American prairie. What's the issue?

[Gerald Martin]

@406dn raises a very valid point. Private landowners provide vital habitat and feed for our wildlife. Wildlife that they are part owners of as well. Some of those owners are generous in sharing access to those nail on their property and view hunters as allies in proper management.

When it comes to @Eric Albus’s point that without the protection of private landowners all the game would be shot out there is a small element of truth to that. However, it is my experience that when it comes to legislation and rule making that would protect the resource and limit pressure on wildlife, MOGA and UPOM are usually pushing for more opportunities to harvest and longer seasons.

Shoulder seasons. Arbitrarily low elk objective numbers. Complaints about crop damages. MOGA continually asking for preferential treatment with access to license allocations, etc.

At Helena, it isn’t resident public land hunters who are advancing and pushing the most egregious wildlife management bills. That comes almost entirely from the MOGA, UPOM, large landowner contingent.

I am definitely not anti-landowner in my sentiment. I just realize that some landowners are great neighbors and consider the consequences of their access practices and legislation that they support and others landowners are not considerate of how their actions affect others.

Concerning the original topic of AP, I have seen nothing but positives in how they integrate their land use and access policies with their neighbors and the greater communities they own land in. AP has no connection to the causes of economic pressures that family farms or ranches face.

 

[BuzzH]

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”.

Eric,

You're getting confused, Bigshooter was specifically talking about $720K that outfitters paid ZERO of.

You're not paying your share as an outfitter, never have, its that simple. Everything paid to the FWP in Montana and GF in Wyoming comes from something sportsmen provide.

As to landowners, yes, some do tolerate wildlife on their land, some even support things to enhance or improve wildlife, and some just flat don't want any wildlife on their land. Its a real mixed bag.

But, for those landowners that either tolerate or work to enhance wildlife I have no problem with them receiving some benefit, including landowner tags (as long as they are NOT transferable to anyone but immediate family), tax incentives, etc.

My issue with outfitters is that they actively work against the North American Model. They pass ridiculous and unfair legislation like the wilderness guide law, some species requiring outfitters, ranching for wildlife programs, transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored tags, tiered license fee structures, and a host of other things that make it more and more difficult for average sportsmen/women. It's wrong, selfish, and a detriment to the NAM.

Its non-stop and I never/rarely see outfitters lobby for anything that doesn't directly benefit THEM. That includes things that benefit wildlife, the average hunter, etc.

Watch what happens with the legislature in Montana this year, and Wyoming, and New Mexico...and on and on and on. Its outfitters first, nothing else matters...you can't deny the truth and facts.

Gerald has it right, the AP is a much better neighbor than most. They allow access, they allow cattle grazing, they go out of their way to test their bison, they follow the law, they don't bad mouth any of their neighbors...can't really say that about the outfitter lobby or UPOM.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

Just help clarify MOGA’s duties to members, it(MOGA) is a trade association, not a wildlife management association. Many times myself and others have been T odds with leadership over the tact taken and not putting the resource first.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric,

You're getting confused, Bigshooter was specifically talking about $720K that outfitters paid ZERO of.

You're not paying your share as an outfitter, never have, its that simple. Everything paid to the FWP in Montana and GF in Wyoming comes from something sportsmen provide.

As to landowners, yes, some do tolerate wildlife on their land, some even support things to enhance or improve wildlife, and some just flat don't want any wildlife on their land. Its a real mixed bag.

But, for those landowners that either tolerate or work to enhance wildlife I have no problem with them receiving some benefit, including landowner tags (as long as they are NOT transferable to anyone but immediate family), tax incentives, etc.

My issue with outfitters is that they actively work against the North American Model. They pass ridiculous and unfair legislation like the wilderness guide law, some species requiring outfitters, ranching for wildlife programs, transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored tags, tiered license fee structures, and a host of other things that make it more and more difficult for average sportsmen/women. It's wrong, selfish, and a detriment to the NAM.

Its non-stop and I never/rarely see outfitters lobby for anything that doesn't directly benefit THEM. That includes things that benefit wildlife, the average hunter, etc.

Watch what happens with the legislature in Montana this year, and Wyoming, and New Mexico...and on and on and on. Its outfitters first, nothing else matters...you can't deny the truth and facts.

Gerald has it right, the AP is a much better neighbor than most. They allow access, they allow cattle grazing, they go out of their way to test their bison, they follow the law, they don't bad mouth any of their neighbors...can't really say that about the outfitter lobby or UPOM.

Merry Christmas.

What the in your opinion should I be paying? Remember, if I outfit on state/blm/fs I’m paying a special user fee to each agency. Myself and all clientele are buying license, paying taxes, ect..

 

[406dn]

Just help clarify MOGA’s duties to members, it(MOGA) is a trade association, not a wildlife management association. Many times myself and others have been T odds with leadership over the tact taken and not putting the resource first.

Then they are representing your trade very poorly. When they put it on the public record that 313 should return to a general season, or when they lobbied for shoulder seasons to include public land, it sends a horrible message to most hunters.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Remember, if I outfit on state/blm/fs I’m paying a special user fee to each agency.

Not doubting you, just never was aware of a "special user fee" to outfit on BLM, state lands, or USFS lands. What are the fees called? How are fees assessed? Are they based on area hunted, number of hunter days, animals taken, flat fee or what?

If the BLM, state land, or USFS land is landlocked or in a grazing lease, do you still have to pay the "special user fee" for outfitting that land?

 

[JLS]

If the BLM, state land, or USFS land is landlocked or in a grazing lease, do you still have to pay the "special user fee" for outfitting that land?

Yes

 

[Big Shooter]

Not doubting you, just never was aware of a "special user fee" to outfit on BLM, state lands, or USFS lands. What are the fees called? How are fees assessed? Are they based on area hunted, number of hunter days, animals taken, flat fee or what?

If the BLM, state land, or USFS land is landlocked or in a grazing lease, do you still have to pay the "special user fee" for outfitting that land?

D) All of the above.

 

[Straight Arrow]

What are the fees called? How are fees assessed?

Are they based on area hunted, number of hunter days, animals taken, flat fee or what?

"All of the above" does not answer my clearly worded questions of inquiry.

 

[406dn]

My curiosity was piqued, so I googled outfitting fees on forest service land. There are other considerations but roughly the fee is 3% of the outfitters revenue. So if an outfitter runs 20 hunters thru at $10k/hunter, they owe the public 6K. I'll have to think about whether that's reasonable, or not.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd605806.pdf

 

[antlerradar]

Or 300 a person, raze you hand if you want to pay 300 dollars to hunt public land, I am setting on mine.

 

[406dn]

Or 300 a person, raze you hand if you want to pay 300 dollars to hunt public land, I am setting on mine.

If, Im in for a 10k elk hunt in the Bob, knowing that $300 of that is going to the Feds doesn't make me even blink.

 

[Treeshark]

$300 if the public was landlocked seems like a deal in a lot of instances, honestly.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If, Im in for a 10k elk hunt in the Bob, knowing that $300 of that is going to the Feds doesn't make me even blink.

Probably true, but it does lend an interesting perspective to hunting access privileges. Although that fee is paid by the outfitter, ultimately the user, the hunter pays it.
So that really highlights the value of hunting access on AP or other block management areas, whether that privilege is for one season or forever.

 

[Eric Albus]

Not doubting you, just never was aware of a "special user fee" to outfit on BLM, state lands, or USFS lands. What are the fees called? How are fees assessed? Are they based on area hunted, number of hunter days, animals taken, flat fee or what?

If the BLM, state land, or USFS land is landlocked or in a grazing lease, do you still have to pay the "special user fee" for outfitting that land?

Fee is based on gross revenue on BLM. Do not know on FS or State.

 

[BrentD]

Probably true, but it does lend an interesting perspective to hunting access privileges. Although that fee is paid by the outfitter, ultimately the user, the hunter pays it.
So that really highlights the value of hunting access on AP or other block management areas, whether that privilege is for one season or forever.

I think the fee is for the opportunity to make money - in other words, it is the outfitter that is being charged because he, not the hunter, is making a profitable, capitalistic business on a socialized resource. That the hunter pays it through the outfitter is irrelevant. The hunter pays for all of the outfitter's costs. This is just another one.

There is a very big difference, in my opinion, between running a for-profit business on a publicly owned and maintained resource and a DIY operation harvesting (at a fee, of course) some of that resource.

 

[406dn]

There are so many ways to look at numbers. If we stipulate that 25% of outfitted elk hunters paying 10k kill a bull. It would mean the forest service gets $1.2k for each bull. I wonder if private landowners value the bull elk on their land similarly?

 

[Eric Albus]

My curiosity was piqued, so I googled outfitting fees on forest service land. There are other considerations but roughly the fee is 3% of the outfitters revenue. So if an outfitter runs 20 hunters thru at $10k/hunter, they owe the public 6K. I'll have to think about whether that's reasonable, or not.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd605806.pdf

If its like BLM it’s 3% of gross. Remember it’s gross revenue, not net.
Most of best outfitters are netting an 8-14% return. So if you figure out what we’re paying vs. netting you have an accurate picture. If you figure it off gross it looks inflated.

 

[antlerradar]

$300 if the public was landlocked seems like a deal in a lot of instances, honestly.

The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. I have been guilty of this thinking myself. I have access to plenty of landlocked public, mostly through neighbors I have known my enter life and mostly just for shed hunting. There are a few gems, but most places are only slightly better than accessible public. One large piece is hunted hard from the first of September until the snow is too deep to get there by dozens, maybe hundreds of hunters. Lets just say one of the adjacent properties has a lot of owners.

 

[Treeshark]

Totally get what you’re saying, antler- appreciate your insight.