MT Deregulation of the outfitting industry!

[shoots-straight]

Folks,

Here's MSA's stance on this terrible bill. Please read!

Here's the Bill,

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0274.htm


[FONT=&quot]HOUSE BILL 274 Ed Greef[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]The authority of the Board of Outfitters is based on the protection of public health, safety and welfare.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]The public resources that outfitters utilize in the course of their business and the public’s stake in those resources is considered to be part of the “…public welfare”.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Although touted as a paperwork reduction effort, this bill essentially eliminates a broad range of requirements and standards for Montana hunting and fishing outfitters. One would think that the industry would want to uphold the highest professional standards.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Notable in this bill is the elimination of “professional” guides. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Also of note is that outfitters would no longer have to demonstrate proficiency in the wide range of outdoor skills, equipment, and safety training demanded by their profession (37-47-305: outfitter’s examination) in order to become licensed.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]37-47-402 provides limited liability protection to outfitters yet, this bill basically drops demonstrable operational standards while retaining the liability protection (“…health, safety and welfare.”).[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]The Board of Outfitters no longer has investigators who function in field situations. Instead, enforcement of statutes and rules is left to FWP Game Wardens. Yet, there remains a concerted effort to eliminate the basic reporting requirements necessary for wardens to be able to practically and effectively enforce those rules and regs.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]If lands that are leased are not formally reported, there will be no means to accurately evaluate the total acreage of private lands closed to public opportunity.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]The bill deletes the requirement that an outfitter or guide hold a conservation license. By doing so, a critical component to track a person’s legal status to engage in hunting or fishing is lost. If a person has had their hunting, fishing, trapping privileges suspended he/she may not be legally fit to serve as an outfitter or guide. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Outfitters earn their living through the utilization of Montana’s publicly-held fish and wildlife resources. They need to be accountable for that use, ensuring that they use those resources legitimately, fairly and not at the expense of the non-outfitted public. This bill is a quantum leap in minimizing that accountability. [/FONT]

 

[JLS]

What a joke. The whole regulation of outfitters has been a joke for years. Sounds like they are okay with making it more of a joke.

New outfitters test:

1) Can you put gas in a Suburban?
2) Can you start the Suburban?
3) Can you use orange spray paint?

 

[Eric Albus]

Good grief. Do you know why the BoO no longer has investigators? They can't afford it and are broke. Why? Wasting to much time/expense on paperwork. I would much rather have an investigator or 2 than waste so much money on office folks checking over client logs. All this bill does is simplify the log books...we would write down each client and their ALS number...it does do away w/ writing down each buck/duck/doe/mosquitoe taken, but one call to the client would answer all that anyway.

We would still have to report acreage used, the L-1 form is not done away w/, so acreage would still be accountable.

Why is it necessary to write down each bird or buck? Does someone do something w/ this information? No they do not. It is only used for punative measures, if I forget to write down one mourning dove I am in viololation. IF(that's the key word here), if the Dept used the information to manage BIOLOGICALLY...well then I have no problem w/ it. They do not use it biologically. They would still have the name, ALS of each client, and could call them if worried about it.

I do not know of one outfitter who used the "professional guide provision" (i am sure there were a few, i just never heard of them)... I looked into this...there was no benefit to the "pro-guide provsion"....so nobody used it...but hey, if an outfitter doesn't want it there must be a hidden agenda....

The conservation license should be a requirement, that I will agree w/ you on.

It is not a "quantum leap" to diminish anything, except the paperwork the BoO office has, and may free up some $$ for an investigator again...

JLS, you know how my clients use scent block? "we roll up the windows"

 

[shoots-straight]

Good grief. Do you know why the BoO no longer has investigators? They can't afford it and are broke. Why? Wasting to much time/expense on paperwork. I would much rather have an investigator or 2 than waste so much money on office folks checking over client logs. All this bill does is simplify the log books...we would write down each client and their ALS number...it does do away w/ writing down each buck/duck/doe/mosquitoe taken, but one call to the client would answer all that anyway.

Good grief, you only cherry pick your response.

What about Guides? All those regulations, and requirements are out the window.

There was room for simplification, but all parties involved were not counciled.

 

[theat]

Yup, hard to take someone seriously when they completely ignore major aspects of the bill, and make extreme exaggerations to try and prove their point. I would like to see a single one of these client logs that has a grasshopper, mouse, or mosquito reported on it. Eric - how many mosquitos did you report last season?

 

[Pierre]

Eric,
You keep proclaiming the data isn't used or used for punitive measures. Begs the question "are you trying to get rid of it because you are getting caught?" Here is Quentin Kujula's phone number...1-406-444-5672. I have checked and you are full of it. Data is important. Once again, what is being hidden? If this is no big deal but paperwork simplification, what is the big deal? Your moves as MOGA have focused distrust on you folks. Thank MOGA and MAC.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I wonder myself when I read all the important stuff they want to toss out and yet Eric keeps coming back to paperwork. That, IMHO, should be able to be worked out easily if it needs to be tweaked. However, dropping a lot of the major stuff that's included in the Bill and not even mentioning any of those facts sends up a red flag to a lot of folks. Since I'm in MI and have never hunted in Montana I have no pertinent personal comments to make about MOGA, but what I read on Forums like this one from natives that appear well versed in what is going on out there, I have to say that what I read about MOGA isn't too good!!!

 

[Pierre]

The following are the average percent of complaints / number of licenses for all 36 boards overseen by the department of Labor and Industry vs just Board of Outfitters

2008 all 36 boards averaged = 1.6% complaints
Board of Outfitters = 6 %


2009 All 36 boards = 1.7%
Board of outfitters = 5.6%


2010 All 36 boards = 1.9%
Board of Outfitters = 7.8%


2008 Outfitters had 3.75 times more complaints than the average of all 36 boards.
2009 Outfitters had 3.29
2010 Outfitters had 4.1

It is safe to say for these 3 years the outfitters had more than 3 or 4 times as many complaints as the average board.

 

[Eric Albus]

Pierre, what pray tell do they use the info for? Nothing biologically.
What about the guides? Nobody uses the "professional guide license"... up until the last couple years guides needed a first aid card was all to be licensed...then the BoO came up w/ a background check that makes buying a firearm look like nothing.
The guides I hire are my responsibility, not the states... I would like to do away w/ the "guide license", but that isn't happening.

If this bill could pass we would still have to report acreage hunted on, activities, ect...we would still have to write down each client, their ALS number and who guided them, just not each dove/duck/doe/buck/turkey/pheasant/sharptail/elk/cow elk/antelope/doe antelope harvested. If FWP was really worried about it, they could call the client and find out.... if we could do away w/ keeping track of birds and other incidental takings harvested that would be a great compromise...I have no problem keeping track of bucks/bulls taken...but it is B.S. keeping track of does/ducks/gnats

 

[Eric Albus]

Pierre, those numbers do not surprise me at all. I talk w/ hundreds of prospects over the course of a years time...there are a lot of "scam artists" out there, offering "armed horseback rides". There are also a lot of illegitimate complaints out there as well.

 

[MontanaSlim]

Come on, paperwork? I don't think it is much to ask to record the results of the hunting/guiding that hunter and guide recorded in a few days. Seems petty to me in the grand scheme of things. It's not like they are requiring a book here are we?

 

[whiskeydog]

I don't really get the big deal here...I think guides, and this country in general, are over-regulated enough as it is. I hunt on my own and would never consider hiring a guide, however I have nothing against those who do. I was for 161 because no business should ever have clientele guaranteed to them by the government. So what if they are hunting "public" animals. I hunt "public" animals and don't have to report my killings (with a few exceptions such as limited quota areas or if I'm lucky enough to draw a sheep/goat tag someday) so why should they? A non-res who comes to MT to hunt doesn't have to report his doe, but if he hires a guide it has to be reported? If fish/game wants the numbers they can call them at 8:30pm on a sunday just like they do to me.

Most people on this forum are probably fairly conservative and would choose less government over more, so why do you support more government here? Is it because this is an OYA forum and that is not what guides do?

If it were up to me, I would say that anyone who wants to be a guide can go through a background check, and as long as they pass, get a guides license to guide anywhere in the state. Carpenters, plumbers, etc don't have to agree to only sell their services between 3rd street and 15th street, so why should guides? What other business get dictated as to where and how they can sell their services? If they want to develop a board and distribute guide districts amongst themselves, fine. But if I wanted to start my own guide business I could choose to join or not to join their club and guide wherever I wanted. Competition will weed out the guides who suck and allow those who provide solid service to survive. It's called capitalism.

As far as reporting acreage that they hunt, I don't get that either. Game animals may be public property, but the private lands that they hunt are not. As much as I would like to see as much private land as possible opened to the public for hunting, the fact remains that the land is private. I see no reason for the government to have any role in a private contract between a private landowner and a private guide business. If they are guiding on public land, that is a contract between the guide and the agency that oversees the land, in which case the government already knows what's going on.

I'm sure I'll get ripped for my stance here, but I will always stand for less government over more and for the right of any business, in our capitalist society, to succeed or fail on their own merit. This isn't microsoft where the government has to interfere to prevent a monopoly...there is plenty of competition and nobody is hoarding all the clients...

 

[howler]

You know if everybody didn't have to pay the price I sometimes wish some guys would get what they ask for..

 

[BuzzH]

Whiskeydog,

when someone profits from a public resource...they better expect to have to go through some accountability and regulation.

Maybe we should let anyone with a chainsaw have at the trees on National Forest?

Maybe we should let anyone with a horse, cow, sheep, or goat have at the BLM grazing?

Or...how about we open up oil and gas development for anyone with a drilling rig, no regulations required.

Its stupid, irresponsible and absolutely ridiculous to allow outfitters and guides to operate without regulations. Despite what eric albus thinks, the public still owns the wildlife in Montana. Comply or get kicked to the curb.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

+1000 BuzzH!!!

 

[whiskeydog]

Buzz, I expected to get jumped on about this, and I understand your points...
But your arguments aren't really apples to apples
- if I had a chainsaw and a permit to cut down 10 trees, and i choose to hire someone to to help me find the 10 best trees, then what's the problem?
- if I had a cow and a permit to graze 500 acres for 1 month, then what's the problem with paying someone to help me transport my cow to that pasture?
- if I have a permit to drill for oil, and I hire Halliburton to help me get at that oil, and I still have to follow all the regulations that are already in place with regards to how I can legally harvest that oil, then what's the problem?

I do not support outfitter sponsored tags, guaranteed clients, or a lot of the other crap that goes on in the outfitting industry. however, if a private individual, who follows all of the regulations that you or I, as "on your own" hunters have to follow, and draw a tag with the same odds that you or i have, then what is the problem with hiring someone to walk the woods with me? The public animals belong to the public, not just those who choose to hunt them on their own.

I think you are mistaking my stance as one that supports the outfitting industry the way it currently stands. That is not the case, I am saying that I would support totally revamping it to where all the benefits that guides get go away, and it is nothing other than a private company helping an individual with a hunt after that individual has already jumped through the exact same loopholes that you or I jump through with zero advantages.

 

[BuzzH]

It is comparing apples to apples.

There are regulations and hoops to jump through with every single public resource...and outfitting should be no different.

The public demands accountability...and rightfully so.

If outfitters dont want to comply with the regulations that the owners of the public wildlife demand...go find a job at McDonalds.

 

[whiskeydog]

no, it's not comparing apples to apples, as i showed in my previous post.
it's funny how you can throw around words like "the public demands" and "public wildlife" and assume that you are right, when you haven't even addressed my argument. i never said the outfitters shouldn't comply with the regulations...everyone should always comply with the laws and regulations. what i am saying is that "public" animals should be treated the same whether killed by you and I, or an individual guided by an outfitter. And companies should be treated the same, whether harvesting trees, drilling for oil, grazing on public land, or enjoying our favorite pastime of chasing elk.

 

[BuzzH]

Dude...really?

When I buy a license and hunt for ONE animal and make no profit or personal gain, all I should have to do is comply with the hunting regulations.

Its a total different story if I want to CHARGE and PROFIT from a public resource. It makes 100% sense to hold them accountable for keeping track of the number of acres they lease, the number of animals they harvest, to be licensed, bonded, and insured. Its how any business works.

Name me one fuggin' business where a license isnt required? Insurance? Accounting? paying taxes? Filing tax returns? Care to explain how you regulate that kind of thing if remove all the requirements to do just that?

What you recommended is opening up the woods to every swingin' richard with a desire to guide a client.

Its wrong-headed, irresponsible and foolish...not to mention it flat wont happen.

Its also bad for the consumer as well. Theres enough rip-off artist outfitters out there now...cant imagine what it would be like if we opened it up to anyone that wanted to guide a hunter. Those choosing to hire a "guide" would stand a much better chance of being ripped off from the fly-by-nights that would surely show up.

Sorry, but I'm not buying your crazy theory.

 

[whiskeydog]

when you buy a license and hunt for ONE animal you receive no personal gain. when a person hires and outfitter and hunts for ONE animal, they receive no personal gain either.

just like all businesses, outfitters should be held responsible, but tell me one business where you have to do more than just sign your name to get a business license?
if i open the woods to every swinging dick who wants to guide a client, then capitalism will sort them out. yes, some will take advantage, and they will fail. if i open a plumbing company and the first ten times i try to fix a backed up toilet i fill the room with crap, i probably won't get any referrals, i will probably receive negative reviews on several websites, and i will go out of business. same goes for outfitters...good ones will prevail.

i am NOT advocating outfitters getting privileges...i am saying that people who draw a tag under the same circumstance as you or i, should have the ability to pay whomever they choose to help them in their endeavor. my tag bought to harvest public game is no different than their tag to harvest public game. outfitters should not be given tags to sell. outfitters should not be given land to guide (unless under private contract with private landowners). outfitters should have to follow all regs that you and i follow. outfitters should have to compete for clients just like any other business. and yes, like all businesses, outfitters should have to obtain the same business license and their clients (who are actually the ones harvesting the game) should have to meet the same reporting requirements as you and I.