Initiative to Eliminate MT Outfitter Sponsored Licenses

[Blue Yummies]

Thanks for the money part nemont,
Do you think that raising the price will lower the amount of applicants.

I think that some ouftitters can make it work but why wouldnt you do something else if you only worked two months out of the year.

Sorry nemont when you said If anybody knew any guides that dont have to have a second job, I said I knew some.

You know that you are still gayer than aids

 

[shoots-straight]

Thats right Shoots-straight builds houses for out-of-staters, who
just bought a chunk of ground from a rancher who sold his whole ranch and
now the place you used to hunt deer is now a subdivision. By being a
contractor you are doing alot for hunting, keep up the good work

I never said that my chosen profession did anything for hunting. I said it was 100 times more important to the economy of Montana that Outfitters. Also stated that it's not subsidised. I don't make my living by utilizing the public's resource.

It should be to early for you to be drunk, so follow along. What I do for hunting is I belong to a sportsman's group that works hard for hunting, access, to our public lands and education of our own, so they can make good decisions based on facts not emotion. I testify at Helena on behalf of our hunting community, and well as do hands on work that may be requested of me for our wildlife's behalf. What do you do other than talk like your drunk all the time?

 

[Bambistew]

How much land do fishing guides/outfitters lock up? Are there any 'permits' set aside just for them?

If this makes the ballot, it will pass. The days of the ag industry running MT is just about over.

 

[Sytes]

Statistics present approx $8.3mil from NR hunters ~ some 13,500 Non residents hunting Montana mountains and approx $9.2mil from Outfitter Sponsored ~ some 6,750 Non residents hunting Montana mountains.
The bang for the buck presents outfitters making good means with 1/2 the number of hunters I may run into while in the woods... Top it off with outfitters are not permitted to guide on Block Management AND they tend to use private land Often not available to the average joe... - heck that opens even more to us - On Your Own hunters...

Shoots-straight (sincere), thanks for a response that was not laden with innuendo's of some other poster here (I take it that is what elkchsr(?) ) is... Heh, thanks for shooting it straight If people that sling mud only realized, to discuss w/o the crap talk helps those keep an open mind to consider the other's opinion. Without such all we are here are keyboard chest thumpers getting a "high five" from our "buddies" on laying the smack down - vs discussing the issue.

I see outfitters as an opportunity to help more montanan's hold employment (Yes, those guides I do know always pack in people for the summer season - be it fishing, photography... etc. Oh, on this note... There are MANY sub forums here that deal with MORE than just big game... Hmmm... to include a fishing subforum...

Now that I have found statistics to support the qty and the amount of revenue... It helps me see an interesting picture.
What do I NOT like about outfitters? hmm... not much. Just a difference in going about a hunt for American citizens ~ To each their own.

I do agree on considering raising the prices a tad... for both residents outfitters and non residents. I could see more effective funding towards block management and the enforcement of poachers, pesky ATV players that set a bad name for the other legit ATV'rs... etc, etc, etc... I wonder how much would REALLY go back into FWP's account though :/
Cheers!

 

[Nemont]

Ummm.... a few misleading things there.

1. All Montana big game animals are held in trust for the benefit of all residents regardless of their ability to pay. The animals are owned by the residents of Montana, that is settled law.

2. The $9.3 million raised by the sale of Outfitter sponsored does not all end up in Montana as there are a few BIG outfitters owned by NonResident owners.

3. of that $9.3 million only $3 million goes to enhance access to hunting lands less then 1/3 of the dollars raised. A simple $30 fee per resident hunter makes more money and shares the burden much more equally.

4. If the outfitter sponsored are put back into the draw pool there would not be a single new soul out in the woods hunting. Where do you think the outfitter set aside number came from? The licenses originally came out of the draw pool. One could simply increase the number of tags in the draw pool and charge the same price for everyone and still generate the same revenue. There would be no increase in overall hunter numbers.

5. Why do you hate free market economics and why should one class of Montana citizens benefit at the cost of all other citizens? Why don't we subsidize other businesses with state guaranteed access to limited markets?

6. There is no sane reason for resident hunters to expect nonresident hunters in this state to fully fund our access program. Outfitter clients should not fund it all because that makes resident hunters beholden to the outfitter lobby. I would rather paddle my own canoe on funding access and do it by a very small increase in resident fees and not be using commercialization of wildlife dollars.

It is not about liking or disliking outfitters it is about fairness to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay. Outfitters are all rugged individualist, supposedly, until you dare say they should have to compete on an equal basis then they all become socialists who want the government to grant them privileges in order to enrich themselves.

Nemont

 

[mtmiller]

Styes, could you give me a break down of the dollars funding Block Mangement. Not to be a dick, but it is very difficult to follow your first paragraph. Information I have found shows the amount of outfitter sponsored $$$ to be much less than what you posted....or what I think you posted.

I don't know how the rest of the state is, but in this part of the country we have lost tens of thousands acres of lands from BMA to outfitters in just the last couple years. I know that is not the jist of what precipitated this thread, but it does counter your point...

Top it off with outfitters are not permitted to guide on Block Management AND they tend to use private land Often not available to the average joe... - heck that opens even more to us - On Your Own hunters...

 

[Blue Yummies]

I don't know how the rest of the state is, but in this part of the country we have lost tens of thousands acres of lands from BMA to outfitters in just the last couple years. I know that is not the jist of what precipitated this thread, but it does counter your point...

Show us that figure.

By the way, who on here has hunted BMA and harvested a big buck? I know that BMA is for meat hunters. So why do you guys who are locals keep doing what you are doing and let the out-of staters pay to play, so that us Montanains can us the BMA

 

[The Hedgehog]

I have. I hunted a BMA this year for antelope. I also saw a group of hunters on a BMA with two trophy mule deer, one of them certainly over 190 B&C.. both taken on a BMA just 2 weeks ago.

I would be hunting BMA if I had my way over thanksgiving weekend, but have other commitments.

 

[schmalts]

Styes, my 60% figure was for nonres without the outfitter tag help. meaning that the ones who want to go with an outfitter would have a 60% chance of drawing a tag without the outfitter welfare.
Blue gummies and Styes, how would you feel if there was a outfitter tag guarantee for the big 3 species? for the residents that is? You know, so the outfitters can make a living

 

[Blue Yummies]

I would be hunting BMA if I had my way over thanksgiving weekend, but have other commitments.

Hookers are half off that weekend

 

[Sytes]

Ummm.... a few misleading things there...

I appreciate your info shared. It was a great read! Same to MTMiller and Schmalts most recent posts.
I have no intention of misleading. Apologies if something I said was incorrect though here is my link for the info I gathered. Also, I do not understand as I still do not see where I was misleading...

http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36321
These funds, if I understood correctly Nemont, are FWP's not the Outfitters... so regardless whether they are a monster organization or not.... that is beside the point...(?) (edit: ah, I see - with regards to employment.. ok - fair enough... is there not a required amount that must be Montana owned / operated? - I don't have stats on such... though I would think Montana - again would protect montana interests...)

I reviewed a few articles by Montana Outfitter and Private Land Owner's. I don't think I would call that the freedom they expect for owning their own property to not have the ability to profit from their property.
TBH, the opportunities I have held with regards to really enjoyable BMA's - a sign was posted at the main post to check in... The owner wrote a heart compelling note - Basically some arsehat felt the need to steal the owner's personal duck gear. He requested of anyone knowing the situation around this to turn the person in or the person to return the items stolen. He would be shutting down his BM if not turned in by the next season. (Ovando area)

These are the things land owners are most peeved about... People illegally driving on their property, tash along logging / skid roads, fires... and - destruction of property - to stolen items.

Whereas they shut her down and make money from their land by outfitters who have a value staked in future hunts because they can in a sense, supervise the people hunting. There is a value to making sure the land owner stays satisfied... whereas BMA's there is much less.

I would think if I had a good chunk of property I would open it for block management. I find that more prideful in an American sense than closing it from my fellow Montanan's - though I certainly understand the few publicly made frustrations from having opened it and why they are closing it from future BM.

I recently wrote about my experience with private property and how frustrating it was in my recent elk hunt (I failed in the sage advise of never pass up what you would shoot the last day)... Though I think that makes it evident my frustration with organized private land owners with their outfitters playing ping pong with a herd of elk. That was very annoying! SO I am by far not on the outfitter nor private land owner side as an "on your own" hunter - though I understand why it has become what it has!
We read about people leaving shnitz paper the length of a dirt road... yet wonder WHY private land owners are more and more closing down BM's?

Cheers ~ more just rambling now... LOL! to end off this post, American Economics is what we have. abused now... yes (least IMO) though it is not capitalistic... nor is it socialistic. It is the free enterprise with gov't oversight / regulation... such as FWP regulating Outfitters... Department of Transportation regulating state highways... FDA, USDA ... well, you get the idea - though this is neither here nor there in the discussion at hand...

 

[Nemont]

Sytes,

I would respond but am unsure of what exactly to respond to.

I have no problem with landowners profiting from their land, that land has to pay for itself one way or another. Landowners can lock it up, lease it, sell it what ever they need to do to make a profit. That wildlife was on that land long before the landowner ever got a deed and in the Montana State Constitution and in court it has been determined that those big game animals are owned by the State of Montana and to be held in trust for the resident of Montana. Explain how allowing one small group of residents to profit from a state owned piece of property on a guaranteed basis? Why wouldn't land owners welcome a competitive situation where people could compete for access to their private lands by bring more players into the market? That is not an abuse of capitalism that is capitalism. Everyone should be allowed to compete on an equal playing field.

Nemont

 

[Big Shooter]

Simple enough........this is all about access and lack their of it due to the "bad outfitter".
MTMiller, that is the first time that I have ever seen you whine about anything when you were talking about BMA getting tied up by outfitters. The reason that the BMA land is disappearing in our country is because the Game & Fish treated them like dirt and they got tired of having their place decimated with too many hunters.

If this ever gets passed it will not open up any more ground to you fags that think that you should be granted access any where any time.........it is not going to happen. When they shut the BMA program down because they can no longer fund it, that ground will become locked up as well and if you think in a million years that the ground that is tied up by outfitters will open up then you need to put down your crack pipes because that will never happen either.

THIS IS AN ACCESS ISSUE AND NOTHING MORE!!!!

The guided hunter brings in way more money to the state than any DIY hunter does. It may not get spent directly from their pocket to the grocery store owners pocket, but it does go from the outfitters or guides pocket to the grocery store owners pocket or the tire store owners pocket and so on. Maybe they even buy insurance from NeMont once in a while or throw some spare change in Greenhorns guitar case.

It is about someone being pissed off because they cannot get on to private land to shoot their 'publicly owned game animals", don't kid yourselves, nothing more nothing less. If they were to get this done, the next thing would be to make it mandatory for all landowners to kick their gates open.

I have never seen such a bunch of whiney "BITCHES" in my life.

 

[mtmiller]

MTMiller, that is the first time that I have ever seen you whine about anything when you were talking about BMA getting tied up by outfitters. The reason that the BMA land is disappearing in our country is because the Game & Fish treated them like dirt and they got tired of having their place decimated with too many hunters.

Shooter, I think you missed my point. I am not whining, actually just stating a point.

I am a big advocate of BMA's and I believe we, as residents, should be pulling more weight on funding a great program. That being said, for a fact, there is a lot of land being lost from Block Management and now being leased for outfitting in my area.

You questions my numbers, fair enough. I requested the number earlier today and they were not available at this time. Understandable since the BMA coordinator is a little busy at this time. That being said, feel free to contact the coordinator in Glasgow and ask for yourself. You will get the same answer. Her name is Mikey and you can tell her I sent you her way. Let me know if I am incorrect in what I have stated. If your phone doesn't work, fine, she will be sending me numbers in a couple weeks and I am more than willing to share.

BTW, last time I looked a landowner can dictate how many hunters are allowable on their property, so obviously your last part of the quote I posted holds no water. Let me know if this is not true.

 

[Blue Yummies]

I would be hunting BMA if I had my way over thanksgiving weekend, but have other commitments.

Is your girlfriend in the freshman play as a pilgrim or is she pocahantas

 

[Nemont]

Big Shooter,

Can you point out who exactly is bitching? Also can you explain why the outfitter who leases your place could not continue to do so if there was not guaranteed outfitter licensed? If the outfitter you do business with is a savvy operator, can market his service, provide those service as well or better then another outfitter then why do they need a guarantee from the state?

I believe that ending Outfitter Guaranteed license will lead open lands, I could really careless about that. To me it should be a free market without the few profiting from the many. In addition the MT residents should shoulder the bulk of the cost of access. It would be easy to replace every dollar NR hunters who buy guaranteed outfitter tags bring to the access table. I have pointed it out many, many times it would require a very small sacrifice on resident hunters part.

If a landowner opts out of Block Management that is entirely within their rights that is not what this is about whether you believe it or not. Do you really believe that Outfitter cannot exist without a guaranteed tags? They did for year prior to the outfitter sponsored licenses.

So please explain those questions. Unless you dislike capitalism and free enterprise explain why outfitters should be placed above every other Montana Resident?

In addition I am throwing out the BS flag on the idea that you think we are demanding to go anywhere we want any time. Not a single even remote comment in regards to that. You seem to think that it would be fine that resident should just sell the guns and hang up the hunting forever because you hate them. Funny thing is you are the only one calling anyone "fags" and "bitches" just because there is a remote discussion to end outfitter sponsored tags.

Are you aware that there was a huge push in 1999 to get Montana Residents to pay more and expand BM by 30%? Do you know which groups lobbied hard to not allow resident to pay more for their own hunting access? Do a little research. I was your beloved outfitter industry that killed that bill because they did not want to allow residents to claim ownership of any access dollar because then they cannot go to the legislature every session and demand more tags becuase they cannot make it with the current numbers. Talk about fags and bitches, I think you are afraid to have the most painful operation in the world, having your welfare cut off.

Nemont

 

[Big Fin]

Simple enough........this is all about access and lack their of it due to the "bad outfitter".
MTMiller, that is the first time that I have ever seen you whine about anything when you were talking about BMA getting tied up by outfitters. The reason that the BMA land is disappearing in our country is because the Game & Fish treated them like dirt and they got tired of having their place decimated with too many hunters.

If this ever gets passed it will not open up any more ground to you fags that think that you should be granted access any where any time.........it is not going to happen. When they shut the BMA program down because they can no longer fund it, that ground will become locked up as well and if you think in a million years that the ground that is tied up by outfitters will open up then you need to put down your crack pipes because that will never happen either.

THIS IS AN ACCESS ISSUE AND NOTHING MORE!!!!

The guided hunter brings in way more money to the state than any DIY hunter does. It may not get spent directly from their pocket to the grocery store owners pocket, but it does go from the outfitters or guides pocket to the grocery store owners pocket or the tire store owners pocket and so on. Maybe they even buy insurance from NeMont once in a while or throw some spare change in Greenhorns guitar case.

It is about someone being pissed off because they cannot get on to private land to shoot their 'publicly owned game animals", don't kid yourselves, nothing more nothing less. If they were to get this done, the next thing would be to make it mandatory for all landowners to kick their gates open.

I have never seen such a bunch of whiney "BITCHES" in my life.

Shooter:

So many times we have this discussion, and the same points are always disputed. Is it an access issue - YES, for the reason that the state has vested less than 400 businesses (Outfitters) with the economic power to go out and buy access on a market that is now titled in their favor, due to the subsidy they receive. As a result, they have made it an access issue.

All residents are asking is to get rid of the subsidy and let the access issue work itself out, absent the handouts represented by the guaranteed tags. Make the playing field level by not giving these outfitters the huge economic advantage that allows them to go out and buy this access, with almost no risk that the investment in access will be lost.

It became an access issue in the late 1990's, when the outfitting industry went from some good old Montana boys, who I think sincerely intended to keep their promise to not go on a leasing binge. In short order, outfitting in Montana become a much more sophisticated business model, due to the dollars at stake, and larger commercial operators, many of whom are out of state operators, displaced the long-time Montana outfitter who had done this for some extra money.

These new arrivals were not part of the negotiation where resident hunters agreed to "helping keep the outfitting industry viable" by allowing the guaranteed tags, in exchange for the outfitting industry not leasing up the state, which we all feared would happen. Since these new outfitters were not part of the two years of negotiations that occurred, they couldn't care less what was negotiated at that time. Resident hunters were involved in that negotiation, and are upset that they have been burned by the industry they offered to help.

You comment as though all of this occurred in a vacuum. Not hardly. I attended most every one of those meetings, and was quite involved in the sportsman's side of the discussions. That does not make my opinion any more valuable than others, but I think it is important to consider the historical perspective in which this issue has unfolded.

I think it would be helpful if you addressed Nemont's point - that being, "Why is it that the outfitting industry is so worried about removing this government subsidy and having to compete in an open market like the rest of us business owners?" You always ignore that point when these discussions come up.

I don't expect anyone to open their private property to hunting, unless they want to. I don't really care if they keep it closed, as it is already closed to most resident hunters anyhow. And, if residents should be willing to pay more for the access provided in the BMP, or it will probably go away. We had hunting in MT before the BMP, and I am sure we will have hunting after any changes to the outfitter guarantee.

Talk about putting something in your pipe and smoking it. That would be the pack of lies MOGA feeds about being the economic salvation to rural Montana. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am in Broadus this week, and it is like a ghost town, compared to what it was before outfitter guaranteed tags passed. Ask these business owners, the motel owners, restaurants, gas stations, etc. whether their business has improved with this government subsidy program. As a CPA who handles the financial and tax aspects of some of these businesses, I can tell you it has declined. Yes, hunting season is still a good business cycle for them, but not nearly what it was pre-outfitter tags.

And for you to think that most of that money ends up in the hands of local business people is another falacy. Look at how many of those outfitters are based outside of rural Montana, such as Bozeman, Billings, and more importantly, out of state. Do you think the profits of the Bozeman outfitter sit in the bank in Forsyth, then get spent all over Rosebud County? Not hardly. They sit in a bank in Bozeman and are spent on a lot of other stuff, not part of the Rosebud County economy. And for the out of state operator, I suspect very little of it gets spent in Montana, at all.

We have had this discussion so many times. We never change the other's mind. And, I suspect that will not happen as a result of this.

Let's just agree that in a great country like the USA, we should do all we can to eliminate situations where one group is be given a government subsidy to use to the detriment of the citizens. Yes?

 

[Blue Yummies]

So did introducing wolves into the park help the elk population??

 

[ringer]

Believe me you will have the big mouth outfitters and landowners screaming to high heaven about their property rights on this isue. It is all about money and they want to own the animals on their property. If you give a landowner tags does he allow public hunters to come on his ground and hunt at the same time as his clients? Once you let the landowners and outfitters have special tags they will push it as far as they can because that is good business. You are foolish to buy any bullshit about how it will improve public hunting. Like believing Wall Street can regulate itself. You can also expect a well organized campaign against this effort to be run by the Farm Bureau and outfitters so good luck. Vote this through then let the landowners that don't like hunters lock up their property and sit there dealing with elk shit.

 

[Sytes]

WOW!
I was on an absolutely different track! My considerations were on the surface level of the actual issue. I can understand the frustration from a few as to what the hell?

You guys have a market of hunters that really are not aware of the current beyond the headlines. I had heard about game being montana's not the land owners... A specific incident a few years back FWP had to fly a helicopter over a chunk of land to spread out an elk herd. I reviewed the articles = though the topics were more for the health issue of the elk. Hunting friends and I have ranted why landowners seem - intentionally harboring public elk, etc.

To be honest guys, When I first saw this thread.... and began reading the article - I took this as an attack against the sponsored outfitter non resident tag for having the ability to have guaranteed tags vs non resident tags 60% shot in a drawing...

Now, having reviewed the recent posts - there is a much larger point within the surface flutter of the basic issue above.

I would like to understand more about this issue... If someone would like to direct hunters such as myself to some good reading links to make a better "informed" decision - that would be great!

Currently, off of the limited research done NOW understanding the issue - at heart - I see possible enforcement towards landowners on "intent" to harbor big game... say, high fencing with big game restricted... specific food plotting to harbor big game. However, there are enough landowners farming land for reasons other than haboring big game - that appeal to big game animals.

I see how the direction is towards outfitters leasing private land and taking advantage of the opportunities pirvate land owners offer... thus enabling outfitters access to "OUR" elk / deer... etc. HOWEVER,
it is 'currently' my opinion, outfitters are the desired result of failed public hunters abusing land owner property. There will always be a few hunters who will destroy it for the rest. Prideful Montana Private land owners are the ones trapped in the 'ethical' debate of hunter access to Montana elk.

Again, I apologize for not reading the real issue... though let it be known - there are many along my lines who go hunting, then back to work until the next hunting opportunity. Take pride in hunting - value ethical hunting, etc... Though really are not weaved into the deeper interests of (for lack of better words) hard core hunters.
Had it not been for the baby words needed to see what the point is - I would have been put off by the mud slinging - bs banter... I would say, you may have hashed and re-hashed this issue time and time again... though for new members such as myself - not aware of this re-hashed idea... it is a real "put off" to deal with demeaning crap talk... thus hunters who may desire to join in this "coalition" of support - may vere away - for obvious reasons...

I appreciate the spoon fed simple and clear understanding post(s) of recent - and I to some degree understand the frustration of some of the posts in this thread...

Cheers all - If it got lost in the fray of words - Some supportive links to better understand the deal here would be very helpful. Thanks.