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

[Irrelevant]

For example, I’ve brought up over and over to several-we’ll pick on BHA, but there are others- that Montana is moving in a dangerous direction with the endless elk slaughter. Ryan Busse has told me more than once that there is more elk than ever and that we need to trust science and the biologists. “There are plenty of elk in Region 1” is a direct quote.

To their credit, they allow unpaid volunteers to mention that they’re affiliated with BHA when they comment against everything that we’ve seen over the last decade to get us to the brink of privatizing the elk herd.

I’ve seen another friend that lives in NM and has a brother in Colorado, both that are actively involved in conservation work, bring up to BHA leadership multiple times that they need help fighting the privatization of wildlife in their state and that this fight is linked to the fight for access to public places to hunt. Crickets-always.

The Montana Wildlife Federation is what leadership looks like. I’m going to send them $100 right now actually, because they consistently show up.

I've been following the Montana Wildlife federation a bit lately and definitely like what I see.

However, https://www.backcountryhunters.org/speak_up_for_reasonable_elk_management_in_montana

 

[TheJason]

I've been following the Montana Wildlife federation a bit lately and definitely like what I see.

However, https://www.backcountryhunters.org/speak_up_for_reasonable_elk_management_in_montana

They've always been a good group. They did some really good access work way back in the middle to late 90's.

 

[bigsky2]

I've been following the Montana Wildlife federation a bit lately and definitely like what I see.

However, https://www.backcountryhunters.org/speak_up_for_reasonable_elk_management_in_montana

Not trying to turn this into a thread about BHA, but I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[runningmt]

Use the below information to contact committee member(s).

SEN. STEVE HINEBAUCH - SD18

CHAIR

[email protected]

(406) 365-7967

(406) 989-1372


SEN. BOB BROWN - SD7

VICE CHAIR

[email protected]

(406) 242-0141


SEN. TOM JACOBSON - SD11

VICE CHAIR

[email protected]

(406) 868-9814


SEN. MARK BLASDEL - SD4

[email protected]

(406) 261-3269


SEN. JILL COHENOUR - SD 42

[email protected]

(406) 227-1144

SEN. JASON ELLSWORTH (R) - SD43

[email protected]

(406) 360-0009

SEN. PAT FLOWERS (D) - SD32

[email protected]

(406) 580-0035

SEN. GREG HERTZ (R) - SD6

[email protected]

(406) 253-9505

SEN. DAVID HOWARD (R) - SD29

[email protected]

(406) 633-2762

SEN. BOB KEENAN (R) - SD5

[email protected]

(406) 250-4111

SEN. EDIE MCCLAFFERTY (D) - SD38

[email protected]

(406) 490-5873

Thank you for the leg work!

 

[Irrelevant]

Not trying to turn this into a thread about BHA, but I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.

Absolutely nothing, I shared it because I wasn't sure where @MTGomer got the idea that they were somehow in support of the status quo for the emp, because that wasn't what I'd seen.

 

[stealthy_bowman]

What total BS. As a non-resident who hunts Montana a lot, this is very disappointing news. Emails sent.

 

[Eric Albus]

Elkduds, so far you are about the only one who has it correct. This bill will decrease opportunity for on your own public land non-resident hunters, who compete directly with RESIDENT Montana public land hunters, looks like a win for residents.


I do not have time to go into the post Gevock put up from MWF, but I hopefully will be able to clarify some of the either outright lies, misinformation, or whatever that narrative is as soon as I have an hour to sit down. One thing I will clear up right out the gate, the bill DOES NOT create 2000 "new landowner license", those license have been around since '87, and went to 2000 in 1990.

 

[Gevock]

SB 143 would create outfitter-sponsored and landowner big game licenses. It would add more non-resident licenses to the Montana cap on those, and allocate the majority of those for hunters who are outfitter sponsored.



It would harm hunters who want to come to Montana for a do-it-yourself hunt, lead to more leasing of private lands by outfitters, harm hunter-landowner relations and impede solid wildlife management. Montanans voted on this in 2010 and soundly rejected outfitter-sponsored licenses.

SB 143 will be heard next week before the Senate Fish and Game Committee. Here are three things you can do to work to kill this bill.

1. Contact members of the Senate Fish and Game committee HERE, and tell them to vote NO on SB 143. PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but the points that we’ve rejected this before, it harms access for all hunters, and that it damages our ability to effectively manage wildlife. Or leave a message with the state switchboard at 406-444-4800.
   1. Fill out the form provided.
   2. Select Committees
   3. Select (S) Fish and Game
   4. Select Bill Type (SB) and Bill Number SB 143
   5. Select Against
   6. Provide your message
2. Write a letter to the editor for your local newspaper. Again, use your own voice, but if you need help please contact MWF Conservation Director Nick Gevock at [email protected].
3. Testify at the hearing on SB 143 at 3 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 2. YOU MUST REGISTER BY NOON ON MONDAY, FEB. 1 to testify. To do that, go here and fill out the form for SB 143. For more information view HOW TO TESTIFY REMOTELY.

This is a major bill that will affect the future of hunting for all public hunters in Montana. Thanks for being engaged and for being an LAT member.

As always, our bill tracker is up on our homepage at www.montanawildlfie.org on the top under “Capitol Report 2021”. P.S. Encourage your friends and family to join our Legislative Action Team.

 

[TheJason]

This makes it quite apparent to me MOGA has no soul.

Eric is quite correct in that this IS a benefit to the resident DIY hunter on public lands. That is, if you’re so stupid to believe ANYTHING will be done in the EMP to better the public land elk opportunity.

The much greater likelihood is the NR DIY guy will take it in the ass, the average resident hunter will feel better because the NR guy took it in the ass, and then years down the road the resident hunter will realize he 1) has less access to private elk than he used to and 2) the hunting on public land is terrible. Oh and 3) the MOGA guys made a hell of a profit off his stupidity.

 

[BuzzH]

This makes it quite apparent to me MOGA has no soul.

What ever made you think they ever have?

Business as usual with that group.

 

[MTLabrador]

This bill will decrease opportunity for on your own public land non-resident hunters, who compete directly with RESIDENT Montana public land hunters, looks like a win for residents.

I’m pretty sure Montana residents already told you what they wanted with I-161.

 

[BuzzH]

Elkduds, so far you are about the only one who has it correct. This bill will decrease opportunity for on your own public land non-resident hunters, who compete directly with RESIDENT Montana public land hunters, looks like a win for residents.

Win for what residents?

Not those that have businesses supported by non resident dollars. DIY Non Residents stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, buy junk food at the local gas station, get tires fixed at the local tire shops, etc. etc. etc.

What benefit does a local hotel or restaurant have when an outfitted client stays at the outfitters lodge and is served meals cooked by the outfitters old lady?

What benefit does the State get when a bunch of the outfitters and guides arent even Montana residents? The NR guides and outfitters take their paychecks back home, where they're from, to spend it.

None...that's the benefit they get.

This is just one thing, and one thing only, outfitter welfare...you don't care about Resident hunters any more than you care about local resident businesses (other than your own).

The only competition you're worried about is DIY guys competing for tags your clients don't draw.

Nice try...

How about just be honest for a change? Tell it like it is, your only concern is your business and wealthy NR clients...

 

[Pucky Freak]

Are there any other western states that have this in place?

Every state is different, but most have some version of outfitter welfare. NM is probably the closest with a generous outfitter tag pool, and landowner tags that can be sold/transferred at a profit. WY has private land tags (which are also valid for DIY hunters at walk-in areas), and the wilderness rule which creates a de facto outfitter pool by geography, AK requires hunts to be guided for NR’s for certain species, OR and ID have outfitter tags, etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m pretty sure Montana residents already told you what they wanted with I-161.

I-161 passed with overwhelming support and they did it with all volunteer labor and small donations.

I bet if this bill passes, the next initiative to eliminate outfitter licenses will be very well funded & far more targeted.

 

[406dn]

Elkduds, so far you are about the only one who has it correct. This bill will decrease opportunity for on your own public land non-resident hunters, who compete directly with RESIDENT Montana public land hunters, looks like a win for residents.

I think a more accurate statement would be that outfitters are in direct competition with on your own non resident hunters for a capped number of big game licenses.

It takes entitled attitude to think the state should guarantee anyone a certain number of clients. Presently, each and every non resident can choose to use an outfitter, or not. It is evident by the present efforts of the outfitting lobby, a large number of non resident hunters do not find sufficient value in using an outfitter. Perhaps it would be better to find the reasons that is so.

While I do not have much hope that this bill will fail, I do have hope it will be quickly reversed by an initiative in two years.

 

[WIbiggame]

Thank you everyone for posting on this. Emails will be sent from WI tomorrow. This is really disheartening as a NR who enjoys coming to your GREAT state to hunt! Hope all our voices are heard.

 

[SaskHunter]

If a good chunk of NR licenses go over to outfitters, this means the "outfitter" pool will probably see a decrease in point creep while the normal NR pool will see a drastic increase in point creep.

Essentially, people with money will have better odds to hunt pricey tags they can afford and this will only benefit the outfitters and possibly limited impact on local economy. With tremendous point creep in the now reduced NR pool of applicants, there will be much less interest from NR who throw tons of cash in the state when applying. At the end of the day, the state of MT would see less money from guys like me...

 

[nontyp]

I've been following the Montana Wildlife federation a bit lately and definitely like what I see.

However, https://www.backcountryhunters.org/speak_up_for_reasonable_elk_management_in_montana

Lots of good folks in Montana BHA and I’m sure they’ll have something to say about this new bill.

 

[antlerradar]

The only competition you're worried about is DIY guys competing for tags your clients don't draw.

Outfitters also worry about wealthy nonresidents and residents bypassing them and leasing up or outright buying the best properties for themselves. Since 161 where I live the amount of outfitted properties has gone down, but the number of private leases has skyrocketed. I don't have the exact numbers but I would say it is safe to say the the private lease acreage exceeds that of the outfitter leased land. This bill would kill off any interest nonresidents have in going around the outfitters and leasing or buying hunting property for themselves.

 

[CUElk]

This stinks, I'll be sending some emails tomorrow.

My family has been coming to Montana for 15 years to hunt and hope to come this year. This will greatly diminish our chances of coming to hunt. As a diy hunter, i gladly support the local businesses where we hunt. But I'll be damned if I will give my money to an outfitter. I'll just find somewhere else to hunt.