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

[Nameless Range]

If that does end up being the case, is there any other recourse? When would this go into affect?

Has to go through the senate and house and the governor's desk.

I could be naive, but I feel I had a good interaction with my House Rep regarding this bill, and wonder if a lot of R's out there are feeling the pressure from the constituents.

 

[Big Fin]

The bill will get amended and will come out of committee. Your voices will be ignored or dismissed.

As expected, at this level. Just the way skids get greased. The fun is just beginning.

No compromise.

 

[TheJason]

If that does end up being the case, is there any other recourse? When would this go into affect?

It has to pass out of committee, pass the Senate floor, pass the House, and then be signed by the governor. It would be enacted at the start of the legislative year, so it would affect the 2022 drawing process.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As expected, at this level. Just the way skids get greased. The fun is just beginning.

No compromise.

Does anyone have an update on how the meeting is going?

Starts at 3 PM MST.

 

[Bullbrl]

It has to pass out of committee, pass the Senate floor, pass the House, and then be signed by the governor. It would be enacted at the start of the legislative year, so it would affect the 2022 drawing process.

Thank you!

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb, the Board of Outfitters has long been a joke. Their refusal to address their own issues has been embarrassing at times.

I don't disagree, but we have to look at the totality of what MOGA is trying to do this session to understand the final play. As I see it, MOGA is looking to wildly deregulate their own industry, while taking a large slice of the NR resource for their own use. By weakening the BOO (read the bill, it effectively neuters the board so there is no regulation of outfitters), they create a situation where nobody can hold them accountable for their actions, while they take more and more of the public resource for themselves.

It's a ballsy move to go all in like this, but they are getting Outfitters placed on the F&W commission and the Parks commission (Tabor & Kip). So it's a bare-naked attempt to overrun the public and place management of our fish & wildlife resources squarely under MOGA's control.

That's the end game here. Never forget that.

 

[Bullbrl]

As expected, at this level. Just the way skids get greased. The fun is just beginning.

No compromise.

What about doing an Elk Talk live with an interview with an outfitter? I'd love to see them answer many of the questions posted here and find out exactly how they support their position on the numbers they've presented....draw odds, money spent in Montana, etc.

I'd imagine that would be one of your highest viewed episodes ever....get "Honest" on there

 

[Big Fin]

That's the end game here. Never forget that.

Very true. This is a longer game. Much longer game. Short memories make for bad decisions.

Oh well.... Numquam cede, numquam dede!

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[TheJason]

That's the end game here. Never forget that.

You'll find no disagreement from me.

 

[TheJason]

In the video Ben linked, Cowboy Bob said there can't be any new outfitters in Montana. Is there still a moratorium on new outfitter licenses like there was in the late 90's early 2000's? Is the BOO still reviewing requests to expand an operations plan?

What Cowboy Bob neglected to tell you is the shell game that can be played. Outfitter signs a lease to a ranch, offers licenses to the absentee landowner(s) or family/friends as part of it, and then any Tom, Dick, or Harry can get a guides license to operate under said outfitter.

If there is not regulation on expansion of operating plans, any existing moratorium on outfitter numbers is really meaningless.

 

[Mountain Man]

For the life of me, I just can't figure out how people that pretend to pride themselves so much on their strong, rural work ethic and rugged individualistic way of life are so eager to take handouts from the government. And they're not just willing to do it quietly out of embarrassment and hope nobody notices it. They're loudly advocating for it, where everybody can see it.
If you can't make a living in our country, you are supposed to get smarter or work harder or do something else, not stand around with your hand out.

I completely agree with this sentiment. I think this aspect of the issue is what bothers me the most, even more so than the potential reduction of draw odds for NR DIY hunters. You did a better job articulating the thought than I did in my post.

 

[WIbiggame]

Was reading today and stumbled across this seems pretty fitting in today's climate. Big thank you to @Big Fin for having our backs than, now, and for the future. Also thanks to everyone else making their voices heard.

Edit: poor form on my part this is a picture from the book "That Wild Country" By Mark Kenyon. If you haven't read it I highly recommend it.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does Montana FWP have a position on this? Regardless of whether or not the total non-resident tag allocation changes, if enough DIY non-residents like me "boycott" Montana and stop buying points for any hunts, won't that ultimately affect their budgets too?

 

[MTGomer]

Does Montana FWP have a position on this? Regardless of whether or not the total non-resident tag allocation changes, if enough DIY non-residents like me "boycott" Montana and stop buying points for any hunts, won't that ultimately affect their budgets too?

Someone more informed than me should answer, but I don’t think FWP takes positions. They may have someone standing by when the bill is heard to act as an informational witness and provide fiscal information, however.

 

[Eric Albus]

CPI did go down as apparently did license price this year. I had incorrectly figured 3% hike no matter what, never heard of a state run agency reducing prices(however involuntary).

I don’t remember who was using AZ as a model with their public lands, but excellent analogy. If Montana public land held the quality or private lands do there would be no issue. There would also be less leasing on account of only a moron would pay too dollar

 

[Eric Albus]

Top dollar to lease

 

[Bullbrl]

Top dollar to lease

I just wanted to let you know that I might not agree with everything you say and I hope this bill gets defeated but I really respect you for using your real name and coming on here knowing you're going to get the wrath.

No matter what happens, and unlike some of your anonymous cronies who really should have kept their mouths shut, I think you've earned some extra business from those who might want to use an outfitter in Montana.

 

[Chad E]

I don’t remember who was using AZ as a model with their public lands, but excellent analogy. If Montana public land held the quality or private lands do there would be no issue. There would also be less leasing on account of only a moron would pay too dollar

Then target a change in management of these public lands not an outfitter set aside the does nothing to address this issue.

 

[Gerald Martin]

CPI did go down as apparently did license price this year. I had incorrectly figured 3% hike no matter what, never heard of a state run agency reducing prices(however involuntary).

I don’t remember who was using AZ as a model with their public lands, but excellent analogy. If Montana public land held the quality or private lands do there would be no issue. There would also be less leasing on account of only a moron would pay too dollar

Eric, I agree with you that increasing the quality of public habitat for wildlife is something that should factor in to the conversation.

I don’t think it will happen for a long time if ever, though because improving quality is going to have to mean reducing the pressure on the resource. Any reduction of pressure via season shortening or special permits has always been fought against tooth and nail by resident hunters and outfitters who want “opportunity” regardless of the consequence to the resource.