesses a current resident hunting license and who is related to the nonresident within the second degree of kinship by blood or marriage. The second degree of kinship includes a mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, spouse, grandparent, grandchild, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, stepson, and stepdaughter. The sponsor shall list on the license application the names of family members who are eligible to hunt with the nonresident hunter. (4) If the department receives more applications for licenses than the number that are available under subsection (1), the department shall conduct a drawing for the licenses. Applicants who are unsuccessful in the drawing must be entered in the general drawing for a nonresident license provided under 87-2-505 or 87-2-510, as applicable. - 16 - Authorized Print Version - HB 140 ENROLLED BILL HB0140

(5) All money received from the sale of licenses under subsection (1) must be deposited in a separate account and must be used by the department to acquire public hunting access to inaccessible public land, which may include obtaining hunting access through private land to inaccessible public land."

Still want to argue about who's paying what? You're welcome.

I don't things would change a bit, hunters both R and NR would lease the places that outfitters do now and hunting pressure on those lands would stay the same or maybe even increase. Didn't Albus claim that hunting clubs and R and NR hunters lease more than outfitters already?

So I must have missed the part…..or subsection, if you will……about the contributions to game management and the amounts. Silly me. Just going to throw this out there, but $720,400 in just one year is still a sizable donation to get you access. Did some outfitters kid pull your Superman underwear up over your head when you were a kid??

 

[BuzzH]

So I must have missed the part…..or subsection, if you will……about the contributions to game management and the amounts. Silly me. Just going to throw this out there, but $720,400 in just one year is still a sizable donation to get you access. Did some outfitters kid pull your Superman underwear up over your head when you were a kid??

I must have missed the part that outfitters, not their clients/sportsmen, pay for either access or management?

Where do I find that subsection?

I'm guessing fantasyland.

Not a single penny of that $720K was paid by an outfitter and I haven't hunted any block management other than AP enrolled property (3 times) in 22+ years.

 

[338win]

Albus and Bigshooter aren’t on the wrong side of wildlife management. I wouldn’t take their jobs as outfitters either. Outfitters serve a purpose in the hunting community like it or not. Access will not magically open up if we get rid of outfitters like many believe. Eliminating outfitters will only congregate more hunters.

Only time will tell if APR is friends of hunters. I know my prediction.

Pimps also serve a purpose in the prostitution community, but doesnt mean its good. What gain do we have with land access or game populations with vs without outfitters? I have no proof nor the initiative to find evidence but it seems logical that removing outfitters (I dont want outfitters gone) impact the demand side of of the supply/demand curve and make access cheaper/more accessible.

 

[DFS]

Pimps also pump up demand for public land DIY. They come in all shapes and sizes. The horse got in front of the cart and you will feel the consequences. Some outfitters are bad some are not. They biggest change I’ve seen in my little area is the increase in public land hunting. Who is to blame for that.

Back on track APR is no friend of Montana. They can go build a reserve in western Montana Washington California. Lots of options.

Merry Christmas ya filthy animals!!
Some one should report me.

 

[rogerthat]

I think a new thread should be started to argue sportsman vs outfitters contributions to access. Lots of sportsman including myself are not hostile towards outfitters. I think they serve a purpose and a lot of sportsman that use their services agree and appreciate that service. Back to AP.

 

[Straight Arrow]

American Prairie acquired large tracts of private land and large tracts of leased public land that heretofore were not accessible to the public for hunting. Many, if not most, of those lands are now accessible for hunting and other outdoor recreation.
Back to the thread question, what's the issue?

 

[Eric Albus]

Oh, you mean the $720,400 that outfitters paid exactly zero of?

Thanks for your usual contribution of exactly nothing. It's always sportsmen that pick up the tab. Thanking them would be like thanking myself.

Letting others pay your way as usual.

Your fees to the various land management agencies dont even cover the administration of the permitting and enforcement. That's an agency problem like I already said.

There is no struggle bus to ride, outfitters provide zero to wildlife management.

Zero, really? Most of the outfitters who are in MOGA are also LANDOWNERS. Maybe we(landowners) are not paying an extra “fee”, but we are feeding and housing “our wildlife”.
So don’t tell me about I’m not paying my fair share. When the deer jump and the pheasants fly over the fence they are there for the public to have at. Without what we’re doing there’d be absolutely zero left. I hadn’t thought about that until I had a former “outfitter hater” come to me in the Glasgow Mt sporting goods store. He told me one day “I hated you guys and what you’re doing”. Then he stated, “ I looked around and decided finally that were you not doing what you’re doing there’d be no chance of even seeing a whitetail buck around here. It’d all look like the open(accessible) places”.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Zero, really? Most of the outfitters who are in MOGA are also LANDOWNERS. Maybe we(landowners) are not paying an extra “fee”, but we are feeding and housing “our wildlife”.
So don’t tell me about I’m not paying my fair share. When the deer jump and the pheasants fly over the fence they are there for the public to have at. Without what we’re doing there’d be absolutely zero left. I hadn’t thought about that until I had a former “outfitter hater” come to me in the Glasgow Mt sporting goods store. He told me one day “I hated you guys and what you’re doing”. Then he stated, “ I looked around and decided finally that were you not doing what you’re doing there’d be no chance of even seeing a whitetail buck around here. It’d all look like the open(accessible) places”.

Yep; too often we get caught up in little disagreements about access, licenses, and pros & cons of AP ... and lose some important perspective. It's important to stop and consider the value of wildlife habitat on private lands and realize the contributions of landowners (YOU & AP). Those who are also outfitters realize the importance of healthy herds and of mature animals to hunt as part of a livelihood and conservation. So, thank-you Eric and many others.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

[Eric Albus]

Merry Christmas to all.

 

[406dn]

Any fair assessment of our wildlife resources would have to acknowledge the stewardship of private landowners. The landowner who most generously opened his land to me to train my bird dogs loved the land and and the animals on it. He enjoyed hearing about when I might see elk or a big buck on his land. Now, he chose to enroll his land into block management, so different landowners make their own decisions concerning people coming onto their land.

I have field trialed my dogs in horseback stakes on land where a group of landowners gave permission for us to conduct a trial. Their work to enhance wildlife habitat is obvious. Tree rows do not plant themselves in eastern Montana. Some of these landowners are also in block management, others leave their land closed to hunters. But they allowed access for a group of people, most they do not know, to ride horseback, handling dogs, camping on their land, for several days to week or more. There really isn't anything in to for them. They are being generous.

I have conflicted thoughts about outfitters and their lobby. When listening to the last game commissioner meeting, during the discussion of elk hunting in district 313, it was very disappointing to listen to the head of MOGA voice support for a general season. All of the data shows that that herd is badly out of balance. If MOGA put the resource first, they would not have taken that position.

We will never agree on everything, or on anything completely. That is ok thou. Hopefully we can listen where each other is coming from and chart a path that is generally acceptable.

Merry Christmas to everyone.