Initiative to Eliminate MT Outfitter Sponsored Licenses

[The Hedgehog]

Sorry Big Shooter. I poached another one of your deer this morning and shot a cow while I was at it. I cut your fence so I could drive my truck to it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Sorry Big Shooter. I poached another one of your deer this morning and shot a cow while I was at it. I cut your fence so I could drive my truck to it.

Hey, I recognise that bush in the upper left corner of the picture. I know where that deer came from, awesome job getting that buck out of that country.

 

[montanadogs]

Big Shooter,
Really, Bitches and fags. Look at the way your acting. Grow up a little. Are you 17 again? I'm really surprised on the way everyone has handled you. Good for them, it goes to show who really has a grasp on what going on and who doesn't. It almost seems to me that you are gaining a lot from outfitters. Good on you if you are, but it is hurting a good majority of Montanans and even some of the on your own out of staters ( by the way, my fam. help settle the state and consider every one else out of staters.). If everything happens the way I hope along with others and the outfitters are weeded out due to the petition that is going around and you loose that income then suck it up and do some work. The time for free money and tags has got to come to an end! I'm for raising the RS tags to $30.

 

[Big Shooter]

Fellas....I don't have a lot of time to answer right now, but............shoots-straight, you need to watch yourself just a little, or your soup coolers might get swelled shut, you ignorant fu$&!!

Big Fin.....I will try to make this work and you can bring Oak.


Later Homies!!!

 

[oleefish2]

Outfitters, ranchers, and licensed guides do fill a needed gap for nonresident hunters whom need help with their hunting adventures. If the business providing the outfitting services is professional and ethical, they will succeed and thrive without having guaranteed licenses. The businesses that will fail will because they run a poor operation that ruins the experience of their hunters. The one thing that is being missed is that a lot of land will still become leased and lost to unguided hunters. Most of my Wyoming elk area that I have hunted for lots of years is now under outfitter leases. I have to pay tress pass fees ranging from $250 to $1200 to hunt land I hunt only 5 years ago I for free. Cabelas paid one man I know $1000, just to be able to use a road to drive through his place to the land they lease. I totally support landowners right to use their lands as they see fit, but if they do not provide any public access then they should not be able to receive any $$$ related to habitat management, waters for wild life programs or damage from wildlife.

 

[Big Shooter]

I totally support landowners right to use their lands as they see fit, but if they do not provide any public access then they should not be able to receive any $$$ related to habitat management, waters for wild life programs or damage from wildlife.

See people, some viewers want to get along with landowners and people that use that deeded ground for other purposes. I think that was the most intelligent statement made on this thread (including my own rants) and most landowners would not have a problem with that.

This guy might have a little more diplomatic common sense than most of us.

 

[Nemont]

See people, some viewers want to get along with landowners and people that use that deeded ground for other purposes. I think that was the most intelligent statement made on this thread (including my own rants) and most landowners would not have a problem with that.

This guy might have a little more diplomatic common sense than most of us.

How is that any different then what most everyone else has said? The Oleefish2 didn't support guaranteed outfitter tags. He said almost exactly what Big Fin said about hoping every outfitter makes money but without a subsidy from the government.

Outfitters, ranchers, and licensed guides do fill a needed gap for nonresident hunters whom need help with their hunting adventures. If the business providing the outfitting services is professional and ethical, they will succeed and thrive without having guaranteed licenses. The businesses that will fail will because they run a poor operation that ruins the experience of their hunters

I have said over and over do as you please with your deeded ground, I don't care you bought it, you own it. This entire thread is about outfitter sponsored tags being guaranteed and NOBODY on here has said that they demand you throw the gate open, period. You just desire and want conflict with hunters for some reason. Post your land, lease it, do as you please just don't expect a subsidy in the form of a guaranteed outfitter license.

You have never answered any direct questions, every time you get questioned on something you cannot defend you resort to the bitches and fags lingo. I have asked you at least 5 times to explain why giving one small group of residents more say over a state owned resource to profit from is fair to all other residents? I bet you cannot answer it without becoming like my 15 year old daughter, all emotional and whiny about the terrible things hunters do and the reason you must use emotion over fact is because you know it is wrong.

Nemont

 

[The Hedgehog]

The one thing that is being missed is that a lot of land will still become leased and lost to unguided hunters. Most of my Wyoming elk area that I have hunted for lots of years is now under outfitter leases. I have to pay tress pass fees ranging from $250 to $1200 to hunt land I hunt only 5 years ago I for free. Cabelas paid one man I know $1000, just to be able to use a road to drive through his place to the land they lease.

Can't blame landowners for wanting to make a buck. Blame all the pansies writing the checks. I learned about supply and demand in Econ101 back in 1987. Same rules apply.

 

[Meatatarian]

Here is a reply from the sponsor of the initiative, which was posted on the blog for the initial story.

Kurt Kephart said on: November 20, 2009, 11:13 am
Thank you for your letters of support for I-161. I can be reached by email - [email protected] or at my business phone, 248-7050. The initiative is available for all to view, friend or foe. Just email me with your request or log on to the Montana Secretary of State website. It will soon be available on our website as well.

The purpose of any initiative is to propose a change in law and allow all the voters to decide its fate. The initiative process is, in my opinion, the purest form of democracy. Some clarification may be in order at this point so we can debate facts and not fiction.

Fact #1. This initiative (I - 161), does not change the total number of nonresident licenses - it only does away with outfitter sponsorship of licenses. There will still be 17,000 nonresident elk/deer combination licenses and 4,600 nonresident deer combination licenses. If all licenses sell, there will still be 21,600 nonresidents spending their money in Montana. The difference is that all nonresidents will be given a choice. They may choose the services of an outfitter, or they may choose to do a hunt on their own.

Fact #2. All nonresident big game combination and nonresident deer combination licenses will increase in price. The nonresident elk/deer big game combination license will increase from $643 to $897. The elk/deer combination license of $897 is comparable to Idaho at $873, Colorado at $872, and Wyoming at $917, for both an elk and deer license. The nonresident deer combination license will increase from $343 to $527. This is higher than surrounding states.

Fact #3. The increase in nonresident license fees will continue the Block Management Program. In fact, if all licenses sell there will be an additional 2.2 million dollars available, strictly earmarked by law for access and habitat.

Fact #4. There were outfitters before the outfitter sponsored licenses and there will be outfitters after the outfitter sponsored licenses. The initiative will only sever the tie between the outfitting industry and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks created by the outfitter sponsored license.

-------------------------------------------------------------
On a personal note, I understand that when a rancher complains of some past bad hunter behavior we tend to get defensive. The fact is that many of us (Montana sportsmen) could use a lesson that deals with respect for others and their property. I have never personally witnessed theft or vandalism while hunting, but I see plenty of trash, evidence of off road use, and that occasional wonderful pile with toilet paper blowing in the wind. I understand that when you got to go you got to go, but take a minute to cover it with dirt - please! Everyone recognizes that this stuff is the result of a few bad apples, but it still makes all hunters look bad. Thanks to those of you who take the time to stop and pickup litter while you are out hunting. Most people will never see you do it, but thank you.

One last note - To some, the future of public hunting looks bleak. Not so. To those who are respected outfitters, you may think my intent is to permanently put you out of business. Not so. There is the possibility of a bright future for Montana sportsmen and Montana outfitters provided everyone is willing to come to the table, but first we need to do away with the biggest source for contention - the outfitter sponsored license. Without doing this first, the outfitting industry will continue to ignore the desires of Montana resident sportsmen.

Kurt

 

[The Hedgehog]

From the Terry, MT newspaper...

Ballot initiative raises concerns with local outfitters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A ballot initiative set to eliminate “guaranteed” big game licenses for outfitters is drawing the ire of those in the outfitter and guide industry. They say it will compound existing issues between hunters, landowners and outfitters.

Calling the initiative “vindictive,” former executive director of Montana Outfitters and Guide and longtime lobbyist for the group, Jean Johnson, says I-161 will throw out much of the work the Private Lands Public Wildlife Council has established in the past 15 years between the three groups.
“This initiative process is not the venue for settling these kinds of largely social issues,” Johnson said. “This doesn’t go to wildlife numbers, this goes to who gets to access private land.”
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks currently averages issuing about 5,500 elk deer combo licenses and about 2,300 deer combo licenses each year for outfitters in a five-year period. Non-resident hunters who can afford to pay extra money to hire an outfitter are guaranteed a hunting license for the season.
While other non-resident hunters, who pay about $400, must place their luck on the state’s hunt lottery with about a 60 percent chance that their names will be drawn allowing them to hunt in the state.
I-161 would place those 7,300 “guaranteed” licenses into the pool for all non-resident hunters to draw from, according to initiative sponsor Kurt Kephart.
Although I-161 would not likely eliminate the outfitter business, it would give outfitters another hurdle to jump through, necessitating a reliance on those clients whose names were drawn each year, rather than the assurance they now have with guaranteed licenses.
A little over 24,000 signatures are needed to add I-161 to the Nov. 2 ballot, where voters would vote up or down on the measure.
I-161 would also increase the fees for nonresident big game combo licenses by 43 percent and the fees for nonresident deer combo licenses by 61 percent.
A substantial increase Johnson says may likely put Montana in legal hot water. Pointing to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Baldwin vs. Fish and Game of Montana case, Johnson said the Court ruled FWP had the right to set higher fees for nonresident hunters. But she noted that was when the cost for nonresidents was 7.5 times higher than for residents. The hike increase proposed in I-161 would mean nonresidents would pay up to 44.8 times higher fees than residents.
Johnson also points to Idaho where a 17 percent increase in nonresident hunting fees resulted in a substantial drop in out-of-state hunters. She says out-of-state hunters get the feeling that “you’re sticking it to the nonresident” and opt to hunt elsewhere.
“The assumption is that all of these licenses will sell … and you’ll have all of this much money, but that’s an invalid assumption,” Johnson said.
But Kephart says his “grassroots” efforts to eliminate guaranteed licenses used by outfitters is about breaking “an unethical hold” the outfitter industry has over FWP, referring to the 70 percent funding FWP’s block management program receives through the outfitting industry.
FWP’s block management program has been credited with opening up large tracts of private lands to hunters, by offering landowners financial compensation.
“Fish and Game, must by law, manage our wildlife for us – which they haven’t been doing for years – because the outfitter sponsored licenses gives the outfitting industry a direct hold on Fish, Wildlife and Parks,” Kephart said.
The increases proposed in I-161 are to offset revenue that would be lost through the elimination of the “guaranteed” licenses.
By throwing the 7,300 “guaranteed” licenses into the nonresident lottery, Kephart says it will eliminate a state program that secures customers for one industry - something he says doesn’t happen in any other business.
“The outfitting industry now has the tools to lock out the public and they have had for 15 years,” Kephart said.
But Johnson says landowners resent efforts that dictate their management decisions.
“The bottom line stops with the landowner,” Johnson said. “The landowner makes his own management decisions as to the use of his property.”
Local outfitters Craig Schell and Rod Paschke point to the benefits their industry offers and how I-161 may negatively affect more than just outfitters.
“It brings a lot of money into Terry,” said Craig Schell of the industry he has been a part of since 1999. Schell points to the money his clients spend at local gift shops, bars, diners and gas stations. He says the money he spends to lease landowner’s grounds benefits the local economy as well.
Paschke points to the service outfitters provide to landowners, allowing an assurance that their property and cattle will be treated appropriately.
“Hunting season can be a real pain for landowners. As a matter of fact, I know a lot of landowners (where) it’s their least favorite time of year,” Paschke said.
If guaranteed licenses are eliminated both outfitters agree the staunch restrictions they are held to now will be done away with as well. Outfitters will no longer be limited in the number of hunters they guide, the amount of land they lease and regulations requiring them to guide out-of-state hunters.
“And people complain about overcrowding on public ground now, it’s going to get worse. I guarantee it.” Paschke said of the affects of the passage of I-161.
It’s a “terribly wrong” belief that I-161 will open up more private land, Paschke said.
Open land for hunter access is already being achieved, according to Johnson, who points to FWP’s block management program that in large part is due to the outfitting business.
“He’s rocking a boat that doesn’t need to be rocked,” Johnson said.
But Kephart, who points to a common thread shared by many resident hunters, has a differing vantage point. “There isn’t anybody here, that’s a resident that hasn’t lost a number of places that they use to be able to hunt, that they no longer can hunt either because it’s leased by an outfitter or the landowner has turned into an outfitter.”

 

[BuzzH]

You know the difference between a farmer and an outfitter?

The farmer admits he's subsidized.

 

[Oak]

First thing that came to mind when reading that article: Terry, MT does not get the cream of the crop in the newspaper reporting business.

Paschke points to the service outfitters provide to landowners, allowing an assurance that their property and cattle will be treated appropriately.

Another guy that believes the "hunters shot my cows" story. Amazing...

I-161 would also increase the fees for nonresident big game combo licenses by 43 percent and the fees for nonresident deer combo licenses by 61 percent.

What are the proposed numbers?

 

[BuzzH]

Another guy that believes the "hunters shot my cows" story. Amazing...

Actually, not another guy...the SAME GUY.

 

[Meatatarian]

What are the proposed numbers?

Oak- see my post just above Greenhorn's.

 

[Oak]

Oak- see my post just above Greenhorn's.

C'mon, that was one whole post above the one I replied to. I need a map.

Thanks....

 

[Meatatarian]

I'll cut you some slack as there were two months between my post and Greenhorn's.

 

[thecrittergitter]

man, i can't believe some people can function at all with such a high degree of stupidity.....yea that would be you BS and BY..............

No question, all the landowner sponsered tags should be pulled and if you want to come here to hunt MT, you can draw the tag just like the rest of the NR who want to hunt here. Unbelievable that someone can make the claim that if the sponsored tags are gone, then the Outfitting business would go under..WTF? Are you serious.... amazing how the reputable outfitters were in business and did fine long before the tags were guaranteed.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Why has this subject died? I haven't signed the petition, and I'm not sure if I will. I attended a panel discussion in Bozeman last week to learn more. The for-161 presentation was interesting but did nothing to support the highlights of the initiative. The against-161 was well covered with facts and details and pointed out a few serious flaws with the initiative.

A few opinions of mine that were reinforced by what I heard at the meeting are that although the Montana FWP needs to do a better job of managing wildlife for quality hunting opportunites. Residents need to spend a lot more money with the FWP for a number of reasons. The outfitting industry is important to MT, but the guaranteed licensing system is a crappy and unfair way of distributing MT big game licenses for low prices.

Aside from shaking up the non-resident licensing issue, I'm not sure I-161, as written, does much to address much else.

I'm waiting to be more informed.

www.publicwildlife.org is a crappy difficult to navigate site that doesn't do a good job covering the bases.

www.stop161.org is a nicely done website that makes me want to support 161 even more.

 

[shoots-straight]

Reason's to sign:

1). If it makes the ballot, it will really get the attention of the outfitting industry, as well as many legislators.
2). Shows those it has influence over that the R hunters of the state of Montana are going to draw a line in the sand when it comes to subsidised public resources.
3). Gives all NR equal opportunity for available tags.
4). Should slow down the numbers of outfitters leasing lands.
5). Should give landowners control of their own lands. Which should generate more money for lands with great hunting.
6). If this doesn't make the ballot, live with status quo and shut up. Especially if you don't sign. Signing by the way doesn't mean your voting for it at the ballot. It will get the discussion going for a long term solution.

 

[Meatatarian]

Greenhorn- what flaws were pointed out?