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

[Straight Arrow]

Most guys going to the trouble of NR DIY aren't holed up in bars.
And guided hunters sure visit those places too.

Most guys don't hunt after dark. BTW, the bar is pretty quiet during the day.
Guided hunters may go there, but for many they need to hitch a ride. You exaggerate.

 

[SAJ-99]

When talking economics you can't discount the cost of the hunt. That's ridiculous.

You are missing the point and simplifying it all to a "black or white" argument on what is tangible on the first order(the initial transaction). The cost of the hunt benefits only the outfitter. It is revenue for them. Then they pay landowners so it is revenue to them (expense to Outfitter). The only benefit to Montana as a whole is the taxes they all pay, and everyone pays the smallest amount in taxes they can. Using that argument, why not give every NR that books with an outfitter a guaranteed tag? The benefit might only flow to to a few hundred people but you maximize the money collected in that situation. Better yet, as I have previously proposed, sell the tags via a blind Dutch auction. Let's figure out what the price really is and how many people are willing to pay. We maximize revenue to MT and don't have to worry about people cheating on taxes because FWP collects the money directly. There is no line for fairness in your argument. You are just trying to maximize the amount of money disregarding how broadly that money is distributed through the economy (second order effects).
I recognize the outfitter's business and their benefit to Montana and wildlife. But we need a compromise that works for all groups and can last. The system is a mess. Right now that compromise looks impossible as legislature keeps trying to reduce the product availability and maximize "profit".

 

[tjones]

When I hunt DIY NR the only thing I buy is gasoline.

So based on what you do is the norm for NR DIY? Exactly opposite from what I see during season.

 

[huntin24/7]

The diy guys I see from out of state for pheasant and deer season seem to make the rounds spreading their money locally. I see them all the time at the local grocery store, small sporting goods store, hotel, and restaurants/bars. Sure some guys bring all their food and camp somewhere and don’t bring as much to the economy. I’ve been both guys. Eric, I don’t doubt what you say in regards to your clients spending money locally, but just like the diy guys I mentioned, it varies for outfitters too. Some guys like you mention encourage their guys to contribute locally. I bet many never spend a dime outside of their lodge and outfitter. It goes both ways.

 

[BuzzH]

I find that argument to be a bunch of BS. When I hunt DIY NR the only thing I buy is gasoline.

I bet you're just a load of fun on a hunting trip. Do you count the number of squares of TP each person gets?

For me, hunting is not just hunting, its also a vacation. When I hunt as a NR part of the trip for me is to explore other places. I like to hit up local coffee shops, restaurants, etc. and chat up the locals. Sometimes, if I get done with a hunt early, I might stay another day or two spending money along the way. I've purchased artwork from local galleries on hunts, coffee cups from all over where I've hunted, T-shirts, hats, even spotted seal skin hats/slippers on a musk ox hunt, etc. etc. etc.

Pretty rare bird when I fill up at a gas station when I don't buy some junk food of some sort when on hunts.

I usually stay in a hotel going and coming home if the drive is much over 10 hours.

I almost always run out of stuff, forget something, and have to run into the nearest town to buy supplies, fuel, etc.

Some hunts, it makes more sense to just stay in a hotel than drag all my camping crap along, do that too.

Life's too short to do a hunt where I'm pinching pennies...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Digging into the economics a bit, and I'm not seeing anything relative to bird hunting yet, but the overwhelming data shows that unguided hunters & anglers put far more money into the local economies than outfitted clients.


Here's the Outfitter study that folks like to quote: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

About $55 million for hunting outfitters. Versus over $76 million for fishing, and when you combine the user days between all outfitted water sports, you get around 365,000 sports, or over 1/2 of the 700,000 people who utilize outfitter services in MT. The rest of those are comprised of skiers (who spend the most per day, fyi), hikers, bikers and hunters.


Compare that to the overall spending for big game hunting & fishing: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/montana-outdoor-recreation-economy-report.pdf

NON-outfitted hunters & anglers are pouring hundreds of millions in to the state. around $842 million for fishing ($919.2 million minus the $76 mil for outfitted), and $330 million for non-outfitted hunting.

And, utilizing this 2016 Storymap from FWP we can see that the expenditures are concentrated in areas with significant public land in Western MT: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=0fa1de4222074cdeb7dbf0710ecb2ee0

SO the takeaway here is that outfitting is low impact/high revenue, but isn't the juggernaut that some would have you believe.

 

[tjones]

Digging into the economics a bit, and I'm not seeing anything relative to bird hunting yet, but the overwhelming data shows that unguided hunters & anglers put far more money into the local economies than outfitted clients.


Here's the Outfitter study that folks like to quote: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

About $55 million for hunting outfitters. Versus over $76 million for fishing, and when you combine the user days between all outfitted water sports, you get around 365,000 sports, or over 1/2 of the 700,000 people who utilize outfitter services in MT. The rest of those are comprised of skiers (who spend the most per day, fyi), hikers, bikers and hunters.


Compare that to the overall spending for big game hunting & fishing: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/montana-outdoor-recreation-economy-report.pdf

NON-outfitted hunters & anglers are pouring hundreds of millions in to the state. around $842 million for fishing ($919.2 million minus the $76 mil for outfitted), and $330 million for non-outfitted hunting.

And, utilizing this 2016 Storymap from FWP we can see that the expenditures are concentrated in areas with significant public land in Western MT: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=0fa1de4222074cdeb7dbf0710ecb2ee0

SO the takeaway here is that outfitting is low impact/high revenue, but isn't the juggernaut that some would have you believe.

Ya but are there any studies about what goes on a little bit north of Terry?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ya but are there any studies about what goes on a little bit north of Terry?

The info in the FWP storymap shows that NR's way outspend Residents in Prairie County. There is no indication relative to access for us poors, versus the outfitted, however.

 

[Eric Albus]

You are missing the point and simplifying it all to a "black or white" argument on what is tangible on the first order(the initial transaction). The cost of the hunt benefits only the outfitter. It is revenue for them. Then they pay landowners so it is revenue to them (expense to Outfitter). The only benefit to Montana as a whole is the taxes they all pay, and everyone pays the smallest amount in taxes they can. Using that argument, why not give every NR that books with an outfitter a guaranteed tag? The benefit might only flow to to a few hundred people but you maximize the money collected in that situation. Better yet, as I have previously proposed, sell the tags via a blind Dutch auction. Let's figure out what the price really is and how many people are willing to pay. We maximize revenue to MT and don't have to worry about people cheating on taxes because FWP collects the money directly. There is no line for fairness in your argument. You are just trying to maximize the amount of money disregarding how broadly that money is distributed through the economy (second order effects).
I recognize the outfitter's business and their benefit to Montana and wildlife. But we need a compromise that works for all groups and can last. The system is a mess. Right now that compromise looks impossible as legislature keeps trying to reduce the product availability and maximize "profit".

I won't bore everyone with the flow where the money goes, but it certainly affects more than a few hundred. Grocery stores, gas stations, ATV/UTV dealerships, car/implement, NAPA, tire dealerships all affected by the money paid to landowners, guides, outfitters.

Your idea of a market driven license is something that a few of us(outfitters) have been thinking about. I wonder how well received by the public it would be.

 

[Eric Albus]

The info in the FWP storymap shows that NR's way outspend Residents in Prairie County. There is no indication relative to access for us poors, versus the outfitted, however.

It wouldn't be to difficult for that to happen, a little over 1000 Res. in Prairie Cnty. During hunting season the population of NR hunters outnumbers the R 2:1, maybe more.

 

[BWALKER77]

So based on what you do is the norm for NR DIY? Exactly opposite from what I see during season.

Yea, it is the norm for most ive ran into. However I'm not hanging out in bars or cafes. I'm actually hunting.

 

[Eric Albus]

Digging into the economics a bit, and I'm not seeing anything relative to bird hunting yet, but the overwhelming data shows that unguided hunters & anglers put far more money into the local economies than outfitted clients.


Here's the Outfitter study that folks like to quote: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

About $55 million for hunting outfitters. Versus over $76 million for fishing, and when you combine the user days between all outfitted water sports, you get around 365,000 sports, or over 1/2 of the 700,000 people who utilize outfitter services in MT. The rest of those are comprised of skiers (who spend the most per day, fyi), hikers, bikers and hunters.


Compare that to the overall spending for big game hunting & fishing: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/montana-outdoor-recreation-economy-report.pdf

NON-outfitted hunters & anglers are pouring hundreds of millions in to the state. around $842 million for fishing ($919.2 million minus the $76 mil for outfitted), and $330 million for non-outfitted hunting.

And, utilizing this 2016 Storymap from FWP we can see that the expenditures are concentrated in areas with significant public land in Western MT: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=0fa1de4222074cdeb7dbf0710ecb2ee0

SO the takeaway here is that outfitting is low impact/high revenue, but isn't the juggernaut that some would have you believe.

Ben, take the numbers into consideration. 8000 hunters vs. 20-25,000, outfitted hunting clients leave a small footprint with a very deep impact economically. Very low impact/high economic value.

 

[BWALKER77]

I won't bore everyone with the flow where the money goes, but it certainly affects more than a few hundred. Grocery stores, gas stations, ATV/UTV dealerships, car/implement, NAPA, tire dealerships all affected by the money paid to landowners, guides, outfitters.

Your idea of a market driven license is something that a few of us(outfitters) have been thinking about. I wonder how well received by the public it would be.

I'm all for market driven licenses. Cut the Nr licenses in half and double the price. Win win for the state.

 

[TheJason]

Yea, it is the norm for most ive ran into. However I'm not hanging out in bars or cafes. I'm actually hunting.

Gitcher woofs yet?

 

[Eric Albus]

The heartburn I have, and others will also, with a market driven license it will allow the elite wealthy, trophy ranch owning, no access giving, absentee landowner a "free-ride" to license. I'd rather see them bleed a little and have to deal with an outfitter for license. By the way, I'd feel this way even if I was not an outfitter, so spare me the comments if you don't like the idea.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm always wondering just when outfitters are going to start contributing even a single penny to help pay for wildlife management?

Sportsmen stock the shelves, pay the entire bill, and the outfitters take with both hands and never even think of slowing down at the cash register.

More free-loading, I guess it just standard operating procedure...and we wonder why they legislate guaranteed tags?

 

[shoots-straight]

The clients I build houses for are spending exponentially more than outfitted hunters.
A guaranteed tag would be a nice “value added”, touch for my business.

It would make that second home way more attractive to some if they knew they could hunt every year without having to bother with applications and the uncertainty of whether they will draw. Many have family and friends whom they want to hunt with.

I think one guaranteed tag for ten consecutive years for every $100K of home value is reasonable. This is only if they have their home built by a licensed MT contractor. That would equal $10K per tag brought into MT.

Expect to see a good “conservative capitalist” legislator to understand the value of this proposition.

Get to the back of the line with the rest of the peons. My industry deserves priority.

Gerald Martin for Governor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tjones]

I'm all for market driven licenses. Cut the Nr licenses in half and double the price. Win win for the state.

How long have you lived in Montana?

 

[RobertD]

I'm all for market driven licenses.

Then you are against set-asides for outfitters, no?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, take the numbers into consideration. 8000 hunters vs. 20-25,000, outfitted hunting clients leave a small footprint with a very deep impact economically. Very low impact/high economic value.

Then outfitters shouldn't need handouts to be in business. Right?

According to the BBER study, it's somewhere around 17400 outfitted clients for MT, but yes, I believe I did state that it was high dollar/low impact in some regards. In others, it's high impact as animals are hazed away from public, hunters are threatened with trespass citations on public land/state land, and lack of meaningful access to areas of harboring create more economic impact.

Prairie county for example. If we had a mechanism by which, IDK, the board of outfitters could use to show how many of those NR users are outfitted versus DIY, then perhaps we could further extrapolate why Prairie County's economics are tilted so heavily towards the NR hunter. But that's tough to come by now, since MOGA has spent the last 4 sessions removing safeguards for the public to know these things about their resources (You should be thanking Bullock on that, btw. He catered to outfitters - just in a different way).

Right now, it looks like outfitter leases/private hunt clubs/landowner outfitters are dominating that county, based on the fact NR's spend twice as much as resident hunters.

So maybe it's the outfitters who should pony up the cash for a game damage program. About $5 million ought to cover it. You know, to help cover the cost of your impacts.

But regardless of all of this, and according to the data, outfitting is less of an economic driver than general DIY hunters, resident and non.