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

[Browning Rifles]

By the way, I went yote calling with a friend who is a guide. I ask him about it and he had no clue. Just said, ......lost a lot of clients in the last few years and ain’t making enough to go to Arizona every winter...

 

[Buffs35]

My money and time may go elsewhere.

 

[shrapnel]

I have hunted the same trailhead for 8 years in Montana and the amount of vehicle's has increased at the trailhead a lot in the last 3 years. That increase is far out weighed by MT plates. My dad hunted this same area in the late 80s early 90s and just like everything it isn't like it used to be. With that being said I still don't see how NR are the problem when licenses have been capped.

I have hunted Montana my entire life and have observed the increase in NR hunters too. With all the drawbacks that have been mentioned here, the focus seems to be on outfitters and public land access.

What seems to be overlooked is the residue from diy videos and other hunting related filming on public and private land.

Randy is a nice guy, but his chosen vocation of diy videography has certainly contributed to this influx of out of state hunters and more pressure on the existing accessible public land. In one of his videos he posted a picture of a trailhead where I have been hunting all my life and every year since then, the number of NR and resident hunters has been increasing.

Every hunter wants his own secret spot, but with the technology we have today, that is fast becoming a thing of the past. At some point we need to look at all the contributing factors in the increase of of pressure here in Montana.

Before Randy’s show with the trailhead, we were seeing guys geo-mapping the entire area where we have been hunting with the intention of selling that technology to other interested hunters so they could benefit from the comfort of their living room to discover what we had to find out for ourselves.

The desire to hunt, whether it is a privilege or right, needs to be protected. The worst that can happen to it is happening now as there is so much division among the hunting community. I have never been a fan of regulations and continue to work around all the disagreements that are exhibited here and try to enjoy what is left.

Maybe the outfitters are getting too much help with a bill like this, but that is why they are pushing this agenda to try and capture financial gain for personal reasons. If you don’t like it, there are plenty of ways to combat this issue and those have been posted on this thread. I’m not in support of the outfitters, but I don’t think they are the only ones profiting from the wildlife resources in Montana.

 

[Southern Elk]

If you are like me and sometimes struggle with writing your elected officials, here’s an easy way to do it with this link from BHA. Takes about 30 seconds.

Take Action

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[Ben Lamb]

@shrapnel there has been an increase in antlerless NR tags, and with the 17k cap on the deer/elk combo, but then you split that combo, add the Home to Hunt tags, and the massive increase in B tags for cows & does, then yes, you've got a large increase in NR's but ultimately, it's still about 10 % of the overall number of resident hunters.

As more land gets locked up for a variety of reasons, and more people are pushed over to public only, sure there is an increase in pressure. That's why many organizations have been fighting to protect & increase access programs over the last 10 years.

Want less pressure? Open more land to hunting. That means more fee title purchases of large & small tracts, easements of all kinds for access & ensuring our elected officials hear from folks on bills like this, which serve to make the problem worse.

 

[shoots-straight]

Easiest way to relieve pressure on Shrapnel's spot would be to make the quarter of the state with the best public access worth hunting again. By far the biggest driver on region 3 pressure is the lack of elk in region 1 and 2.

I hunted 6 hours in region 3 this year and glassed four bulls. I hunted region 1 and 2 somewhere between 20-25 days and never saw a legal elk.

AND the plan is to kill off many more elk in Region three, and the good areas left in Region 2. Not sure if there's many good regions left in 1. Until the sportsmen raise enough hell with the legislature over this issue this won't get better.

 

[Sytes]

So many variables... This outfitter allocation seems one of the many and I'm not sure how this issue is heavily conservation weighted whereas limited tags in challenged areas, shorter seasons, Archery OR rifle option, open access, and raise flippin' Resident fees would be at the top of my list - as an average joe hunter.

I appreciate support for outfitters. I don't have an issue with them, per say. I have my peeves and value for outfitter operations. However, support does not go towards mandatory NR client tags at the expense of DIY NR tags.

 

[longbow51]

I am for limiting privatization, which already exists and for limiting over exploitation of public lands.
If you dont like the rules imposed on you as a NR how about moving here? Simple solution.

Nooooooo! All full.

 

[devon deer]

@TWC see page 1 for email addresses, I sent to all of them but didn't get a single reply.
Cheers
Richard

 

[Browning Rifles]

Ok, how about this. If the outfitters want to “stabilize“ their industry and help with conservation, why not give them a percentage of the 8,500 cow elk tags allotted in regions 4 and 5. 004-00 and 005-00 tags.
They can get a bunch of clients and help manage the elk herds that are over objective. Win - Win? Oh, but I guess that won’t work because they won’t be able to charge $8,000.00 for a cow and stabilize their bank account.

 

[longbow51]

Warning, Arch-Druid Rant follows:

What gives a few the right to utilize a public resource for their profit, largely for free, selling it mostly to non-residents, while excluding those who live here from enjoying the resource? Tried to have a nice family float on the Madison lately? Or the Missouri? Or how about that river bottom whitetail hunt where you were welcome 15 years ago? "Sorry, we leased it."

Let's face it, this is not the 1930's and we have business opportunities other than ranching and guiding dudes. What's wrong with getting a year-round job, whether it's as a welder, mechanic, health care worker, teacher, plumber, electrician, etc? Heck, if you can't do anything useful, you could always go to law school lol. Just kidding. Most of us choose jobs based upon our ability to make a living. Then we won't have to kill what we love, as Aldo Leupold so eloquently said.

And if non-residents want to come to Montana and learn to row a boat and fly fish, or locate and stalk game, the experiences will be much richer and they are welcome.

Maybe part of the solution is to bring non-polluting, high-tech jobs to Montana so that we don't have to rely on selling our rivers and forests to the highest bidder.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

If you dont like the rules imposed on you as a NR how about moving here? Simple solution.

This is an incredibly lazy reply/proposed solution to a very nuanced issue wherein several parties have valid complaints and equities at stake.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Easiest way to relieve pressure on Shrapnel's spot would be to make the quarter of the state with the best public access worth hunting again. By far the biggest driver on region 3 pressure is the lack of elk in region 1 and 2.

I hunted 6 hours in region 3 this year and glassed four bulls. I hunted region 1 and 2 somewhere between 20-25 days and never saw a legal bull.

This is the reason why I drove seven hours every fall to hunt elk even though I lived about five miles from what used to be one of the most popular areas to hunt elk in Region 1.

There are still elk in 121 but the majority of the herds have moved down onto private lands in the valley due to year round pressure from wolves. The bulls get killed as soon as they grow a brow time because everyone who bought a 20 acre piece and moved in to the area has a tag in their pocket and shoots them when they drift through their property.

The area went from a 16-18/100 post season bull to cow ratio back in the early 2000’s to a 6-8/100 bull to cow ratio today.

Yet, there are still a dozen public land outfitters who charge 5-8k$ for a week of hunting the area. The two largest run over a hundred hunters per outfitter every year.

Not coincidentally, one of those outfitters holds one of the top positions in MOGA.

 

[Chad E]

I'm a little late to the party, and most of my thoughts have been well hashed out previously but I still want to get my two cents in on a issue that is important to me. My biggest frustration with this situation and consequently this thread is that there are outfitters and their supporters on here promoting various different theories as to why this is a good thing, then admitting they are "shooting high" thinking there will be a compromise on the percentage. How disingenuous can you be this is outfitter welfare plane and simple. I can't particularly fault the outfitters for supporting this as it is a huge benefit to them but to suggest there are these other benefits to it is crap. If your industry needs the state to give you a guarantee client base you are being subsidized. Socialism is the devil, until it benefits you.

I spent my 20's guiding waterfowl hunts across North America. I will never forget discussing the proposal to eliminate freelance hunting in the Canadian provinces by requiring licensed guides. If the conversation was between guides or outfitters it revolved around this will solve all our problems and make life easy as a guide/outfitter. Guaranteeing clients, less competition etc were all benefits to the outfitting industry period. If the conversation was with the waterfowling public it revolved around how this will stop rogue unlicensed guides from ruining the experience of hard working clientele that were duped by these unlicensed guides or how it would solve the issue of farmers having to deal with less than courteous hunters or any other of a half dozen BS spun up explanations that made it seem as though this was good for everyone. Half the guys promoting this were people who made a living in the waterfowl industry selling calls or decoys or promoting the "hardcore" waterfowl lifestyle to 20 something year old guys who were the main freelancers in Canada at the time. Even though I was guiding at the time I grew up as DYI hunter and many of my friends still hunted that way. I will never forget the complete hypocrisy of the situation and it was something I flat out couldn't stomach. I lost a lot of respect for a lot of people over the two faced way in which they promoted the pending regulations.

This proposal is the same thing. If the outfitters would at least grow a backbone and say we want this because it makes our job easier period I would have a little less angst against them but they continue to spin up explanations of how "trust us this is a good thing" or be careful what you wish for we will be throwing out wall tent camps all over the public lands. I think the old adage of don't piss down my back and tell me its raining applies perfectly here. If you industry can't adapt to changes it folds. It happens all the time in the US.

 

[TWC]

@TWC see page 1 for email addresses, I sent to all of them but didn't get a single reply.
Cheers
Richard

Email sent all the way from London.

 

[406dn]

Maybe part of the solution is to bring non-polluting, high-tech jobs to Montana so that we don't have to rely on selling our rivers and forests to the highest bidder.

Those sorts of jobs will come, or not. What won't happen even if they do, is many of the people guiding are not leaving or interested in that job or lifestyle. I'm not bashing on them, if I had not married and had children,,,, I may well have ended up guiding.

It is not entirely a negative if a resource is being over loved. It creates more advocates. What we have not yet figured out is how to share it to the benefit of,,,,,,well most everybody.

 

[chevyman181]

It would be cool if MT did something like ID has for Disabled Vets.

 

[mtmiller]

...........

 

[Big Fin]

One part that has been missing from this discussion is the "behind the scenes politics." I'll try my best to explain it.

There are some very large non-resident landowners in Montana who are not accustomed to having to stand in line with the unwashed masses, a/k/a the basket of deplorables.

These non-resident landowners and their non-resident friends have had a harder time drawing tags to hunt their big properties, due to these pesky peasants applying for this same pool of tags and now you actually need a preference point or two to draw this Montana tag. Yeah, these landowners can go in the landowner draw we have in Montana, but that is not as wide-ranging as is needed for the amounts of family and friends some of these landowners grew accustomed to hosting.

Many of these non-resident landowners, their spouses, family members, and business associates have made the maximum allowed donations to many of the Montana legislators who are involved in this effort (quick Google searches can show this information in your state). Those maxed out donations come with a lot of strings. One of the strings is to make sure these non-residents can get a tag for them, family, and friends, even if they have to enter into a deal with an outfitter.

This is an influential group behind the scenes asking for this. These non-resident landowners are quiet and they have their agents doing their lobbying. They are smart and know the current optics of non-resident landowners seeking more elk tags in this environment.

The outfitters benefit to a high degree and they are the face of this effort in public, as seen by their large presence in the Capitol to lobby on this bill. Given who has been doing the calling behind the scenes on behalf of their clients, there is little doubt that this effort is being encouraged by the wealthy non-resident landowner who dislikes being in the same line as the workin' folks.

Political debts get repaid. Just a matter of who pays the bill, in this case, the self-guided non-resident gets the largest share of the tab.

 

[BuzzH]

Bigfin, Good point on who is driving this bill.

I know of one ranch in E. Montana that the owner sold for partially this very reason. Couldnt get LO tags every year, but he also forgot about the requirement of having to be in possession of a special permit to hunt his own land too.

Got to be too much of a hassle, and those pesky wardens were just too demanding. You know enforcing the license requirements on eastern Montana elk, having to get a license to hunt lions, having to draw a tag for bighorn rams.