161 actually helped the outfitters.
I can think of several outfitters near me that have dramatically down sized or gone out of business because hunt clubs or absentee owners moving in. I-161 is partly to blame for the increase in hunt clubs and absentee owners.
Absentee owners seem to be a large common denominator that's effecting all MT stakeholders. The only solution I can see to that problem is to raise property taxes across the board, then offer production tax credits to those who work the land or to those owners that volunteer up to 50% of their land to the Block Mgmt Program. There are probably other ways, but the only disincentive I can see is to hit these people in their pocket books. Such a plan would require legislation which means working with politicians.....I'm looking for a sharp stick to poke in my eye as I speak.
I'm not sure these new owners don't care about hunting traditions. I think they like hunting very much. So much so that they bought the place for friends and family to hunt. and to @sacountry plan, these owners do "work the land". Not themselves of course. They hire ranch managers to do the work and then take advantage of the wonderful tax advantages afforded to farms and ranches.
Some out of staters do, but not all. Most hunt clubs that I've seen don't work the land, it pure recreation for them. Could it become a loophole? Sure, but this problem doesn't have a clean answer.
IMO, set aside licenses for anyone is the slippery slope that is causing all the wrestling for position over who gets first dibs.
Totally agree, the set asides are dangerous.
Color me shocked.
So it was mid 1990's and the Outfitters came to the Hook and Bullet Org I'm associated with here in the Root, they promised that if we supported the 5500 tag increase from 11500 that they would support the use of money set aside from the sale of those tags to be used in a special account to purchase lands accessible to all sportsmen, state owned. They promised that their numbers would not increase either.
That was a pretty well thought out and fairly detailed response. Much appreciated. However, in light of the entire circumstances, I wouldn’t mind being bored to tears with the items you left out. EVERYTHING needs to be laid on the table as far as information in order for a lot of us to better understand both sides. Thanks for trying to inform us, and also sticking around and understanding that we also have legitimate concerns in the way things are headed.The OSL originated as a compromise worked through the PLPW. The OSL was limited in numbers of around 5600 elk/deer combo license and 2200 deer only license. The license was unlimited and market driven, meaning if it oversold the target numbers the price went up. Highest I can remember the deer only selling for was around 11 or 1200$. This is why so many outfitters went out of business during the OSL's tenure. The price was so high that most outfitters could not market it and their clients put in for the draw, and odds at that time were really poor.
The R and NR DIY guys got Block Management, which was funded by the sale of the OSL(talk about subsidized hunting??The public was happy with this at first, but as time went on, Montana gained more and more population(hunters) BM was over hunted and not working. The public looked across the fence and saw the quality on the inaccessible acres and cried FOUL, outfitters are leasing all the good stuff, we get crumbs. I can go into great depth and bore everyone to tears with some of the great success stories of properties managed by outfitters and the access they allowed the public but won't.
Then along came the great answer to the public's perception, a ballot initiative I-161. This took away the OSL (but BM was kept
With what we have now, 637, I can see a lot of headaches and abuses coming. There are no sideboards with what we have. A sitting down at the round table discussion is needed, a compromise worked out. Figuring out what is best for the resource, giving the outfitters some stability, and finding something the public will gain access with. Otherwise we will have another ill thought ballot initiative that will cost 100's of thousands, and further the friction between both factions, who have a lot of common ground if there was a little more thought and a lot less emotion something good can come of all this.
Thanks “Tips”!
I love it!!
You realize that if you can afford a section or two, you're not worried about property taxes. Raising property taxes would hurt residents more than those wicked absentee owners.
Yeah, because residents always allow access. Red hearing much? Or is it straw man? Or just complete BS?
Really Eric? Just like the political bs we all witness these days, any contribution ($) from anyone with an interest or special interest would be welcome!
I realize that I throw out some off the wall ideas on this forum. The more difficult the problem, the more off the wall. I do understand that those who can afford to buy sections of land probably aren't concerned with the taxes. But, I also live in state that's deprived of resources for wildlife management and infrastructure. If our private land is in demand then we ought to figure out how to capitalize on that demand for the betterment of the state. I get that this sounds socialistic but that's definitely not my intent. Just trying to find money to solve problems that aren't going away. If there is a non-monetary solution, I'm all ears.
