I-161 in MT would remove license set-aside for outfitters

[nidahunter]

Quote:
I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.
Idaho did the same thing, jacked the price for non residents to raise money. Funny thing is, no one was willing to pay the new price and Idaho lost money in the long run. I know I cannot afford the new price in Montana so this may be my last year there.

 

[nidahunter]

And no, I dont hunt with a guide....

 

[blue devil]

As a NR hunter and a bit uneducated on the matter, I'll put my opinion in the pool. It seems to be a fine line in between this matter. I think the good and knowledgeable outfitters with a good business will find a way to adjust their business and business plans to find the hunters needed in the end. I also believe that they will also be hurt in the long run by "Rogue" Guides. Being from SD, I see that first hand when pheasant and deer seasons start. And Montana, by raising the tag prices and opening them up to the lottery will get their money from the tags, like they want. The effect, may it be good or bad, won't be realized for a couple of years.

Long story short, with the higher prices in NR tags and opening those tags up to lottery draw has pros and cons for both sides. In my eyes, the big loser from all of this will be hunters, such as me that can't pay the price hikes, due to not being a "rich guy". And will be forced to look other places for our "dream hunts".

 

[Bambistew]

I don't think this will solve anything, other than make a little easier for me to draw a tag. I just have a hard time getting excited about hunting MT anymore. The price going up makes it even less exciting.

I'm sure I'll go back, but MT is not at the top of the destination list anymore.

 

[MattK]

It may increase the amount of "Rogue guides" but it may also make the "legitimate guides" better. It may also allow new guides into the business and create a little more competition among the guiding services. In fact it may make outfitters better. If a guide was getting guaranteed business because he had the tags...he might not be inclined to do as well as a guy fighting for your business. He may also not spend as much in leasing up land that doesn't have quality animals because he doesn't have that guaranteed business/money. Then again, it may not have any effect at all.

 

[----]

I don't think this will solve anything, other than make a little easier for me to draw a tag.

Didn't the "hunters coming home" deal make it a lock for you to draw?

 

[shoots-straight]

Chuck Adams has to actually "draw" MT elk now.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, how many non-residents drop out and what the odds will be. I bet resident license increases are soon coming.

I thought Adams was a Montana resident hunter.

 

[Sytes]

MWF and PLWA letter supporting I-161:

MWF and PLWA MEMBERSHIP SUPPORT LETTER FOR I-161 IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION
I-161 has qualified for the November ballot and the purpose of this letter is to urge our members who enjoy hunting and Montana’s great outdoors to vote for it’s passage.


In 1995, the Montana Legislature passed legislation creating Outfitter Sponsored Licenses (OSL) which provided outfitters a guaranteed client base. The result of this has had significant impact to rural economies and Montana hunters. Why should one business be given a guaranteed client base?


If I-161 passes, the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses will be reassigned to the non-resident general big game drawing.


The only independent study of the economics of big game hunting in Montana (Dr. Duffield, 1989) concludes that open public hunting, similar to the Block Management Program, provides as much as five times more revenue for local economies as does closed public access and exclusive outfitted hunting. This is because the do-it-yourself resident and non-resident hunters spend money on hotels, restaurants, gas, etc


Probably the most important reason to stop this privatization and commercialization of our public land and game that is being facilitate by the OSL’s is to protect the opportunities for our children and grandchildren to enjoy the clean and free public wildlife and hunting heritage our forefathers so diligently provided for us all.

The following are a few of the consequences of the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses:

•Many thousands of acres of private land are now leased for exclusive hunting by outfitter clientele and leasing continues to expand. Montana hunters are finding it very difficult to find a place to hunt that isn’t overcrowded due to the lack of access.
•The use of these licenses has resulted in the commercialization and privatization of many of our public elk and deer herds.
•Numerous roads have been closed to stop access to both public land and public wildlife. The OSL’s have made control of wildlife and land very profitable.
•Many outfitters now cater to hunt clubs and wealthy landowners who charge thousands of dollars to harvest a public elk with a guaranteed OSL.
•Wildlife management is nearly impossible where large antlered male animals are the great source of profit but the female component of the population is left unchecked. This harboring of animals has devastating effects on habitat, surrounding landowners and herd management.
•The Public Trust Doctrine and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation give wildlife to the people. If outfitters are allowed to determine who can hunt and what can be hunted - it is contrary to the successful North American Model and more closely aligns with the European model. Only the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has the authority to determine who and what and it must stay this way
MWF strongly supports public land outfitters that provide the needed services for public land hunters.


Montana Wildlife Federation and Public Lands and Water Access Assoc. URGE THEIR MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR I-161. WE OWE THIS TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW IN OUR FOOTSTEPS IN MONTANA’S GREAT OUTDOORS!

RMEF letter opposing I-161:

Elk Foundation Opposes Managing Wildlife by Initiative

MISSOULA, Mont.—A Montana initiative, I-161, is pitting hunter against hunter in a process that would take certain aspects of wildlife management out of the hands of professionals. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation believes topics such as hunting access, services and costs are better left to conservation professionals, sportsmen and landowners.

“Initiatives are always a slippery slope and are especially concerning when it comes to new wildlife management policies,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

Allen points out that Montana has an existing process for addressing such issues, explaining, “Montana’s Private Land/Public Wildlife Council was developed in the early 1990’s to deal with exactly such issues as those raised in I-161. It was developed to allow all interested parties to have a seat at the table. We need to use this process.”

There are valid concerns on both sides of I-161, but without even looking at the specifics, anyone who understands the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation will see a problem with the concept of initiatives to manage wildlife or hunting, says Allen.

“Besides, at the end of the debate, it is the landowner who will decide how his or her land is used, not the hunter or the outfitter. What is proposed in I-161 is likely to increase private leasing of lands in an unregulated manner, and that will go against both sides in this debate,” he added.

“The language of an initiative is written to serve one side more than the other, but a public vote is absolute, with no opportunity to find the best solutions that usually lie somewhere in the middle. The potential for unintended consequences here is significant,” said Allen. “RMEF strongly supports more hunter access, better hunting fees and landowner rights. However, the initiative process risks creating bigger issues than exist now. Neither the hunter nor the outfitter is the boogeyman and it is disappointing to see the two sides opposing one another.”

Allen reiterated that RMEF would like to see the two sides resolve differences without the initiative process, and that RMEF would gladly play a role toward that end goal.

 

[Bambistew]

Didn't the "hunters coming home" deal make it a lock for you to draw?

I have no idea how the odds are on that one, and frankly forgot they started that. You're right I probalby can draw every year I apply if I send them money. I just can't believe that they're charging $585+/- for a deer tag, and can do it with a straight face... Can't put a price tag on fun though.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'd pay $585 for my tag every year.

 

[MNHunter]

Dang, $585 for a deer tag???? I may be skipping MT this year. I know none of my usual hunting peeps would pay that for a deer

 

[The Hedgehog]

If my kids really wanted a good deer hunt, I'd pay $585 for them too. $16 is a frikkin JOKE. And for a non-resident, $585 is a small portion of what the entire trip out here will cost you.. If it's not worth it, stay home, odds for those who want it go up. They will sell out, no doubt.

 

[Sytes]

Knowing the money would go directly to FWP for enforcement / awareness aspects and greater resource / public access capability, I believe up to an additional $50 a year for my sportsman setup would be reasonable. Could I / Would I pay more - maybe, though Montana has an average household median income of what? $35k? With unemployment at it's worst in Lincoln county(?) of 14%? - This is a Montana resident prideful heritage that I would hate to see hampered due to the almighty $.

Hey, I know - we can start a welfare institution for low income hunters! Not - Haha!. I would rather keep the price accessible those who find their peace outdoors and bringing home some legal meat for the family to boot. Taking that into account - $50 would be the max I would take it to - over time maybe match to inflation.

edit: maybe $100....(?) Forgot I pay that extra tribal CRAP payment to fish flathead lake / river in Montana. What steams me more... no motors before June 1st (?) on the tribal portion of the flathead river...to aid in the spawning fish habitat (I'm good with that). I canoe myself in a ways with a long hike out to hit a sink hole area... here comes a motor boat into the sink hole. 3 guys laughing it up - I tell 'em, hey, you know there is a motor restriction on this river right now? They respond back - Don't apply to us - were tribal. I responded - Do the fish spawning know your tibal and not an American citizen? - What a joke! Attached my wheels to the bottom of the canoe and hiked her up a closed off road. (/rant off).

 

[Bambistew]

I'm sure I'll give MT plenty of money in the future, just can't believe that they want to charge NR that much for a deer tag, yet give them away to the residents.

 

[blue devil]

I also agree that $585 is a bit excessive for a NR tag. I also believe in the NR tags being priced decent enough for NR to want to buy a tag, but not too crazy to price it out of reach, in which $585 is.

But then there are also states like SD who don't charge enough for a NR deer tag. $195/tag is way too cheap. Especially when that's only approx. $150 more than a resident has to spend.

 

[Nemont]

Knowing the money would go directly to FWP for enforcement / awareness aspects and greater resource / public access capability, I believe up to an additional $50 a year for my sportsman setup would be reasonable. Could I / Would I pay more - maybe, though Montana has an average household median income of what? $35k? With unemployment at it's worst in Lincoln county(?) of 14%? - This is a Montana resident prideful heritage that I would hate to see hampered due to the almighty $.

Here is the problem with the above logic of keeping it accessible due to pride and our low income level: $50 is less than they spend on a tank of gas to go hunt, most pack more than $50 worth of beer into their cooler when heading out to hunt, This doesn't include the ATV and trailer that seems to be required anymore to hunt in Montana, not to mention ammo, food, etc, etc. I don't believe any extra $50 would do anybody in when it comes to hunting here. If $50 is more is pricing you out of the game then you should not be hunting to start with.

If unemployed people are out hunting "just for the meat" they should do some math and go buy good quality beef, It would be cheaper. Instead we want to soak NR hunters so we can use their money to purchase access for us through the BMP. We are already welfare hunters because we expect other people to pay our way. It is time for resident hunters to fund their own access and not depend on NR hunters. That way this arguement would be on a level playing field. As it is now we are just rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic continues to sink.

If I were a large outfitter I would be licking my chops and doing the math and talking to the neighbors about how I will help them make some good money on leasing for hunting. The small outfitters and public lands outfitters probably need to sell their equipment.

Nemont

 

[Drake4]

I don't see a whole lot changing with the passing of this. It definitely won't be the ending of the world like some predict. It won't open up any large tracts of land, but I can see it opening up a smaller piece here or there to BMA.

Bottom line is MT residents need to start funding access. I say double the price of deer, antelope, elk, bear tags. Or add some sort of mandatory $50 fee to fund access. I'm sure there are better ways, but I'm just throwing a couple out there. Like I've said before..the price of the Sportsmans License is assanine.

The extra couple hundred bucks wouldn't stop me (personally) from hunting out of state if that's what I wanted to do. Definitely doesn't stop me from applying in WY and buying a $40 pref. point for deer.

 

[shoots-straight]

Colorado tags for NR in 2010 are:

Elk ...............$541
Deer..............$326
Fish..............$56
Small game...$56
Habitat.........$5 for each big game tag.

Total equal to Montana combo tag. $989
Montana's tag will still be a bargain.

 

[Sytes]

Nemont,
Ya, I agree - hindsight reflection as noted in the edit of the post quoted. Doubling the cost of a sportsman license (additional $100) IMO would still enable our residents the ability to continue with the rich montana family history and boost funds dramatically for FWP resources. I do not believe this value should be a difficult task for our residents though by exceeding double the current value of a sportsman license... seems would become a bit steep.
What are people thinking a fair value would be to increase a MT resident Sportsman package?

edit: over post of SS colorado fees post. Good for nr comparison. Thanks I'll put some time in later to figure what resident fees are in comparison.. I am pretty sure MT has lower than average fees though would be curious.

 

[mtmiller]

But then there are also states like SD who don't charge enough for a NR deer tag. $195/tag is way too cheap.

SD got $195 for my Hills tag and another $245 for my WR deer. My SD friends think I am crazy to spend that much to chase deer.