Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage

[Nemont]

....ALL of it stays in Montana.

That is complete and utter BS. So easy to prove that it isn't true that is shouldn't require a 2nd thought, all that money doesn't and never has stayed in Montana, period. I have no real issue with where your money is spent or not spent but to make a claim that is so easily proven false doesn't make your position very firm.

Montana Guides/Outfitters (sizzlinsoutfitters.com)

This guide of yours that lives out of state leaves all the money here?




Nemont

 

[HighWildFree]

If I had a say...the nonresident outfitters would be required to pay a tax per client to operate.....but that’s just my opinion.

I would agree with you on that. I would like to see a higher tax rate for remote workers as their company benefits from MT infrastructure for their remote worker but they don't pay business taxes in MT

 

[Big Shooter]

That is complete and utter BS. So easy to prove that it isn't true that is shouldn't require a 2nd thought, all that money doesn't and never has stayed in Montana, period. I have no real issue with where your money is spent or not spent but to make a claim that is so easily proven false doesn't make your position very firm.

Montana Guides/Outfitters (sizzlinsoutfitters.com)

This guide of yours that lives out of state leaves all the money here?

View attachment 175880


Nemont

You are correct! He guides about 2 hunts a year for me on the years he doesn’t hunt. Good call!

 

[Nemont]

You are correct! He guides about 2 hunts a year for me on the years he doesn’t hunt. Good call!

Not what you claimed. You said 100% stayed in Montana. I really don’t care because 100% of my income is made in Montana, I pay taxes here, including lots of property taxes on commercial property, payroll taxes, wages, Work Comp., health Insurance, etc etc, all here in Montana.

I guess that means nothing to guys like you. Only your business has expenses and has bills to pay.

I know the industry I work in last year had gross written premiums of $5.4 Billion and direct compensation of $581 million and accounted for over 9,300 jobs. If I applied the multipliers well you can do the math.

Nemont

 

[4ohSick]

If I applied the multipliers well you can do the math.

You may be giving more credit than is due here. But I'm just an engineer - maybe I wasn't taught the advanced math they employ.

 

[Eric Albus]

Straight. Only flaw with your analogy is they don’t have to rely on a draw to run their businesses to fish(unless on smith) or raft. NR fishermen can buy a license and there is no license to go rafting

 

[Straight Arrow]

Straight. Only flaw with your analogy is they don’t have to rely on a draw to run their businesses to fish(unless on smith) or raft. NR fishermen can buy a license and there is no license to go rafting

I do understand the analogy "flaw" point. However, recently odds of success in drawing a license have been very favorable. Although I do support earlier draws and increased predictability for outfitters, I do not support the "socialistic" handouts of dedicated licenses for selling chances at harvesting state wildlife. (esp at to the detriment of NR DIY hunters)

 

[Gerald Martin]

Not what you claimed. You said 100% stayed in Montana. I really don’t care because 100% of my income is made in Montana, I pay taxes here, including lots of property taxes on commercial property, payroll taxes, wages, Work Comp., health Insurance, etc etc, all here in Montana.

I guess that means nothing to guys like you. Only your business has expenses and has bills to pay.

I know the industry I work in last year had gross written premiums of $5.4 Billion and direct compensation of $581 million and accounted for over 9,300 jobs. If I applied the multipliers well you can do the math.

Nemont

What about building contractors?Between insurance underwriters and contractors, I think we should account for five of the seven seats between us if money generation is the bar for awarding seats.

I am going to laugh when this passes and about five years from now a Democrat administration stacks the commission with Nature Conservancy and American Prairie Reserve landowners to facilitate free roaming bison in the Breaks.

 

[Irrelevant]

Straight. Only flaw with your analogy is they don’t have to rely on a draw to run their businesses to fish(unless on smith) or raft. NR fishermen can buy a license and there is no license to go rafting

You right, he has to provide a service for a fee that people see value in. There is exactly zero constraints preventing outfitters from providing a service that people see value in.

Say it with me... FREE MARKET........ one more time, FREE...... MARKET....

 

[brocksw]

You right, he has to provide a service for a fee that people see value in. There is exactly zero constraints preventing outfitters from providing a service that people see value in.

Say it will me... FREE MARKET........ one more time, FREE...... MARKET....

In fairness, nothing is really "free market" anymore. Everything is subsidized, taxed, tariffed, regulated, etc.

I don't know Eric, but I'd assume his support for the government picking winners and losers (in this case making sure his business is a winner) is not extended fairly across the market landscape. He probably only supports it when it positively affects him or things he supports. It's hypocritical sure, but the idea of self preservation he is essentially supporting isn't completely outside of our understanding and we can all probably empathize if applied to something similar in our own lives. The problem here is in this specific case it affects a public resource and the public's access/opportunity to it, there is a slippery slope argument for many of these bills. It's not like the government subsidizing wind power and the vast majority of us just kinda go along without really being affected. These bills will have real impacts to a public resource that will be felt by the public...especially the ones who aren't wealthy.

That doesn't make him right...these bills are dog shit and he knows it. He just has his outfitter hat on so it makes him bias. If he was a run of the mill "DIY hunter" like the majority of the hunting public, he'd be upset about these bills too. He previously claimed he'd follow the economics in that example, but we all know that's horseshit too. No hunter out there (guided or unguided) buys a tag, fills gas, buys groceries, pays a taxidermist, buys hunting equipment, and gives so much in terms of time, effort, and personal resources to pursue their hunting passion on annual basis all for the benefit of the state's economic well-being. Nor do they defer their opportunity to a state's economic well-being. It's a ridiculous notion to presume anyone does because no one does. Seriously, find one person who hunts or guides who can honestly say,"I don't actually like doing this, I just do it because it's good for the economy" or "I'm okay with less opportunity so someone else and the state can make more money off my publicly owned resource." .............................................No One.

We do it because we like hunting and those things are required for us to go and participate. When it comes to hunting economics we only go out of our way to support things that we perceive to directly and positively impact the resource so us and future generations can keep enjoying it.

That's what especially troubling about this 4 out of 7 bill. They are literally ensuring that the majority of the decision makers will be making decisions based off economics and private interests. Same with 143 and 505...its a decision based off economics and private interests. Not science, not the greatest good for the greatest number, not the public (since it's our wildlife), not the landscape....its all based on money....who gets it and who doesnt. DIY Sportsmen lose. None of this is saying that landowners farmers/ranchers shouldn't be involved. They most certainly should have a seat at the table.

Personally, I am of the opinion that a healthy population of people DIY hunting is good for society. It's good for us to be in touch with the natural world, to see wildlife, the whole god damn bucket full of stuff that comes with being outside in the wilderness and putting meat in the freezer that you packed out yourself...it's good for the human spirit. None of that stuff takes dollars and cents into consideration. So it only makes sense that when we base decisions purely off dollars and cents...it doesn't generally turn out well.....that is unless you stand to benefit monetarily. See how that works?

 

[Gevock]

Hunters, anglers, and public would be shut out under bill.
Sporting interests who fund Montana FWP would get little representation. SB 306, sponsored by Mike Lang, R-Malta, would make four out of the new seven-member Fish and Wildlife Commission members landowners. MWF opposes this as it's a terrible bill that would make the hunters and anglers who fund Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks a severely weakened voice in the management of our public trust wildlife.
The bill passed the full Senate yesterday and is heading to the House. We will speak up and make sure that representatives hear that all Montanans – including landowners but not just them – are given a seat at the table on wildlife management issues.

Bill would require 4 landowners on expanded Fish and Wildlife Commission

The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission should be expanded from five to seven members with four of the governor appointees required to be landowners working in agriculture, said Sen. Mike

missoulian.com

 

[Eric Albus]

Nick, give the fear mongering a rest.


neffa said,
You right, he has to provide a service for a fee that people see value in. There is exactly zero constraints preventing outfitters from providing a service that people see value in.

Say it with me... FREE MARKET........ one more time, FREE...... MARKET....


I provide a service people see a value in, probably why I have hunters who have hunted 20 plus years with me. The difference in fishing or rafting is this, the clientele is not subject to having to draw a license by LOTTERY. Free market has nothing to with attempting to run a business on lottery based system. I am in a "free market"( I don't need you to say it, cause I see you can type it) with every other outfitter attempting to sell their services. I just can't sell mine to a willing buyer due to a lottery they(fishing outfitters/raft Companies) are not subject to.

I use the analogy of buying a couch on the showroom floor. If you see a couch you want on the showroom floor do you have to enter a lottery to buy it? If I own the furniture store and have to use a lottery to sell a couch it would be difficult, and the guy who really wanted the couch would never be drawn, the guy who did win the couch lottery would probably want a different color, cheaper couch, or build his own out of a f-ing kit, and opt out of purchase. So here I sit with a couch I can't sell. At least I can sleep on a couch.
Moral of the story is don't get into the furniture business.

brocksw, putting a license back to the outfitters does not "pick winners or losers". When we had the OSL there were 500+active outfitters, after 8 years there were under 430, and as of a few days ago there were approx. 380 hunting outfitters. We have had up until now a basically OTC license. One would have thought outfitter numbers should have skyrocketed, or at least went back to previous numbers. They did not. It is to tough of a business to thrive in.

If the outfitters were handed back the old OSL with the same rules there'd be a bunch more go broke and get out. What you and others can't see is the forest for all the trees. Setting aside a license does not "guarantee business". I (and the other successful outfitters) are the only ones who can guarantee the success of our individual business'.

There is a lot of good and interesting points in your above post. If you want to know the truth about why I do it, it's for the money. Were it not for all the people depending on me for lease checks, guiding jobs, cooking jobs, and last but not least the clients depending on me to provide them a great service and good time, I would quit. Outfitting and guiding has been turned into a job. It was better the last 20 years when we had certainty of obtaining a license for a prospective client. It would be infinitely more enjoyable if I did not feel the need to waste my time trying to defend what we do on here, well maybe not, kind of fun to torture a few of the folks.

 

[Irrelevant]

Nick, give the fear mongering a rest.


neffa said,
You right, he has to provide a service for a fee that people see value in. There is exactly zero constraints preventing outfitters from providing a service that people see value in.

Say it with me... FREE MARKET........ one more time, FREE...... MARKET....


I provide a service people see a value in, probably why I have hunters who have hunted 20 plus years with me. The difference in fishing or rafting is this, the clientele is not subject to having to draw a license by LOTTERY. Free market has nothing to with attempting to run a business on lottery based system. I am in a "free market"( I don't need you to say it, cause I see you can type it) with every other outfitter attempting to sell their services. I just can't sell mine to a willing buyer due to a lottery they(fishing outfitters/raft Companies) are not subject to.

I use the analogy of buying a couch on the showroom floor. If you see a couch you want on the showroom floor do you have to enter a lottery to buy it? If I own the furniture store and have to use a lottery to sell a couch it would be difficult, and the guy who really wanted the couch would never be drawn, the guy who did win the couch lottery would probably want a different color, cheaper couch, or build his own out of a f-ing kit, and opt out of purchase. So here I sit with a couch I can't sell. At least I can sleep on a couch.
Moral of the story is don't get into the furniture business.

brocksw, putting a license back to the outfitters does not "pick winners or losers". When we had the OSL there were 500+active outfitters, after 8 years there were under 430, and as of a few days ago there were approx. 380 hunting outfitters. We have had up until now a basically OTC license. One would have thought outfitter numbers should have skyrocketed, or at least went back to previous numbers. They did not. It is to tough of a business to thrive in.

If the outfitters were handed back the old OSL with the same rules there'd be a bunch more go broke and get out. What you and others can't see is the forest for all the trees. Setting aside a license does not "guarantee business". I (and the other successful outfitters) are the only ones who can guarantee the success of our individual business'.

There is a lot of good and interesting points in your above post. If you want to know the truth about why I do it, it's for the money. Were it not for all the people depending on me for lease checks, guiding jobs, cooking jobs, and last but not least the clients depending on me to provide them a great service and good time, I would quit. Outfitting and guiding has been turned into a job. It was better the last 20 years when we had certainty of obtaining a license for a prospective client. It would be infinitely more enjoyable if I did not feel the need to waste my time trying to defend what we do on here, well maybe not, kind of fun to torture a few of the folks.

If you are providing a service that people see value in, why do you need the exact same people every year?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I see this bill as a path forward for free ranging bison. A change of administration, commission preference for APR and conservation minded amenity ranchers and a couple open minded hunters on the commission and we could probably have bison in the Breaks in ten years.

 

[Big Shooter]

I see this bill as a path forward for free ranging bison. A change of administration, commission preference for APR and conservation minded amenity ranchers and a couple open minded hunters on the commission and we could probably have bison in the Breaks in ten years.

So Gerald......do you want free ranging bison in Montana?

 

[WIbiggame]

If you are providing a service that people see value in, why do you need the exact same people every year?

This is the GREATEST response to this bill and 143! There is absolutely no way an outfitter or anyone can answer this without saying that their repeat clients are better than us peasant DIY guys.

 

[Big Shooter]

If you are providing a service that people see value in, why do you need the exact same people every year?

Not sure what business you are in, and I will not look down on whatever you do,.....but a LOT of businesses rely on return clientele.

 

[WIbiggame]

Not sure what business you are in, and I will not look down on whatever you do,.....but a LOT of businesses rely on return clientele.

But you or Eric can't remember who have said you are booking out to 2022-2023 and have more people wanting your services than you can accommodate.

And you will get those return customers every 2 years guaranteed. Yes it takes a little more planning but not hard.

 

[Big Shooter]

A) Pretty sure neither of us referred to anyone as “peasants”...! Prove me wrong please......I’ll wait.
B) We don’t rely on the same folks every year, but said hunters feel that we are providing a service that they see value in and enjoy coming back every year.

 

[WIbiggame]

A) Pretty sure neither of us referred to anyone as “peasants”...! Prove me wrong please......I’ll wait.
B) We don’t rely on the same folks every year, but said hunters feel that we are providing a service that they see value in and enjoy coming back every year.

1) You didn't and I apologize for that. Was an emotional response. But, I will say the way this and 143 have been presented your outfittered clients are painted as more important than the DIY community.

2) This response just goes to prove YOU DONT NEED SB143.