Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)

[shrapnel]

So says most Montana hunters.

You live in a bubble where you believe that everything is great while blasting a dink mule deer buck every year, a couple does and a cow off private with old rifles. I get it, its all about you...you make that more than apparent every time you post. You sound like the type of guy to carve his name on a rock wall somewhere...because its all about you.

That may be great hunting to you, but most want better hunting, in particular on public land. Hunting on public land is not OK...its been broken for a long time.

When big-game is managed to minimum numbers by law...how do you explain that as proper management?

How do you explain flying unit 202 and finding 8 elk, proper management?

How do you explain a majority of Montana hunting units having single digit bull-to-cow ratio's as proper management?

How do you explain finding 202 elk in the Bob Marshal on classification flights as proper management?

How, in the area I've hunted since 1979, my family since the 1930's...that the estimated number of bulls is 80, and the harvest statistics say they kill over 90 bulls? Is THAT proper management?

How do you explain 75 goat tags in the Bitterroots when I applied there from 1979-1986...and now they issue ONE tag. Is that proper management?

While applying for sheep in Montana last week, I noticed there are 115 total ram/either sex permits being issued this year. Of those 56 tags are issued for FOUR units (one of which is the little Rockies and issues only one permit). Meaning 55 tags are issued in THREE hunting units. If not for the Breaks, Montana would be issuing 59 sheep tags...that's pathetic. You think that's a function of proper management?

Do I need to go on?

Frankly, I'm shocked that someone your age, that's hunted as long as you have, think things are fine...they aren't and haven't been for a long time.

Yes, I take advantage of the Native deer license...but to my knowledge I only know of one NR that testified against the come-home-to-hunt and Native licenses. I'll let you guess who that was.

Arguing with you is like wrestling a girl. There’s no sport in that and all you have beaten is a wimp. Thump someone else’s stump and leave it at that. You are a loser and though you might have some friends, if most Montanans agreed with you, they would have made more of a stir about this and they would hunt somewhere else because the hunting has got to be better there, wherever there might be...

 

[406dn]

Gov. Gianforte should veto the outfitter license bill HB 637

HB 637, was amended in the second-to-last day of the Legislature to include unlimited outfitter sponsored big game licenses for nonresidents this year, and to permanently give an extra point to nonresident hunters using an outfitter.



This bill was already full of problems, and these changes were put in at the last minute to purposely avoid public debate on these special treatment for outfitters provisions. This is terrible, swamp-style politics at its worst that goes against Montanans wish that everybody has an equal chance to hunt here.



Please contact Gov. Gianforte and ask him to VETO HB 637.

You can call the governor’s office at 444-3111, or contact him by email at https://svc.mt.gov/gov/contact/shareopinion.



PLEASE LEAVE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but hit these points:

• Montanans rejected special interest outfitter licenses and want everyone to have an equal opportunity to hunt here.
• We have offered solutions for outfitters to know their potential clients, and are still willing to discuss ideas to do that.
• This is not how Montanans do business – slipping provisions into bills at the last minute to avoid public input.

Thank you for the link. I just took the time to urge the Governor to veto the bill. I won't hold my breath just yet.

When the I-161 passed back in the day, I voted for it but was still working full time. Now that I am retired, I will certainly collect signatures for an Initiative to repeal this, if it indeed becomes law. My criminal record is blank,,, so that might ease the heartburn of the outfitting members.

All things political are never final. Every action spawns a reaction. This bill and the manner it was passed will certainly cause a response.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Arguing with you is like wrestling a girl. There’s no sport in that and all you have beaten is a wimp. Thump someone else’s stump and leave it at that. You are a loser and though you might have some friends, if most Montanans agreed with you, they would have made more of a stir about this and they would hunt somewhere else because the hunting has got to be better there, wherever there might be...

“Most Montanans” I think this was posted multiple times. How does over 90% sound? Same as the over 80% that opposed shoulder hunts. “Most” who appreciate a quality hunting experience do and have started hunting “somewhere else”.. most all MT public land deer and elk hunters wish things were different.

 

[shrapnel]

You guys can hang your hat on numbers like that and think a few hundred votes represent 90% of Montana. I guess we will have to disagree about what 90% means.

 

[huntin24/7]

Only in MT can wanting a healthier deer herd and a few bucks more than 2 years old be considered selfish.

 

[The Hedgehog]

You guys can hang your hat on numbers like that and think a few hundred votes represent 90% of Montana. I guess we will have to disagree about what 90% means.

It works 60% of the time, all the time.

 

[406dn]

You guys can hang your hat on numbers like that and think a few hundred votes represent 90% of Montana. I guess we will have to disagree about what 90% means.

I don't think anyone thinks that the messaging on the bill means 90% of Montana voters are against the bill.

By far, most are yet unaware of this bill. I think it is reasonably accurate to say the 41 messages come overwhelmingly from outfitters and guides. The 405 against suggests to me that an ant hill was kicked when the bill was passed. Time will tell.

 

[BuzzH]

Arguing with you is like wrestling a girl. There’s no sport in that and all you have beaten is a wimp. Thump someone else’s stump and leave it at that. You are a loser and though you might have some friends, if most Montanans agreed with you, they would have made more of a stir about this and they would hunt somewhere else because the hunting has got to be better there, wherever there might be...

You seem to like not putting much effort into anything...so wrestling girls should be right up your alley.

Make sure to keep posting all those pictures of your bad self with gophers, porcupines, and rock carvings...Tuffie.

 

[RobertD]

I don't think anyone thinks that the messaging on the bill means 90% of Montana voters are against the bill.

By far, most are yet unaware of this bill. I think it is reasonably accurate to say the 41 messages come overwhelmingly from outfitters and guides. The 405 against suggests to me that an ant hill was kicked when the bill was passed. Time will tell.

No disagreement here, just wanted to add on:

It just means 90 percent of those who were motivated enough to comment were against it. So there's an element of the whole "survey results are biased towards those who answer surveys" thing at play, but still looks like a good indicator that the general hunting public won't like this one. Or as you say, an ant hill has been kicked.

 

[SAJ-99]

Far too much of that money is sent to "farmers" with a Manhattan, NY Washington DC address.

Fixed it for you.

 

[TheTone]

My guess is most Montanans don’t testify or have an opinion because they don’t know about the smoke and mirrors and back rooms of politics or they have just grown completely apathetic and realize their opinion won’t matter

 

[Pilgrim]

As one of the "unwashed" NR DIY guys, whose thoughts mean little to the Montana Legislature, I'm looking for other ways to be heard. Below is an email I just sent to RMEF. I know they can't jump directly into the fray, but perhaps they can give us NR DIYers another avenue to be heard. A dollar here, a dollar there, pretty soon we could be talking about real money from NRs that can be directed to projects in states that want our business.

I just finished catching up on MOGA's and the Montana Legislature's latest dirty tricks with HB 637 and the giant "UNWELCOME" sign they're posting for every NR DIY Public Land hunter in the country.

Now, I know RMEF's mission and focus is not political, and I understand why. But the organization is headquartered in Montana and spends a lot of money on projects there. I personally do what I can every year to contribute to RMEF because I firmly believe in its mission. It's not a ton of money, but I do have other uses for it. And I'd be a fool not to ask myself what's the point in contributing hard-earned dollars to open public access and improve elk habitat in a state that wants me to stay the hell away.

Please understand that this is NOT a criticism of RMEF, its mission, or all the good that it does. But it is a request that RMEF explore ways in which donors such as myself can earmark where our dollars go -- and, perhaps, just as importantly where they don't. I'd rather see my money go to those states enhancing habitat and opening access for NR DIY folks like me, than go to those states posting legislative "Keep Out" signs everywhere.

Admittedly, I'm frustrated with what I've seen in Montana this year. They've got some significant game management issues they don't seem to have a very good handle on. But this is not a request written in anger. Rather, it's an apolitical approach that still allows me to have a voice, albeit indirect, on issues that matter to me and many others like me. I hope you will seriously consider the request.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

You know you are making progress when the alt handles come out. Priceless.

The good news is that the media has begun to pick this up in earnest and a number of papers/magazines are working on unique articles specific to this bill (not associated with the larger legislative stories). The reporters so far are skeptical of the facts as laid out until they circle back and realize that they are atrocious as presented. Many have covered the legislature for years and couldn't find an equivalent. The 2nd call with them is much different than the first.

I sent a number of emails to legislators who voted in favor of this. Most don't tune into this issue on its merits, but when it was explained the losses being suffered by the hotel/restaurant industry that tends to resonate with them because they all have them in their districts. I explain that had the government simply released the additional 3000 additional NR tags and allowed those consumers who received them to choose between guided and non-guided trips, hotels and restaurants would have had the opportunity to compete for 15,000 hotel nights (assumes a 5-day trip for the NR hunter) and 45,000 meals for local restaurants (3 meals for each day). The new government requirement prohibits the hotels/restaurants from competing with the outfitters since the hunter is required by the government to use the outfitter if they want the tag. This is hard to explain to their constituents, especially when many of them ran on less government and more free markets and now have been caught having voted for this bill that does exactly, not a little, but exactly, the opposite. I realize this isn't the core issue for this forum, but our audience has to be wider than this forum (including the governor, at least for now). This message seems to resonate with people beyond hunters and to anyone who claims to support free market principles. It quickly gets hard for these elected folks to explain in their districts why they created a government requirement that prohibits hotels and restaurants from competing when the hotel/restaurant industry is universally acknowledged as one of the hardest hit by COVID.

In addition to the items that @Gevock noted earlier if you haven't reached out to the governors office or your representative to voice your frustration with their vote, please do so and consider the above angle when doing so.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

As one of the "unwashed" NR DIY guys, whose thoughts mean little to the Montana Legislature, I'm looking for other ways to be heard. Below is an email I just sent to RMEF. I know they can't jump directly into the fray, but perhaps they can give us NR DIYers another avenue to be heard. A dollar here, a dollar there, pretty soon we could be talking about real money from NRs that can be directed to projects in states that want our business.

I just finished catching up on MOGA's and the Montana Legislature's latest dirty tricks with HB 637 and the giant "UNWELCOME" sign they're posting for every NR DIY Public Land hunter in the country.

Now, I know RMEF's mission and focus is not political, and I understand why. But the organization is headquartered in Montana and spends a lot of money on projects there. I personally do what I can every year to contribute to RMEF because I firmly believe in its mission. It's not a ton of money, but I do have other uses for it. And I'd be a fool not to ask myself what's the point in contributing hard-earned dollars to open public access and improve elk habitat in a state that wants me to stay the hell away.

Please understand that this is NOT a criticism of RMEF, its mission, or all the good that it does. But it is a request that RMEF explore ways in which donors such as myself can earmark where our dollars go -- and, perhaps, just as importantly where they don't. I'd rather see my money go to those states enhancing habitat and opening access for NR DIY folks like me, than go to those states posting legislative "Keep Out" signs everywhere.

Admittedly, I'm frustrated with what I've seen in Montana this year. They've got some significant game management issues they don't seem to have a very good handle on. But this is not a request written in anger. Rather, it's an apolitical approach that still allows me to have a voice, albeit indirect, on issues that matter to me and many others like me. I hope you will seriously consider the request.

1000x yes. This is such an important step. We collectively spend millions and millions with organizations. If they aren't meeting our needs, we need to share that with them. Thank you for doing this.

 

[sacountry]

It works 60% of the time, all the time.

Well played.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Arguing with you is like wrestling a girl. There’s no sport in that and all you have beaten is a wimp. Thump someone else’s stump and leave it at that. You are a loser and though you might have some friends, if most Montanans agreed with you, they would have made more of a stir about this and they would hunt somewhere else because the hunting has got to be better there, wherever there might be...

Some of us are hopeful our future hunting isn’t reduced to shooting cows a rancher can’t get to the corral.

 

[Big Shooter]

Actually, where outfitters manage, game thrives. Let’s face it, if it’s wide open to the public it’s over hunted.

Well said! Welcome to the discussion!

 

[Big Shooter]

And another 3000 NR hunters is going to make that better?

If outfitters are so concerned about proper management, taking another 3k clients isn't going to improve quality. I don't think quality is their concern, I think its all about the $$$. Right now, with hunter demand through the roof, they're seeing dollar signs, not proper management. Pretty obvious.

The reason public is over-hunted (in some places) is because of BS legislation just like this outfitter welfare bill.

I disagree with that.....again! The extra 3000.....probably more like 2000....will fill the void on said private property, that outfitters had planned on taking anyway but their clients couldn’t draw. This is not above and beyond what they had planned on taking. If you look at the stipulations on this, the client had to be booked “prior” to April 1.

 

[BuzzH]

I disagree with that.....again! The extra 3000.....probably more like 2000....will fill the void on said private property, that outfitters had planned on taking anyway but their clients couldn’t draw. This is not above and beyond what they had planned on taking. If you look at the stipulations on this, the client had to be booked “prior” to April 1.

Right, and lots of outfitters "over-book" to make sure they have enough clients.

Albus told me he sends his over-booked clients elsewhere.

Been at this too long to listen to your BS...its all about the money and everyone knows it.

Also, there isn't a biological justification for another 3000 NR tags to be issued to hunt either private or public.

 

[shoots-straight]

The extra (whatever it will be) will most certainly not be additions to the private Outfitter hunts. They will be additions over to the public lands. Those that would hunt the private will anyway. You just will be able to move the costs up as the demand will be higher. You over book all the time, right? You won't now, but that doesn't change a thing on public lands.