Montana Elkonomic$

[Gerald Martin]

A lot of discussion justifying SB-143 centers around the amount of money outfitted hunters contribute vs DIY hunters.
I think this argument doesn’t address the primary reasons for why I oppose this bill. I oppose on the basis that it is a subsidy and also that it ultimately undermines the NA Wildlife model and is a further progression down the path of privatization of wildlife and reducing the value of wildlife to the level they are worth as a commodity.

However, since the conversation includes economics, I would like to engage at that level.I believe the numbers given by proponents of the bill aren’t as relevant as they could be because those numbers do not accurately reflect the relationship between money contributed to Montana’s economy and the effects on the resource. I would like to discuss what I consider to be real life numbers.

Exhibit A is the object of desire that draws hunters across the world to apply for or buy a license from FWP. I am arbitrarily giving exhibit “A” the characteristics of being a five year old, 320”, 6x6 bull elk. This bull is rare enough to be highly sought after, not so rare as to be unreasonably expected.

(Some of my numbers are WAGs. Some are pretty much hard data. I don’t think any are unrealistic)

In one scenario, exhibit “A” lives on the CA Ranch or comparative private land. Access to “A” costs @ $10-16K. Hunter success is high, 50% or greater. Exhibit A is dead. Contribution to Montana’s economy/impact to resource. $10-32K per dead 320” bull.

In another realistic scenario, exhibit “A”lives in unit 324 on public lands in one of the most easily and commonly accessible areas in the state. In this unit the success rate is about 2% on bulls with. “A’s” attributes.
Fifty hunters will pursue “A” before he dies. Let’s assume a 10% rate of NR to residents. ( In this unit it’s a much higher NR to R ratio).
45 residents hunt all fall in the Gravelly Range. They spend 8 days over 4 weekends buying gas in Ennis or Sheridan and eating in local restaurants on some of those trips. Based on my experiences as part of this resident demographic I will assign a contribution of $300-700 to the economy per resident.
Four NR’s hunt “A”, on their own. One NR hunts “A” with a local outfitter. The DIY NR’s spend $1500-2K in MT on their hunt. The outfitted hunter in that unit spends $5500. Bull “A” is dead.
In unit 324 the contribution to the economy/ impact on the resource is.
$26,500-47k per dead 320” 6x6 bull.

Those numbers are a better reflection of contribution to cost of exploitation of the resource than the numbers currently being used by proponents of SB143.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Obviously, my scenarios are rough and don’t consider all the factors. I am sure we can get a more accurate picture as the conversation progresses.

 

[huntandfly]

Here’s a problem: according to Mac, more non resident hunters on the landscape in unpalatable by Montana residents (I buy this argument in principle). If they can gather the 10-32k of capital with just 1-2 NRs rather than 5+ NRs, that’s a win. They aren’t even really considering the Residents in their equation, they just want more money with less NRs

They also aren’t comfortable addressing the fact that the money spent doesn’t necessarily go right into Montana’s economy. A large share goes to the outfitter to do with as he/she wishes, which won’t always be direct infusion into MT economy or small businesses.

 

[huntin24/7]

Good analogy Gerald. In addition, although the guided hunter in the end spends more money, how much is that money disbursed? For instance, where I live in MT, there are no outfitters. Since public land is very limited, we don’t see the number of non res as other areas. However, I see non res deer and pheasant hunters in the grocery store, at the local restaurants, and at the gas stations all the time. I’m not discounting that outfitted clients bring money into the state, but how much money goes anywhere beyond the outfitter themself? I don’t know, but it’s a fair question.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Gerald Martin I found the discussion of allocation interesting, allocation, as I under stand it, that outfitters just get a fixed number of NR tags that are separate from the draw.

Mac's quote was something to the effect of, allocations are great for the current outfitters but will be a barrier to entry for others down the road and won't solve the problem indefinitely.

I assume what he's alluding to is the growth of the industry. Outfitters can keep up with inflation by raising prices periodically, but if the industry wants to grow, like any industry they will need more and more tags. A fixed allocation doesn't allow for growth.

To that end I would think MOAG would see it in their best interest to advocate maximizing herd size... mo elk mo hunters?

 

[Gerald Martin]

To that end I would think MOAG would see it in their best interest to advocate maximizing herd size... mo elk mo hunters?

Pretty reasonable conclusion. It depends where the outfitter operates. Public land outfitters who hunt elk that migrate to winter range and eat public grass on WMA’s are pro “mo elk”.
Private land outfitters who also raise cattle have this dysfunctional love/hate relationship with elk, IMO. When you knock on their door , September-November and ask to shoot one of those elk out under the pivot, those elk are a highly prized asset to which access will cost only slightly more than your firstborn’s arm and leg.
Come January when those prized assets are eating the grass their cattle could eat, elk are magically transformed into FWP’s varmints that are eating us out of house and home.

 

[mtmuley]

Pretty reasonable conclusion. It depends where the outfitter operates. Public land outfitters who hunt elk that migrate to winter range and eat public grass on WMA’s are pro “mo elk”.
Private land outfitters who also raise cattle have this dysfunctional love/hate relationship with elk, IMO. When you knock on their door , September-November and ask to shoot one of those elk out under the pivot, those elk are a highly prized asset to which access will cost only slightly more than your firstborn’s arm and leg.
Come January when those prized assets are eating the grass their cattle could eat, elk are magically transformed into FWP’s varmints that are eating us out of house and home.

Fish And Wildlife Commission Extends Late Season Elk Hunt In HD 580 | Montana FWP (mt.gov) These elk are a problem. mtmuley

 

[brockel]

Fish And Wildlife Commission Extends Late Season Elk Hunt In HD 580 | Montana FWP (mt.gov) These elk are a problem. mtmuley

Doesnt low elk harvest numbers during shoulder season because of mild weather mean a good thing? Means those elk aren’t on private

 

[mtmuley]

Doesnt low elk harvest numbers during shoulder season because of mild weather mean a good thing? Means those elk aren’t on private

Landowner complaints are the reason for the extension. Must be on private enough to cause concern at some point. mtmuley

 

[brockel]

Landowner complaints at the reason for the extension. Must be on private at some point. mtmuley

Be curious to know if harvest is down from lack of elk, lack of hunter participation, or lack of good access

 

[Workingonit]

Here’s a problem: according to Mac, more non resident hunters on the landscape in unpalatable by Montana residents (I buy this argument in principle). If they can gather the 10-32k of capital with just 1-2 NRs rather than 5+ NRs, that’s a win. They aren’t even really considering the Residents in their equation, they just want more money with less NRs

They also aren’t comfortable addressing the fact that the money spent doesn’t necessarily go right into Montana’s economy. A large share goes to the outfitter to do with as he/she wishes, which won’t always be direct infusion into MT economy or small businesses.

This is a great point. I think the issue may be more about density than absolute numbers though - nobody's too concerned about NR hunters they don't run into! One concern about 143 is that it will create more incentive for landowners to lease hunting rights to outfitters, thereby reducing the amount of land open to public hunting. It's really hard to predict the magnitude of that effect, but it's definitely possible in concept to have fewer total hunters AND more crowding on (publicly) huntable land given the way that equation works.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think this is the study MOGA is referencing. It is not exactly an academic-quality study. There are a lot of numbers they don't explain how they arrive at. I think the main factor that is not accounted for is that NRs that hire a guide simply have a higher incomes/net worth than DIYer's. If the DIYers are eating at Dairy Queen, the impact is smaller than the NR who eats at the local steak house.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

 

[BRI]

Pretty reasonable conclusion. It depends where the outfitter operates. Public land outfitters who hunt elk that migrate to winter range and eat public grass on WMA’s are pro “mo elk”.
Private land outfitters who also raise cattle have this dysfunctional love/hate relationship with elk, IMO. When you knock on their door , September-November and ask to shoot one of those elk out under the pivot, those elk are a highly prized asset to which access will cost only slightly more than your firstborn’s arm and leg.
Come January when those prized assets are eating the grass their cattle could eat, elk are magically transformed into FWP’s varmints that are eating us out of house and home.

This. Read and re-read.

 

[JLS]

It's really hard to predict the magnitude of that effect, but it's definitely possible in concept to have fewer total hunters AND more crowding on (publicly) huntable land given the way that equation works.

Montana's season structure is set up to perpetuate this. Absolutely nothing in the elk management plan and season structure helps improve the elk hunting on public land. In reality, it just further exacerbates the number of elk on private land.

 

[Bambistew]

Interesting take on it. I think you could just compare a guided elk to a DIY elk though. Look at success rate and figure out how many are pursuing each type (guided/non) of elk.

I think that's a very good argument.

 

[jejack26]

I live and hunt in Montana and after reading I'm against this bill. I've reach out to any body in Helena I can and I urge others to do the same

 

[Buffs35]

MT - where elk are a precious resource during NR season, and treated like an invasive species the rest of the year.

Fish And Wildlife Commission Extends Late Season Elk Hunt In HD 580 | Montana FWP (mt.gov) These elk are a problem. mtmuley

 

[elkduds]

Has the possibility of unchanged long seasons for residents and shorter seasons for NRs been considered? Seems like most NRs would only hunt 1-2 weeks per year.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Has the possibility of unchanged long seasons for residents and shorter seasons for NRs been considered? Seems like most NRs would only hunt 1-2 weeks per year.

Outfitters won’t let that happen.

 

[SaskHunter]

Has the possibility of unchanged long seasons for residents and shorter seasons for NRs been considered? Seems like most NRs would only hunt 1-2 weeks per year.

What would be the impact of having all NR jump on public land at the same time for a 1-2 week window? All you might do is push elk farther or on private faster.