Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

[BuzzH]

In what way/ways has outfitting affected you in negative ways? I'm curious to know.

Lots of ways, I'll start the list and see how far it gets.

1. Any type of special license allocation set aside for outfitted clients. That's a horrific abuse of the NAM and an abuse of the public trust.
2. Wyoming Wilderness Guide Law...absolute outfitter welfare, passed by the outfitting industry here.
3. Wyoming tiered license fee structure where an outfitted client can pay more for better draw odds at the expense of others.
4. WOGA liar in Chief Sy Gilliland, making the claim if they got the tiered license fee structure and preference point bill they wouldn't ask for anything again (recent commission testimony). Funny, as myself and others had to hand WOGA their ass on 2 runs at flipping the 60-40 tiered allocations.
5. Outfitters providing exactly ZERO funding to the various GF agencies for management of wildlife. Sportsmen pay the bills for management, outfitters pay for nothing.
6. Outfitter review boards that are an absolute joke, the fox guarding the hen house as a majority on those boards are outfitters. How often is anything actually done to an outfitter when clients have a legitimate complaint? I don't mean the boards saying, "don't do that again"...I mean license revocation.
7. Public lands outfitters that over-hunt their areas. Even though you claim they can't find clients, not my experience.
8. Alaska having NR guide requirements on sheep, grizzly, mountain goat, and brown bears...total joke.
9. Outfitters that pound on their leases and rip off NR hunters providing a "service" that isn't any better than those same hunters could find on their own. (yes, there's lots of these types in MT, WY, CO, etc.).
10. Even though I realize its legal, I don't like the idea of outfitters that operate in States they don't live in.
11. Unreported, under reported income...happens all the time.

Should I go on?

 

[theat]

Outfitters have done plenty to shoot themselves in the foot, sometimes in the head. A lot of what we are blamed for though is simply not for a fact, I won't bore with redundancy.

I as a public land hunter would rather see those 8K NR hunters going with an outfitter, placing less pressure on accessible lands. As an R hunter I still think that the drawing for breaks elk permits should be held in Glasgow at the court house, must be present to win. I think Residents of Valley and Phillip county ought to have a better chance, cause we live here year round. It used to be this way, but it's not going back to that, and I would not lobby for it to, but I still think it's the way it should be. If I want a moose permit and the draw was in Dillon and I had to be present to win, I'd go. But this is just to show my mindset on the subject.

Unless you have a business that benefits directly from outfitting I can understand the relevancy of the finances. Those business' that benefit directly from outfitted tourism do care. From our local mechanic to local bar to grocery store to meat processor to taxidermist and on and on, all benefit from the NR dollar I bring into our local economy. The local bar owner, and many others, have thanked me many times for bringing in "new money" to our community. It all helps support small community business'.

In what way/ways has outfitting affected you in negative ways? I'm curious to know.

I run into conflicts with outfitters/guides just about every spring and fall in my part of Montana. There are around 12 different outfitters that primarily hunt on Forest Service land in the county where I live. They are well know for excessively abusing their "user days" permitted by the Forest Service. Some have more clients in a season than they have user days available.

I have personally caught them committing illegal acts including shooting from the road and hunting in areas where their permit is not valid.

There is an outfitter here that promotes long range bear hunts. I have caught his guides setting up a shooting bench in the middle of a forest service road for their clients to take 1000-2000 yard shots at bears in the cliffs across the canyon. Watched some horrible shooting taking place by those clients where the misses were 10-15' off. When I asked one of the guides what they do if a bear dies up there and doesn't fall off the cliffs, he said that they "leave them lay and find another one to poke at."

Some of the outfitters hunt in both Idaho and Montana and after many complaints to FWP they did a sting operation with an undercover warden posing as a hunter. Even though he only had a tag good in Montana he was taken hunting in both states and told that the outfitter had a special permit allowing his hunters to use a MT tag in Idaho. The outfitter got no punishment and the guide received a slap on the wrist and was back to guiding a few months later. As Gerald mentioned earlier, he also caught a local guide poaching and after a long court battle the guy received a slap on the wrist and is back at it. If I was an outfitter, I don't think I would be hiring guys with poaching convictions (some have a pretty long rap sheet).

I have had numerous guides try to scare me out of my hunting spots and many attempt to cut me off on a stalk. Have even had one mess with my truck.

I worked as a guide in the past and have filmed many outfitter hunts and fishing trips. I know there are some great outfitters out there, but many of the ones I deal with on a regular basis in NW Montana are liars, cheats and criminals.

You keep saying that it is better for the resident hunter to have most non-res hunters hunt only with outfitters, but in my part of Montana I feel that is absolutely not true. I have only had a couple negative encounters with diy non-res hunters, but the guides and outfitters around here are constantly causing issues. I get that most outfitters in your part of the state primarily hunt private lands, but that is not the case in many other parts of the state. I ask most diy guys I run into, "why did you choose this part of Montana to hunt?" Most answer that they originally came here with an outfitter and now come back with their friends on their own.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I run into conflicts with outfitters/guides just about every spring and fall in my part of Montana. There are around 12 different outfitters that primarily hunt on Forest Service land in the county where I live. They are well know for excessively abusing their "user days" permitted by the Forest Service. Some have more clients in a season than they have user days available.

I have personally caught them committing illegal acts including shooting from the road and hunting in areas where their permit is not valid.

There is an outfitter here that promotes long range bear hunts. I have caught his guides setting up a shooting bench in the middle of a forest service road for their clients to take 1000-2000 yard shots at bears in the cliffs across the canyon. Watched some horrible shooting taking place by those clients where the misses were 10-15' off. When I asked one of the guides what they do if a bear dies up there and doesn't fall off the cliffs, he said that they "leave them lay and find another one to poke at."

Some of the outfitters hunt in both Idaho and Montana and after many complaints to FWP they did a sting operation with an undercover warden posing as a hunter. Even though he only had a tag good in Montana he was taken hunting in both states and told that the outfitter had a special permit allowing his hunters to use a MT tag in Idaho. The outfitter got no punishment and the guide received a slap on the wrist and was back to guiding a few months later. As Gerald mentioned earlier, he also caught a local guide poaching and after a long court battle the guy received a slap on the wrist and is back at it. If I was an outfitter, I don't think I would be hiring guys with poaching convictions (some have a pretty long rap sheet).

I have had numerous guides try to scare me out of my hunting spots and many attempt to cut me off on a stalk. Have even had one mess with my truck.

I worked as a guide in the past and have filmed many outfitter hunts and fishing trips. I know there are some great outfitters out there, but many of the ones I deal with on a regular basis in NW Montana are liars, cheats and criminals.

You keep saying that it is better for the resident hunter to have most non-res hunters hunt only with outfitters, but in my part of Montana I feel that is absolutely not true. I have only had a couple negative encounters with diy non-res hunters, but the guides and outfitters around here are constantly causing issues. I get that most outfitters in your part of the state primarily hunt private lands, but that is not the case in many other parts of the state. I ask most diy guys I run into, "why did you choose this part of Montana to hunt?" Most answer that they originally came here with an outfitter and now come back with their friends on their own.

Nailed it!

My experience also.

 

[Walkalot]

My fear is this. All of private land will be locked up to the public. Which most of it is at this time. Most of the elk, deer will go there from the pressure of the public. Which alot do. The public lands which could hold alot of elk, deer but poor management has killed most the deer and yes still some good elk hunting left if u willing to work or get lucky. But has turned into a game of hunt the borders of private to kill elk. With outfitters getting more tags gaurenteed that locks up more land no doubt to $$$. The public is treated like mule deer in southwest mt. Vermon. No body gives a shit but the people that actually hunt public land sadly those people don't have the money to compete with what is going in in Montana right now. Fwp doesn't have control of anything and prob hasnt for awhile. Ranchers/landowners/outfitters/outside money has ruined public lands. Wether it was giving out too many tags to res or non res hunters, mismanaging lands to benifit cattle instead of wildlife, the $$$ took over. Look at what is happening and the bills they tried to pass. Its all about money. Ruin the public lands then they think u have to pay to play.

 

[Walkalot]

Idea for hunters. Hunt the border of private lands. Will be good.

 

[Sytes]

So when does this ballot take place? What are we to do to assist to see this through? Who do we hire? How much $ is needed and how many are serious?

 

[Walkalot]

To go along with some of the above? There are 2 assets that police outfitters in the state. Hm u want to keep your job!

 

[Shangobango]

I have been out of pocket awhile. Obviously the bill was signed.

I admittedly didn’t make it through but the first page on this thread. Insanely short on time right now.


Cliff notes on what I can do to help would be awesome.

 

[SAJ-99]

So when does this ballot take place? What are we to do to assist to see this through? Who do we hire? How much $ is needed and how many are serious?

The reality is the thing people hate the most, the 3000 extra tags, are a one-time deal. Consequently, is an initiative to repeal even necessary? I would rather argue about meaningful long-term solutions than about who got their feelings hurt by whatever over the last 15years of this petty stuff.

 

[Eric Albus]

The reality is the thing people hate the most, the 3000 extra tags, are a one-time deal. Consequently, is an initiative to repeal even necessary? I would rather argue about meaningful long-term solutions than about who got their feelings hurt by whatever over the last 15years of this petty stuff.

That’s where most of us are. I’d rather hammer out a compromise than see money/time wasted in ballot initiative.
If this isn’t an option let me know, as the wheels are turning to sit with opposition and hammer out accord

 

[WIbiggame]

The reality is the thing people hate the most, the 3000 extra tags, are a one-time deal. Consequently, is an initiative to repeal even necessary? I would rather argue about meaningful long-term solutions than about who got their feelings hurt by whatever over the last 15years of this petty stuff.

I would say YES an initiative is needed for 2 reasons:

1) You are forgetting about the 2PP for booking with an outfitter basically at the current time guaranteed licenses for outfitted clients, while the DIY hunter waits 2 years minimum.

A. Trend was moving this way anyway so it will go to outfitted clients drawing every year to every other while the DIY hunter draws every 3-5yrs. Probably closer to 3-6yrs (assuming 3PP becomes the new 100%)
B. Once you hit 3PP you go back to 0 so if the DIY hunter waits 3yrs doesn't draw they are in for atleast 2 more years before they have a chance while the outfitted client would just need to miss 1 year and be back at 3 for close to 100% chance.

2) While MOGA claims the PP system is hard they aren't dumb or they wouldn't have asked for 2PP knowing it guaranteed tags. So when the demand by DIY hunters keeps going up and outfitted clients aren't drawing with 3PP they (MOGA) will be back saying the 3PP end needs to change.

A. An initiative getting rid of all set aside licenses and preference to the PP needs to be done. Obviously MOGA and your MT legislation doesn't remember what you the citizens wanted with your last initiative.

I’d rather hammer out a compromise than see money/time wasted in ballot initiative.

Of course you want to sit down, you guys realized the hornets nest you have kicked and the long term affect that an initiative would have. Where a "compromise" can be voted out at the 11th hour like 143 got rammed into this bill.

Your time for compromise has sailed, time for MOGA to sleep in the bed they made. Hope the 3000 tags was worth it.

 

[Eric Albus]

I would say YES an initiative is needed for 2 reasons:

1) You are forgetting about the 2PP for booking with an outfitter basically at the current time guaranteed licenses for outfitted clients, while the DIY hunter waits 2 years minimum.

A. Trend was moving this way anyway so it will go to outfitted clients drawing every year to every other while the DIY hunter draws every 3-5yrs. Probably closer to 3-6yrs (assuming 3PP becomes the new 100%)
B. Once you hit 3PP you go back to 0 so if the DIY hunter waits 3yrs doesn't draw they are in for atleast 2 more years before they have a chance while the outfitted client would just need to miss 1 year and be back at 3 for close to 100% chance.

2) While MOGA claims the PP system is hard they aren't dumb or they wouldn't have asked for 2PP knowing it guaranteed tags. So when the demand by DIY hunters keeps going up and outfitted clients aren't drawing with 3PP they (MOGA) will be back saying the 3PP end needs to change.

A. An initiative getting rid of all set aside licenses and preference to the PP needs to be done. Obviously MOGA and your MT legislation doesn't remember what you the citizens wanted with your last initiative.



Of course you want to sit down, you guys realized the hornets nest you have kicked and the long term affect that an initiative would have. Where a "compromise" can be voted out at the 11th hour like 143 got rammed into this bill.

Your time for compromise has sailed, time for MOGA to sleep in the bed they made. Hope the 3000 tags was worth it.

I would say YES an initiative is needed for 2 reasons:

1) You are forgetting about the 2PP for booking with an outfitter basically at the current time guaranteed licenses for outfitted clients, while the DIY hunter waits 2 years minimum.

A. Trend was moving this way anyway so it will go to outfitted clients drawing every year to every other while the DIY hunter draws every 3-5yrs. Probably closer to 3-6yrs (assuming 3PP becomes the new 100%)
B. Once you hit 3PP you go back to 0 so if the DIY hunter waits 3yrs doesn't draw they are in for atleast 2 more years before they have a chance while the outfitted client would just need to miss 1 year and be back at 3 for close to 100% chance.

2) While MOGA claims the PP system is hard they aren't dumb or they wouldn't have asked for 2PP knowing it guaranteed tags. So when the demand by DIY hunters keeps going up and outfitted clients aren't drawing with 3PP they (MOGA) will be back saying the 3PP end needs to change.

A. An initiative getting rid of all set aside licenses and preference to the PP needs to be done. Obviously MOGA and your MT legislation doesn't remember what you the citizens wanted with your last initiative.



Of course you want to sit down, you guys realized the hornets nest you have kicked and the long term affect that an initiative would have. Where a "compromise" can be voted out at the 11th hour like 143 got rammed into this bill.

Your time for compromise has sailed, time for MOGA to sleep in the bed they made. Hope the 3000 tags was worth it.

You are a NR. This is for the residents of Montana to decide.

 

[BuzzH]

You are a NR. This is for the residents of Montana to decide.

You and MOGA have no trouble representing the interest of your NR clients.

I would suspect that Resident hunters may have the interest of NR hunters like their families, friends, etc. in mind that don't use outfitters.

No question that Residents have the ultimate say, and rightfully so....keep in mind, those Residents have already said no to outfitter set-asides. Seems they still feel the same way. If NR's want to support the ballot initiative financially, I think they'll get their say without voting.

 

[WIbiggame]

You are a NR. This is for the residents of Montana to decide

Which they did once and MOGA didn't listen.

Like @BuzzH mentioned my R friends would like to see me and spend time with me in the woods. I have spoken with several of the resident guys I have met throughout the years and trust me the hornets nest MOGA has stirred up far out reaches this forum.

 

[Southern Elk]

You are a NR. This is for the residents of Montana to decide.

So you screw DIY NR residents out of their tags, then tell them it's not their problem? You can bet us residents will stick up for them when it comes time to vote on the initiative.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The DIY NR and resident sportsmen are the most similar when it comes to tag allocation. As it goes for the DIY NR, so it does for the resident.

We residents are going to be the ones to decide how this shakes out going forward if there can be a consensus among the masses on the best path.

If this initiative gets underway the 3000 one time tags are just a periphery issue. This initiative needs to address unfair prioritization towards commercial interests and be much more exhaustive in scope than 3000 tags in a one time deal.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If this initiative gets underway the 3000 one time tags are just a periphery issue. This initiative needs to address unfair prioritization towards commercial interests and be much more exhaustive in scope than 3000 tags in a one time deal.

There does need to be a sit down with all stakeholders to try and find a solution to the allocation issue, and especially on hunt season structure moving forward. I commend @Eric Albus for initiating that on his end, and I think there's a ton of value in working together where you can to find agreement & de-escalate the tension. The agency & commission are the most appropriate arbiters of how seasons should be set and I think that if outfitters & hunters sit down to restructure seasons without eliminating too much opportunity, you'll have the building blocks of a better system.

But Gerald is 100% correct. The current system is broken and abused by politicians & special interests. Any initiative needs to restore the authority of the agency to manage wildlife, rather than have them kow-tow to 150 legislators who become policy experts 90 days every 2 years.

Those two are vastly different things.

 

[WIbiggame]

There does need to be a sit down with all stakeholders to try and find a solution to the allocation issue, and especially on hunt season structure moving forward. I commend @Eric Albus for initiating that on his end,

Ben you are WAY more knowledgeable on the political workings of the world than myself, but hasn't that shipped sailed? The outfitters didn't want to sit down when they introduced 143 or when they slid it in 637 at the 11th hour?

Of course Eric does now he is smart enough to see the problem MOGA has created for themselves. My 5yo always wants to negotiate when she realizes that she has picked a fight she can't win. There comes a time when compromise isn't enough and the hammer needs to drop. MOGA was happy ramming this into session so why not let them reap what they sow?

Like I said you are WAY smarter than me am I way off base? Feel free to PM me if you dont want to jam this up.

Edit: I agree the system is currently broken and season structure needs to change quickly or the hunting quality will be nothing quickly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben you are WAY more knowledgeable on the political workings of the world than myself, but hasn't that shipped sailed? The outfitters didn't want to sit down when they introduced 143 or when they slid it in 637 at the 11th hour?

Of course Eric does now he is smart enough to see the problem MOGA has created for themselves. My 5yo always wants to negotiate when she realizes that she has picked a fight she can't win. There comes a time when compromise isn't enough and the hammer needs to drop. MOGA was happy ramming this into session so why not let them reap what they sow?

Like I said you are WAY smarter than me am I way off base? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to jam this up.

Edit: I agree the system is currently broken and season structure needs to change quickly or the hunting quality will be nothing quickly.

Lots of legitimate reason to feel this way, and honestly, I was there up until a few days ago. And not just because of 143 & 637, but because it's been 14 years of this back & forth where nobody gets much good done and wildlife suffers for it. So, with the perspective that we need to advocate for the animals, rather than our own selves, I think it makes sense to find common ground where we can on re-structuring the seasons and looking at current permit numbers, etc, as well as mule deer specific hunting season changes across MT, and whitetail changes where it makes sense. That doesn't guarantee any specific outcome, and I'm sure there will be untruthful players looking to game the system for their own selfish needs, but that happens regardless of the issue or the people at the table. The key is being at the table and holding others accountable.

I think you need landowners & outfitters in that discussion, otherwise it's not going to go anywhere, and you'll end up in far more conflict than you would want. Those are public commission processes that need to happen in order to recalculate the seasons and disperse pressure away from public to allow animals to return to those more accessible lands. The 5 week season isn't set in law, so it can be changed administratively. That's the big difference. Additive to that are some statutory changes that would need to be made in terms of updating Block Management, game damage laws, etc to provide 21st century solutions to 21st century problems instead of relying on the good work done in the last century. That doesn't mean wholesale changes, but simple updating to recognize changing landownership patterns, elk & deer distribution issues, predation pressure, etc.

But that also doesn't include eliminating the point theft, seasons set in statute, etc that need to be removed, and that's where the Constitutional Initiative would need to come in to play. That's where you can set a level playing field for all and eliminate the ability to pick winners & losers through tag giveaways, etc. Think of an initiative as re-setting the cracked foundation on your house, while the legislative piece is the framing & utilities, and the season structure is the finish work.

 

[sacountry]

There does need to be a sit down with all stakeholders to try and find a solution to the allocation issue, and especially on hunt season structure moving forward. I commend @Eric Albus for initiating that on his end, and I think there's a ton of value in working together where you can to find agreement & de-escalate the tension. The agency & commission are the most appropriate arbiters of how seasons should be set and I think that if outfitters & hunters sit down to restructure seasons without eliminating too much opportunity, you'll have the building blocks of a better system.

But Gerald is 100% correct. The current system is broken and abused by politicians & special interests. Any initiative needs to restore the authority of the agency to manage wildlife, rather than have them kow-tow to 150 legislators who become policy experts 90 days every 2 years.

Those two are vastly different things.

Nailed it Ben. If possible for a ballot initiative to do it, I would like to see one that addresses the problem, not a symptom of the problem.