Personally, there was a time to do that, before SB 143.
Ballot initiative to repeal HB637
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
Personally, there was a time to do that, before SB 143.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I agree. Where was that approach before 143,505,and the language inserted into 637?
There is a working group that sat down and came up with common ground in regards to implementing a new elk management plan.
Conservation groups have demonstrated repeatedly that we are willing to work for solutions within the parameters of equal distribution of licenses and the North American Wildlife Model.
No one can say that MOGA attempted to find consensus before this legislative session.
not my state, not my fight. but it's been a good issue to try and stay apprised of.
but holy crap did just damn near spit my coffee all over the keyboard after reading that sentence
that's a good joke man
BuzzH
Well-known member
You mean something similar to what MOGA did this year...sat down with the stakeholders and tried to compromise?
Do you even realize how ridiculous that statement sounds coming off this session?
Now you expect sportsmen to sit down and talk? WOW, taking stupid to places its never been.
Think I'll pass...straight to the Ballot Initiative. When appropriate, let me know where to send $$$.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Rich
Hey Eric, I'm trying to game out compromise situations in my head for the heck of it; how many hunting outfits are currently licensed in the state of Montana? I could only find more general numbers for outfitters (including fishing, general moseying on horseback, etc - not just those who can take people hunting).
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think he said about 280 in another thread but that may have been MOGA members. I come up with fewer if I use the MOGA search page. Also keep in mind that there are unlicensed outfitters operating under the state's radar. HB637 doesn't help them as long as the state cross-references with the licensed outfitter list.
https://www.montanaoutfitters.org/find-an-outfitter/
I wonder how all of those outfitters would feel if they were told that any improvements to their homes, places of business, camps, etc had to be done by a licensed contractor. Vehicle maintenance and repairs couldn't be DIY, they need to use a certified mechanic. I'm in the construction industry and it really sucks starting out the year not knowing how many jobs we'll have in the coming 12 months. We have to spend time and effort selling jobs that could otherwise be spent fishing or turkey hunting.
I hunted MT about 10 years ago and really enjoyed it. I don't have any plans to return in the near future, but would gladly contribute to a ballot initiative to shove this bill right back up where it belongs.
I hunted MT about 10 years ago and really enjoyed it. I don't have any plans to return in the near future, but would gladly contribute to a ballot initiative to shove this bill right back up where it belongs.
Last edited:
Hatchie Dawg
Well-known member
Get the process up and running. I'll be happy to donate.
HD
HD
kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Yeah after their lawyer calls and you realize they're going to sue your ass.
Thanks, SAJ.
Spitballing again here:
One compromise I could think of would be 1400 guaranteed NR combos for guided hunters annually. They could pay a bit more of a premium price for early guided NR combo lottery. This would be roughly 12.15% of NR combo tags and would come out to roughly 5 tags per licensed outfitter in 2021 numbers (which would be set in stone. Each outfitter would not be guaranteed 5 hunters with those tags, but the 1400 guarantee tags would be for use with whatever outfitter the hunter sees fit to use. This would allow a good outfit to book say, 25 of those 1400 tags, and weed out some of the bad outfitters through good old fashioned American competition. Also, get rid of this being able to purchase two preference points at the time of application. If someone who wants a guided hunt doesn't draw one of the 1400 tags in that early lottery then they'd have to enter the lottery for the remaining 15,600 NR combos with everyone else.
Seems like this would be appealing to outfitters to get rid of some of the duds in their ranks and the cap on 2021 numbers would prevent more from starting up and joining the fray.
Again, none of that needs to be set in stone verbatim, but perhaps a starting point for an idea of a notion of a concept of a good faith negotiation that satisfies some of the outfitter needs.
But also, FWP should have full say on management over the legislature 10000%
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
There are around 400 licensed for hunting if memory serves correct, for some reason 380 active hunting outfitters is number I think it is.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
If I may suggest a course of action to facilitate a positive discussion over finding some common ground, get as many of those outfitters as possible together and make a convincing case that self- serving legislation without prior discussion with affected parties is a poor way of doing business and will ultimately lead to more negative blowback than positive long term outcome for your industry.
Whether you can see it or whether you agree, there is a very real perception that outfitters care for no one except themselves. This legislative session has further entrenched that image of your industry.
The pushback from those affected by the bills passed this session is coming from that frame of reference. Whether there is the political will power or tools to decisively limit outfitters ability to prioritize their businesses when it come to allocating licenses remains to be seen.
But, I can guarantee you that there is going to be some pretty significant effort made to try.
IMO, hiding behind a Republican majority in the legislature as protection and a failure to be proactive in finding real solutions with all shareholders is probably going to have some severely negative consequences when the balance of power shifts.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I'm sure the June 4 meeting is going to be a lot of fun for MOGA.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They will certainly want more than that, but where is the compromise? Not sure what the benefit is for us. Probably better to just give the 1400 tags to MOGA and let them determine the allocation. It will be fun to see them eat their own.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Summary of the minutes from the meeting.
“It’s the Democrats fault. None of this would be happening if wolves hadn’t been reintroduced. We deserve more tags.”
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
No argument from me.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
Attend the Big Hearts event in Helena this weekend, and you will see the reality that outfitters do care for others.
Individual perception is unfortunately reality. Most people can't get around their perception to find reality.
Your last paragraph I agree wholeheartedly with.
If I were in charge I would have brought the opposition to the bargain table and see what compromise would've worked for both sides. Personally I would like to see an allocation of license to outfitters based off NCHU and FS use days. The allocations would be tied to area of operation, not able to move statewide. Right now the way things stand if I have a huge die off of deer here in the NE I can take my NCHU and lease an elk ranch in Butte and start elk hunting. This is not the way things should work, being able to take NCHU used in NE Mt for deer and move it to SW Mt and elk hunt with it? I don't like that it can work this way on private land. Public lands are protected by use permits, private should be limited to area of Operation.
So the allocation of license could be based off of historic use, and a bargained down percentage of it equate into license for the outfitter. The opposition starts at 0% and my team starts at 105%, we wind up somewhere all can live with. Like maybe historic use average over last 20 yrs. of licensure, minus 10%. So we'd wind up at 30-35% of license set into allocation for outfitters, tied to area of operation, subject to the populations of wildlife in those AoO(area of operation). Biological management makes the world go round. The R hunter is going to have to give up 5 week rut encompassing hunt(outfitter also).
I would also like to see any license used by an outfitter good for only 5-8 days. If I secure license for client, he is my responsibility, he should not be able hunt with me for 5 days then go hunt on their own the rest of the season, competing on accessible lands with R hunters. There are about a million things I can come up with that are way better than where we are right now, and I still haven't had time to digest 637 and think about the bad it'll bring.
If it is to late to sit down and figure something out, bring on the ballot initiative, burn a couple hundred thousand and feel good if it passes.
As I stated elsewhere on here, it isn't the outfitters who are leasing up the state and causing access issues. There are more acres leased by R hunters and NR hunt clubs than what we are leasing by a long shot. We are just an easy target, every landowner who does not want to tell the door knocking hunter "no I am saving the hunting for myself and family" says that "huntin' is leased out" and its assumed to an outfitter.
There are about a million things I can come up with that are way better than where we are right now.
One other thing. I have been contacted by a "NR" who "heard outfitters have license" and was wondering if I could get him one for a fee. If anyone hears of this happening contact me immediately with names/numbers. Any outfitter who does this will lose his/her license, deservedly so if they are dumb enough to fall to a ruse or greedy enough to try getting an extra client.
