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

[Gerald Martin]

My humor was lost....as usual.

Captain obvious was overlooked in plain sight. It’s hard to separate the sarcasm from the sincere in this thread sometimes.

 

[sacountry]

Captain obvious was overlooked in plain sight. It’s hard to separate the sarcasm from the sincere in this thread sometimes.

All I know is that you're a hater.....but said in the nicest way possible

 

[406dn]

Total agreement here.

You're right....the wealthy move to the front of the line, but that's better than watching them get out of the line and taking their money to other states. Further, if properly managed by the state (and I know that statement is fraught with issues), then those who can't afford to be at the front of the line benefit indirectly, hopefully with more Block Mgmt land to hunt. Honestly, the Block program needs a LOT more cash to make Block $$$ close to as appealing as Outfitter $$$. It'll never be the same because outfitters will always be able to promise less land stress than the Block program, BUT we need to close the gap.

And I'm not suggesting all NR tags become market based.....just 10% of them maybe. We don't want hardworking North Dakota DIY hunters to miss out on tagging a beautiful 3 year old 140" muley in Wolf Point.

You make a good point. Some states are already comfortable with letting money walk to the front of the line.

i will say, what you propose is clearly preferable to what the state legislature just passed into law.

 

[Gerald Martin]

All I know is that you're a hater.....but said in the nicest way possible

Until I start getting my very own personal derogatory nicknames, I will always doubt my effectiveness as a hater.

 

[sacountry]

Until I start getting my very own personal derogatory nicknames, I will always doubt my effectiveness as a hater.

Is that an open invitation to help?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Is that an open invitation to help?

Only if said as kindly as possible. Haters got feelings too you know.

 

[SAJ-99]

You make a good point. Some states are already comfortable with letting money walk to the front of the line.

They are regardless. The issue is making sure the state (and residents) collect the money they pay to move to the front of the line and ensuring they pay fair value for that. Just letting them purchase another preference point is a stinking joke. If there are 500 NRs that are willing to shell out thousands more for a tag, then they can shell it out to the state and it can be funneled into block management to make it more competitive. Any solution is going to have problems. Maybe we just need to find the least worst option?

 

[sacountry]

They are regardless. The issue is making sure the state (and residents) collect the money they pay to move to the front of the line and ensuring they pay fair value for that. Just letting them purchase another preference point is a stinking joke. If there are 500 NRs that are willing to shell out thousands more for a tag, then they can shell it out to the state and it can be funneled into black management to make it more competitive. Any solution is going to have problems. Maybe we just need to find the least worst option?

You mayyyyyy want take a moment to edit your post.....let me rephrase....you probably should take a moment to edit your post.

 

[SAJ-99]

You mayyyyyy want take a moment to edit your post.

What did I miss?

 

[sacountry]

What did I miss?

funneled into block management

 

[SAJ-99]

funneled into black management

Opps. LOL. even reread so fast I missed it the second time.

 

[sacountry]

Opps. LOL. even reread so fast I missed it the second time.

Just trying to help a brother out

 

[Derek44]

What you fail to understand is that I’m not “selling the resource”. I am selling my service, just like restaurant or machinery dealer. My product is like a car on a showroom floor. If someone doesn’t want what I’m selling I go without the sale.
The clientele that I take does not compete with the R or DIY NR for accessible lands/game.

But they do compete with the DIY guy for the resource. Maybe not the accessible lands, but the license!! And without the license you don’t get to pursue the game. I tell you what, since you think I am just an imbecile, why don’t you do me a favor and explain to me in layman terms, just why it is that your clientele is more “entitled” to a tag than I am. Would it be right if our government stepped in and said that only the landowners that had ample money to spend on my services were allowed to get FPA permits and log their property. Some guys like to do the timber harvest themselves. Should the government tell those guys that since they aren’t hiring a local logger, they have to go to the back of the bus to get their permits and sorry but it may be a few years??

I seriously have no grief with outfitters. I think it’s an awesome service for those that decide to use it. And I definitely don’t have any personal beef with you. I’m just trying to see where people with such conservative views can justify letting Big Brother step in where they truly don’t belong.

 

[shoots-straight]

Guys, we kinda circled back and took a swipe at the reasons for I-161.

The Outfitters broke the contract with the Resident sportsmen on the access, / purchase of lands for hunting outright, that "Habitat Montana" was set up to do.

IF, and that's a giant IF MOGA came out in support of those things, even if the state gained lands as an increase in net acreage, did not fight against us(the resident sportsmen) trying to get lands in public hands, then we might be able to talk OSL again.

They are afraid that they might lose lands that they have exclusive rights to hunt with paid clients on.
I know hell would have to freeze over first though.
Collectively it would combat the absentee landowners problem, and also deal a blow to hunt clubs.

Hell the outfitters could even hunt these lands vs those uses. Win Win for all.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Do the hunt club members and absentee landowners have to draw like every other hunter or do they get some sort of preference?

 

[antlerradar]

Guys, we kinda circled back and took a swipe at the reasons for I-161.

The Outfitters broke the contract with the Resident sportsmen on the access, / purchase of lands for hunting outright, that "Habitat Montana" was set up to do.

IF, and that's a giant IF MOGA came out in support of those things, even if the state gained lands as an increase in net acreage, did not fight against us(the resident sportsmen) trying to get lands in public hands, then we might be able to talk OSL again.

They are afraid that they might lose lands that they have exclusive rights to hunt with paid clients on.
I know hell would have to freeze over first though.
Collectively it would combat the absentee landowners problem, and also deal a blow to hunt clubs.

Hell the outfitters could even hunt these lands vs those uses. Win Win for all.

I could think about getting behind OSL again for these reasons.
Two restrictions I would want on the OSL tags.

With the past OSL tags some outfitters were just a middle man and provided tags to absentee owners and hunt clubs. This practice needs to be eliminated.

Outfitters are worried about repeat customers. I can see there point. repeat customers are the bread and butter of any business. Make OSL tags only good for customers that have used the outfitter two or more times. This would give an advantage to outfitters that provide a quality service and the poor outfitters would be quickly weeded out of the industry. Montana could use a little weeding in the outfitting industry.

I would also allow outfitters to use OSL licenses when a substantial part of the hunt is donated to charity.

Sadly I am not sure shoots-straight made the if big enough.

 

[antlerradar]

Do the hunt club members and absentee landowners have to draw like every other hunter or do they get some sort of preference?

They may be eligible for the land owner sponsor licenses. If not they have to draw like any other DYI nonresident. This is why the old OSL licenses were so hard on them and why the number of hunt clubs and absentee owners grew so much when the draw odds were 100 %.

 

[sacountry]

I could think about getting behind OSL again for these reasons.
Two restrictions I would want on the OSL tags.

With the past OSL tags some outfitters were just a middle man and provided tags to absentee owners and hunt clubs. This practice needs to be eliminated.

Outfitters are worried about repeat customers. I can see there point. repeat customers are the bread and butter of any business. Make OSL tags only good for customers that have used the outfitter two or more times. This would give an advantage to outfitters that provide a quality service and the poor outfitters would be quickly weeded out of the industry. Montana could use a little weeding in the outfitting industry.

I would also allow outfitters to use OSL licenses when a substantial part of the hunt is donated to charity.

Sadly I am not sure shoots-straight made the if big enough.

 

[mtmiller]

Outfitters are worried about repeat customers. I can see there point. repeat customers are the bread and butter of any business.

Repeat doesn’t have to be a one year time line. If you have enough satisfied customers they have the opportunity to return every two or three years....just like any other NR.

There I go rehashing the common point.

 

[sacountry]

Repeat doesn’t have to be a one year time line. If you have enough satisfied customers they have the opportunity to return every two or three years....just like any other NR.

There I go rehashing the common point.

yeah I don't want to go down that rabbit trail. I'd rather look at how to derive mutual benefit from two situations that could help each other. One the desire for guaranteed NR tags and the other being more financial resources for FWP's programs.