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

[Shangobango]

I have talked with a lot of NR DIY guys and asked them how much they were spending on their trip to Mt. "Way to much" was the resounding comment, by the time we get home, counting license $1200(lowest) to $2200 (highest).

Those numbers don't add up. I spent close to 300 bucks in fuel alone in Montana. I spent another 1500 bucks or so on licenses for me and my son. That isn't counting all the groceries, dining, supplies, 2 separate nights staying in a hotel in Billings, the obscene amount of money I spent at Scheels in Billings, etc. and so on. That is just me and not counting what the other two guys that we were with spent.

Either those guys you talked to are tightwads or I need a lesson in money management. Maybe both.

 

[WIbiggame]

Ben, Randy, both of you understand that there is no expectation of 60% of the license. My guess is that it will be bargained down to 40% (this number matches current use by NR.

Eric; everytime you post you just dig your hole deeper and reaffirm what the majority of have said from the start of this. That being this is outfitters wanting "guaranteed tags and clients" and to hell with the rest of us.

A point which you made very clear again in the above quote. You don't want the 60% of tags just to be guaranteed the customers you already have as an industry. So it seems to me that you all are doing ok with a draw. As it is you should be able to draw in MT as a NR every other year with a 100% guarantee.

Why should I be forced to have a backup plan in 3 other states should I not draw in MT but if I have the means to pay you $6500 on the low end in your own words again I can be "GUARANTEED" a tag every year.

It is very clear you care about nothing but your pocket book no matter how you try and spin this.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'm against this deal for a number of reasons but it seems hard to argue against average outfitted hunter spending more than the average DIY hunter. In the end, more outfitted hunters = more money coming to MT. If I'm wrong, id be happy to be proven so. Basically this would take revenue from a large # of businesses and turn it into a larger revenue concentrated on outfitters.

It would also reduce the amount of $ FWP is able to see from NR applications because I see this keeping applicants away.

 

[Dougfirtree]

A Canadian Perspective.....

Many Canadian provinces have this approach to outfitter dominance. Non residents need to use a guide in many cases, percentages of tags are allocated to outfitters to issue to their guests, etc. Here are the problems this has created.

- The requirement to use outfitters and tag allocation is justified on the basis of "economic development". The reality is that outfitter business barely scrape by, have very few employees and in all honesty don't generate any real economic opportunities to the local communities where they operate. To be honest, just allowing non residents to come on their own would generate more economic opportunity to local communities because they would use more hotels, restaurants, etc.

- In a number of cases, residents frustrate with poor draw odds, just to go to outfitters and purchase the tags they have. Its easier for the outfitter because they don't have to host and guide a non resident.

- In our Canadian constitution we can travel freely between provinces without restriction, and out public lands are public throughout the country. The allocation of wildlife is not for the benefit of the residents of each province, but the management of such is the responsibility of each province. Therefore, a moose in Ontario, BC or Alberta are all the same, owned by no one, but managed by the province. Yet for some reason, as an Ontario resident I cant hunt moose in Alberta without and Alberta outfitter. The laws and regulation dont make sense and only limit opportunity while doing little for wildlife management.

-Here is the worse, wildlife agencies are not funded by license sales. When you buy a license, your dollars go into general revenue for the provincial government. Then, at budget time, they allocate all their income to what ever agency they want. So there is no incentive for the wildlife agencies to do a better job to increase wildlife populations, increase hunter opportunity or recruitment, or do anything to promote hunting in any form. Its a very broken and flawed system.

Fight hard against this proposal. You have a great thing in Montana and we all need to fight hard to keep it. My hat is in the ring on this one, lets see the representative reaction when they start getting calls from Canadians......

So true about Canada. I live less than an hour from the Quebec border and the only reason I don't go up there to hunt is the hassle of the outfitter rules. It's not very friendly to those who like to diy, or those who like to hunt on the cheap. And for all the under-breath muttering I do about confusing regulation systems/data/websites in western states, I find Quebec to be extra confusing when it comes to hunting and fishing.

 

[beginnerhunter]

It's also bad for PLT opposition. Once the west is closed to NR hunting, NR won't spend time and money fighting PLT. Selfish? Maybe. Not any more selfish than the folks greedily trying to keep NR out without vast sums of $$.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, all Canadian provinces have allocated license to each outfitter and areas of operation. Outfitting has not been "disallowed" in Alta., leasing is not legal, perhaps this is what you refer to?

shango, thanks for supporting Montana business'.

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Emails sent. Fingers crossed for you all. It's been a while since I hunted in Montana (another topic that the state should be worried about), but it has a special place in my heart, as I went to college there and did a ton of hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. I'd like to go back and hunt there some day.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, all Canadian provinces have allocated license to each outfitter and areas of operation. Outfitting has not been "disallowed" in Alta., leasing is not legal, perhaps this is what you refer to?

shango, thanks for supporting Montana business'.

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

Why is the state responsible for propping up a bad business model?

And honestly, threatening people that you'll over run their hunting public land if this doesn't go through is probably the best way to generate more opposition. So, please go public with that message during the hearing, or in the newspaper, or online (yeah, got the screenshot already), then we can have some real fun with this. Your statement of caring more about the client than the resource is telling too.

I mean, I get it, you gotta make money, but you're clearly in this for the short term gain, and not the health & longevity of the resource, or your industry.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Ben, all Canadian provinces have allocated license to each outfitter and areas of operation. Outfitting has not been "disallowed" in Alta., leasing is not legal, perhaps this is what you refer to?

shango, thanks for supporting Montana business'.

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

Ummm... the resource will live or die by the total number of tags. The elk don't care if they're shot by some poor schmuck from NY, or an oil baron from Texas. We just want access to more of that total number.

 

[406dn]

Ben, all Canadian provinces have allocated license to each outfitter and areas of operation. Outfitting has not been "disallowed" in Alta., leasing is not legal, perhaps this is what you refer to?

shango, thanks for supporting Montana business'.

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

Please, that is pretty lame. If you chose to set up on already heavily hunted land, you would create a very unsatisfied customer. If they were half bright, they would feel like they just got bent over. You know that is not what you would do.

Why would you so overbook that you would be 50 hunters long,,if they all got lucky in the draw.

Perhaps a couple of outfitters, who like how each other operates, could have an agreement to shift clients from one to the other in a circumstance you describe.

Actually, I think you should hunt your area harder for a year when that unlikely situation arose and then throttle back for a year or two. Hey,, you'd have next year's revenue a year early.

 

[Drake4]

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

I'd be super surprised if very many of the outfitters in MT even know how to set up a wall tent. So, I'm not real worried about that one.

Couple things I've learned from this thread:
-There are too many outfitters in MT
-They don't currently have a sustainable business model and need guaranteed clients to make a go
-They are very greedy
-They honestly don't care about the public resource

I wish MOGA would just go away...they give the good outfitters a bad name. But I do sincerely hope that Eric and Big Shooter testify in person for this bill. That would be very comical to watch and probably kill the bill in Committee.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben, all Canadian provinces have allocated license to each outfitter and areas of operation. Outfitting has not been "disallowed" in Alta., leasing is not legal, perhaps this is what you refer to?

shango, thanks for supporting Montana business'.

So my take from all the angst is that the opposition would rather see outfitters over booking each week and hope that they don't over draw clients. If an outfitter over draws 30-50 hunters where will they put them? This is the situation many will be placed in. This is a recipe to over hunt already accessible land. In my case I would set up wall tents and be forced to hunt BLM in competition with resident and NR DIY hunters. FS outfitters would have to do the same. This is really good for the resource.

Why not do the social thing and give your outfitter buddies a few clients if you over-draw...sort of like you're asking the state to do for you.

Figure out your own problems.

Your solution to the problem only shows one thing, you really don't care about public land or wildlife resources if your best option is to pound what you already know is an over-utilized resource.

Keep digging...

 

[Dougfirtree]

Honestly, if outfitters in Montana are struggling, I can think of only two explanations for that:

Either the market is glutted with outfitters, or the resource has been poorly managed.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Why not do the social thing and give your outfitter buddies a few clients if you over-draw...sort of like you're asking the state to do for you.

Figure out your own problems.

Probably because the only thing outfitters like less than DIY competition is competition from other outfitters in an area. Can't say I've ever heard them speak well of each other or look out for each other, except when it comes to promoting bad ideas like this bill.

 

[Big Fin]

.....rail away about free markets and capitalism.....

A friend/client who made fortunes on Wall Street often observes that when they and their lobbyists go to DC and ask Congress to pick winners and losers that they make sure the Hedge Funds and other Wall Streeters are the winners. His most striking observation that would be funny, if not so true, is his quote that explains the winners/losers approach to getting Government to be your agent ...."Socialism for us, Capitalism for them."

In other words, they use the powers of government to protect them, to make sure they are the beneficiaries of any government action and legislation, that government lowers their risks, while the rest of the unconnected folks get to live and die by the Darwinist theories of Capitalism.

Take that for what it is worth, but I see it very accurate in both State and Federal politics. This legislation seems to follow that same path.

 

[BuzzH]

A friend/client who made fortunes on Wall Street often observes that when they and their lobbyists go to DC and ask Congress to pick winners and losers that they make sure the Hedge Funds and other Wall Streeters are the winners. His most striking observation that would funny, if not so true, is his quote that explains the winners/losers approach to getting Government to be your agent ...."Socialism for us, Capitalism for them."

In other words, they use the powers of government to protect them, to make sure they are the beneficiaries of any government action and legislation, while the rest of the unconnected folks get to live and die by the Darwinist theories of Capitalism.

Take that for what it is worth, but I see it very accurate in both State and Federal politics. This legislation seems to follow that same path.

Yep, combine that with socialize losses and privatize profits...any wonder the average guy is hosed?

 

[TOGIE]

I'd be super surprised if very many of the outfitters in MT even know how to set up a wall tent. So, I'm not real worried about that one.

Couple things I've learned from this thread:
-There are too many outfitters in MT
-They don't currently have a sustainable business model and need guaranteed clients to make a go
-They are very greedy
-They honestly don't care about the public resource

colorado too, bro....

colorado too

it seems while the majority of the hunting public is developing an extreme dissatisfaction and angst towards outfitters (deservedly so, IMO) the commissions and legislators in western states are happily bending over more than ever to the outfitting organizations. yeah this is nothing new.

but eventually a ticking bomb will explode and my gut reaction is that we will all lose when it does.

 

[Bullbrl]

Those numbers don't add up. I spent close to 300 bucks in fuel alone in Montana. I spent another 1500 bucks or so on licenses for me and my son. That isn't counting all the groceries, dining, supplies, 2 separate nights staying in a hotel in Billings, the obscene amount of money I spent at Scheels in Billings, etc. and so on. That is just me and not counting what the other two guys that we were with spent.

Either those guys you talked to are tightwads or I need a lesson in money management. Maybe both.

I made the exact same comment...there is no way that $$ for NR diy hunters is correct.

 

[BuckRut]

If this passes is GoHunt gonna start lobbying for 10% of the NR tags to be reserved for Insider members?

 

[Dakota79]

Good point, but the outfitting industry doesnt care about any of that...they could care less about DIY hunters, the future of hunting, or that NR youth hunters get a chance to a hunt in Montana.

Trust me, if they could pass a bill to require every R and NR to pay for an outfitted hunt, they'd do it in a heartbeat and wouldn't care how it impacts youth, first time hunters, those that couldn't/can't afford a guided hunt, etc. etc.

Doesn't matter, its all about the $$$...even to the detriment of their own friends and family. They don't care, its total self-serving and they don't even try to hide it.

That is not really true. I know several people that outfit in Montana and have taken numerous youth and first-time hunters that are both resident and nonresident out to get their 1st deer or elk.One of them being me who is in a wheelchair and I was very thankful for the opportunity.