Eric your true colors and motive really showed in this part of your last post, mainly highlighting the fact that you admit that 8000 people are already using outfitters. Yet that isn't enough for you, you still want to carve out 12,960 to help support outfitters. If the outfitters are truly struggling than maybe to many outfitters exist for the supply of people wanting to pay them and its not a tag problem but a number of people providing outfitter services?
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
Eric your true colors and motive really showed in this part of your last post, mainly highlighting the fact that you admit that 8000 people are already using outfitters. Yet that isn't enough for you, you still want to carve out 12,960 to help support outfitters. If the outfitters are truly struggling than maybe to many outfitters exist for the supply of people wanting to pay them and its not a tag problem but a number of people providing outfitter services?
Free market capitalism is for chumps & suckers.
T
tjones
Guest
Dunked on him again.
If anyone is dumb enough to believe this, they deserve every consequence that comes with it.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,623
Why don’t we just accurately label this bill for the de facto “socialistic” welfare program that it is?
Take a limited public resource and ensure that the politically well connected who stand to profit financially get first dibs on accessing that resource at the expense of less connected individuals.
Or maybe the label “crony capitalism” should be better applied. Or “crock of .....”
Why should outfitters have any guarantees of resources so their business models are profitable? What other industry in Montana has those kinds of government protection against competition?
For outfitters to argue that the economic benefits to the state are the compelling reason for justifying this bill’s passage rather than making the case its a better way of allowing access to a shared, limited resource tells me that they all know it’s for their self interests but are counting on the most affected to not protect their interests.
Take a limited public resource and ensure that the politically well connected who stand to profit financially get first dibs on accessing that resource at the expense of less connected individuals.
Or maybe the label “crony capitalism” should be better applied. Or “crock of .....”
Why should outfitters have any guarantees of resources so their business models are profitable? What other industry in Montana has those kinds of government protection against competition?
For outfitters to argue that the economic benefits to the state are the compelling reason for justifying this bill’s passage rather than making the case its a better way of allowing access to a shared, limited resource tells me that they all know it’s for their self interests but are counting on the most affected to not protect their interests.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 463
Textbook Ricardian rent. Never once in my life have I ever felt sorry for the plight of outfitters. Emailed my opposition for what it’s worth. May not change things as I am not a MT resident and voter.
chequamegon
Active member
That's a great strategy when contacting soundbite politicians. Always include something simple they might understand. Think about it from their perspective, they have to appeal to the masses and socialism might not sell in MT. Haven't lived there in 20 years though...I hear things have changed a little.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,038
Since there is a real issue with much of the elk in "over objective" elk herds being inaccessible to the public land hunters, it makes sense to me to focus some of the pressure and harvest on private land. Do you folks think it would better if a certain # of tags were designated private land only by unit or area for these "over objective" herds in lieu of just giving outfitters tags?
Seems that would still provide a benefit to outfitters and be better way to accomplish the goals of the Elk Management Plan?
Seems that would still provide a benefit to outfitters and be better way to accomplish the goals of the Elk Management Plan?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I voted in the republican primary last year, and in fact had a campaign sign for the house rep who won at the end of my driveway, because my former rep was kind of off the charts. Obviously this is currently going to be heard in the senate, but this is the letter I wrote them and is similar to the letters I wrote the rest of em.
Representative xxxxx,
My name is xxxxx, and I live in your House District, in Jefferson City, Montana. I grew up in Clancy, and am a xxxxxx and volunteer firefighter, and in fact had one of your campaign signs at the end of my driveway last year. Hunting and fishing are part of my family’s identity, and I am writing in regards to a bill I find very concerning that will be heard in front of the Senate Fish and Game Committee on February 2nd – SB 143. Without being too long winded, I would like to explain my concern:
In 2010 by a margin of over 26,000 votes, Montanans abolished the set-aside of outfitter sponsored game licenses via I-161. This bill would not only reverse the will of Montanans, it would expand that which we have already stated our position against. I find this indefensible and unconservative. I voted in favor of I-161, because it violates the public trust principle of equal opportunity in the license drawing process. What other industry in Montana is guaranteed a customer base by the state to the detriment of folks with a do it yourself attitude? This is anti-Montanan.
Further, this bill will set in motion a trend that will harm resident hunters. As the supply of outfitter set-aside licenses is established by an enormous number - 60% of nonresident deer and elk/deer combos, which is absurd - this will create a demand for more leased properties. In turn it will become more difficult for Montana’s Block Management Program to acquire high quality properties. Block Management is a beautiful relationship between the sportsmen of Montana and her landowners, and I utilize the program to hunt elk, deer, and birds many times a year.
I am aware of the arguments in favor of the bill. This bill will no doubt benefit some. But it harms far more than it helps, and violates the Montana spirit of the do-it-yourselfer in favor of one industry. I don’t pay people to take me hunting, and when friends and family have from out of state to hunt with me, they haven’t either. The people of Montana have already said their piece on this resoundingly. If this makes it to the house, there should be no compromise with tag numbers or reduction in percentages of outfitter sponsored tags. This shouldn’t be a negotiation. It should be rejected outright.
Thank you for your time and your service,
xxxxxx
Representative xxxxx,
My name is xxxxx, and I live in your House District, in Jefferson City, Montana. I grew up in Clancy, and am a xxxxxx and volunteer firefighter, and in fact had one of your campaign signs at the end of my driveway last year. Hunting and fishing are part of my family’s identity, and I am writing in regards to a bill I find very concerning that will be heard in front of the Senate Fish and Game Committee on February 2nd – SB 143. Without being too long winded, I would like to explain my concern:
In 2010 by a margin of over 26,000 votes, Montanans abolished the set-aside of outfitter sponsored game licenses via I-161. This bill would not only reverse the will of Montanans, it would expand that which we have already stated our position against. I find this indefensible and unconservative. I voted in favor of I-161, because it violates the public trust principle of equal opportunity in the license drawing process. What other industry in Montana is guaranteed a customer base by the state to the detriment of folks with a do it yourself attitude? This is anti-Montanan.
Further, this bill will set in motion a trend that will harm resident hunters. As the supply of outfitter set-aside licenses is established by an enormous number - 60% of nonresident deer and elk/deer combos, which is absurd - this will create a demand for more leased properties. In turn it will become more difficult for Montana’s Block Management Program to acquire high quality properties. Block Management is a beautiful relationship between the sportsmen of Montana and her landowners, and I utilize the program to hunt elk, deer, and birds many times a year.
I am aware of the arguments in favor of the bill. This bill will no doubt benefit some. But it harms far more than it helps, and violates the Montana spirit of the do-it-yourselfer in favor of one industry. I don’t pay people to take me hunting, and when friends and family have from out of state to hunt with me, they haven’t either. The people of Montana have already said their piece on this resoundingly. If this makes it to the house, there should be no compromise with tag numbers or reduction in percentages of outfitter sponsored tags. This shouldn’t be a negotiation. It should be rejected outright.
Thank you for your time and your service,
xxxxxx
There have been a lot of discussions around ways to bring herds down to objective and there have been a lot of efforts implemented to do just that.
Like OTC Cow tags, second cow tags, shoulder seasons, increased cow permits, private & state land only permits, etc.
What it boils down to is that if people cannot get access to elk where they are, they cannot take elk. Some folks want to keep the bull hunting privatized, and allow for DIY hunters to clean up the cows. Others just want to control the resource entirely, and are advocating for transferable licenses, welfare tags, etc. The other side wants open access to animals and is willing to pay for it through programs like Block mgt, PLAN, PAL, Habitat MT, Unlocking Public Lands, etc, and the more extreme fringe wants to demand access without any recognition of private property rights.
The reality is that until landowners, outfitters and hunters are honest about what the end game is, we're going to continue to have conflict based elk management. Given that the outfitters & landowners largely have the legislature on their side at this point, and have a far more friendly ear in the Governor's office, the balance of power has shifted, and unless people get involved, then MT will go the way of UT.
Outfitter welfare tags not only further mangle wildlife management, it continues, and exacerbates, the conflict model of management to the point where there will be political repercussions if this thing passes.
If folks really want this to be about elk management in the modern west, then they should invest in the EMP rewrite and work with their fellow Montanans, rather than simply demand more tags for their own benefit.
mdunc8
Well-known member
I'll take a stab since we're taking the whoa is me, sympathy route...
You're telling me that in order for you to maintain a viable business and feed your family, my 79-year-old nonresident father, who has severe arthritis and a deteroriating heart, which will likely prevent him from hunting much longer (assuming that day hasn't already arrived), will have to potentially wait several years to hunt with his resident grandson, who will be able to deer hunt for the first time this fall, while your clients jump to the front of the line? Spare me "your dad can still go hunting with his grandson without a tag line." Or that my nonresident firefighter buddy from Virginia will have to wait to elk hunt with me again while he sits in line behind my wealthy nonresident cousins, who go on guided hunts every other year, because my friend doesn't have enough money to pay for a guided hunt? Or that my other nonresident buddy in Indiana, who happens to be a teacher and also can't afford a guided hunt, also might have to wait several years to draw a tag to deer hunt in eastern Montana (I know, I know...there aren't any deer left out there) with me while one of your clients or my cousins get multiple hunts in?
This bill could potentially force this resident hunter to continue hunting by himself because he has no friends or family in Montana (that's a whole nother issue...), so there's at least one resident hunter getting screwed.
Buffs35
Well-known member
Yep, ask robinhood.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I contend that any tags that are passed for this outfitter welfare must cost the same as the hunt they are going on. You book a deer hunt for 5500 then you pay an additional 5500 to the state of MT for a tag...
Even though I am an Idaho resident , I sent in a few emails. I lived in MT for 6 years and have loved hunting there. If I am required to hire an outfitter, the cost outweighs the benefit and I will stop hunting Montana. Perhaps, that's what this bill is hoping to achieve.
I get that political debts are repaid with policy and legislation. That is part of the American political system, both at the state and Federal level. Our job as citizens is to be a counter to that tendency.
What we have here is the type of policy debate where one side wants to convince you (metaphorically) that water isn't wet, that the sun rises in the west, and (literally) that when government legislation benefits their exclusive group and only their group and at the expense of others, it is not a government subsidy. I guess we get to find out which side of the debate prevails.
It would be easier to have a debate on the merits if we could at least start out with an intellectually honest discussion of the facts. But, that seldom happens in policy debates, as facts benefit one side and usually are a detriment to the other side. Or as we say in the CPA world when someone tries to convince us that losses are profits and expenses are assets, "Figures lie and liars figure."
Non-resident big game hunting, when measured economically, is a stream of revenue coming into the state from out of the state. Currently the market allocates how and where that money gets allocated. Hopefully we can agree on that basic premise.
Some have figured out how to provide services, access, lodging, or other values that attract a portion of that revenue stream. They have provided a value proposition that the non-resident finds compelling.
This bill, when measured in pure economics, intends to divert 60% of that revenue to a small group of people, as a result of their ability to influence those controlling the levers of power, in this case the Legislature and the Governor.
Call if what you want, try to defend it in any way you want. A sixth grader being introduced to the basics of economic principles could quickly identify it as a subsidy. Here is what one of my old Economics texts uses to define a subsidy..."A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government......"
I am thankful to all of you who are reaching out to your friends and fellow hunters, both resident and non-resident, and who are contacting these Senators. To summarize what one Senator told me yesterday in regards to the volumes of emails coming in on this bill, "This is turning into a $hit storm that some didn't want."
Carry on......
What we have here is the type of policy debate where one side wants to convince you (metaphorically) that water isn't wet, that the sun rises in the west, and (literally) that when government legislation benefits their exclusive group and only their group and at the expense of others, it is not a government subsidy. I guess we get to find out which side of the debate prevails.
It would be easier to have a debate on the merits if we could at least start out with an intellectually honest discussion of the facts. But, that seldom happens in policy debates, as facts benefit one side and usually are a detriment to the other side. Or as we say in the CPA world when someone tries to convince us that losses are profits and expenses are assets, "Figures lie and liars figure."
Non-resident big game hunting, when measured economically, is a stream of revenue coming into the state from out of the state. Currently the market allocates how and where that money gets allocated. Hopefully we can agree on that basic premise.
Some have figured out how to provide services, access, lodging, or other values that attract a portion of that revenue stream. They have provided a value proposition that the non-resident finds compelling.
This bill, when measured in pure economics, intends to divert 60% of that revenue to a small group of people, as a result of their ability to influence those controlling the levers of power, in this case the Legislature and the Governor.
Call if what you want, try to defend it in any way you want. A sixth grader being introduced to the basics of economic principles could quickly identify it as a subsidy. Here is what one of my old Economics texts uses to define a subsidy..."A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government......"
I am thankful to all of you who are reaching out to your friends and fellow hunters, both resident and non-resident, and who are contacting these Senators. To summarize what one Senator told me yesterday in regards to the volumes of emails coming in on this bill, "This is turning into a $hit storm that some didn't want."
Carry on......
My thoughts exactly.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,038
Sounds like a good way for "outfitters" to do "semi guided" hunts that entail providing a map and dropping a client off at a hunting spot.
This is also an exercise to see if a digital communications effort can raise enough awareness to get this bill killed. I will be interested to see what happens.
This week I spent time strategizing with goHUNT about how we use our digital reach to try influence this, along with many other grassroots groups who are working on it. Our strategy started with this post on Hunt Talk. Then I did a big segment on it on Elk Talk Live on Wednesday night. goHUNT released an article yesterday afternoon. This morning I posted it on FB and IG.
So far, the number of non-residents commenting has been way more than I could have hoped for. And since we can digitally provide email addresses for the Senators, it is convenient for people to take action.
Part of the challenge is to dispel the myth that non-resident voices won't make a difference to these Senators. Maybe it won't. Maybe the Senators will refuse to listen to the comments of residents and non-residents, and the skids are already greased beyond the point of return. Wouldn't be the first time. But, I am undeterred.
I am confident that the volume of comments is a hell of a lot more than the sponsor and friends could have anticipated; as was confirmed by some of the Senators on the receiving end of those emails.
This week I spent time strategizing with goHUNT about how we use our digital reach to try influence this, along with many other grassroots groups who are working on it. Our strategy started with this post on Hunt Talk. Then I did a big segment on it on Elk Talk Live on Wednesday night. goHUNT released an article yesterday afternoon. This morning I posted it on FB and IG.
So far, the number of non-residents commenting has been way more than I could have hoped for. And since we can digitally provide email addresses for the Senators, it is convenient for people to take action.
Part of the challenge is to dispel the myth that non-resident voices won't make a difference to these Senators. Maybe it won't. Maybe the Senators will refuse to listen to the comments of residents and non-residents, and the skids are already greased beyond the point of return. Wouldn't be the first time. But, I am undeterred.
I am confident that the volume of comments is a hell of a lot more than the sponsor and friends could have anticipated; as was confirmed by some of the Senators on the receiving end of those emails.
- Status
