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

[Schaaf]

So is the trajectory of a turd in the toilet.

Holy hell.

Pure poetry.
Mind if I forward this to my former community college creative writing professor?

 

[TheJason]

Holy hell.

Pure poetry.
Mind if I forward this to my former community college creative writing professor?

Feel free. I channeled my inner Hemingway.

 

[Schaaf]

Feel free. I channeled my inner Hemingway.

I take back all the mildly rude things I’ve said about you on here.

 

[Eric Albus]

LOL shcaaf and JLS....that's as funny as turds in punch bowls

 

[Brad W]

I wanted to add some fact checking on Senator Ellsworth here for folks to think about/respond to:

1: Ellsworth stated that BMA acreage had declined from 8.2 to 7.2 million acres over the last 10 years but neglected to give any reason for that. Since BMA funding is tied to non-resident tag fees and those increase every year there should be more money in the pot for BMAs not less. What is the real reason for the lost BMA acreage?

2: Ellsworth stated that the new outfitted license would cost $200 more than the standard NR draw license and that would bring in an additional $2.4-2.8 million for additional BMA and access easement. The upper end of claimed current outfitter usage(45%) of the available tags = 10890 tags. Multiply that by $200 and you get $2,178,000 but he is neglecting to account for two offsets. One is the additional cost of administering the program for FWP. That number is unknown. The second more important factor is that the state will be losing all of the preference point money associated with those tags. As it stands it takes 2 preference points to guarantee drawing an NR tag. At $50 per preference point the state would be losing up to $100 on each of those outfitter tags. If the draw odds get worse and more preference points are required to guarantee drawing this will further reduce potential income. If you extrapolate this out it means that at four preference points the state will see a net loss in revenue because of this bill

3: Ellsworth and MOGA claimed this bill will not effect Non-resident odds. The math is pretty simple. If 30 NR apply for 20 tags they have a 66% chance of drawing. If the outfitters automatically get their 45% (9 tags) that means there are 21 NR applying for 11 tags which equals 52% chance of drawing. As soon as this bill passes NR odds drop significantly.

 

[WIbiggame]

@Eric Albus, let's say we agree with you and MOGA that this won't affect NR draw odds bc you outiftters will only be getting guaranteed tags for the clients you have now, so therefore the odds stay the same bc these NR were getting the NR tags already.

With that assumption you are 100% correct but that is a horrible or in the political realm a great use of statistics to make the numbers say what you want. In the last 3 years NR applications for just elk has increased 19.5%. So your clients odds wouldn't change bc they are GUARANTEED tags but the regular NR DIY odds would drop by about 16% a year if this trend in NR applications continues.

 

[Big Shooter]

So, apparently there are some misconceptions on here that need to be “respectfully“ cleared up.

A) There is absolutely NOTHING in this Bill that says ANYTHING about a ”Transferable Landowner Tag“. They do not exist! Since 1990 there have been 2000 Landowner Sponsored B-11 (Deer combo) licenses available. When they do the drawing, those are drawn first and the remainder of the 2000 that are not used go into the General draw pool to be drawn from for all applicants. This is the process every year. So with that being said, there have been NO additional tags added.

B) The 60% of all non-resident licenses has now been whittled down. Yesterday, prior to the hearing, Albus and I and a couple of other guys looked over numbers from years past, did quite a little math, and came up with accurate numbers that can actually be proven. This percentage is around 40-45%. Albus and I would both agree that 60% was a little much. 45% of the available licenses will put us about par to what our current use is.

C) This bill should have little, if any, negative affect on the Non-Resident draw odds due to the fact that Non-Resident guided hunters are currently using 40-45% of the available Non-Resident licenses. (Refer to point B).

D) What is the #1 complaint that we all hear at the end of every season (this past one being the worst)?
Over-crowding on accessible public and Block Management is the answer. Even to the extent that some bafoons were accusing the FWP of issuing more tags than ever before, which most on this site would agree didn’t happen. There were plenty of outfitters that lost a lot of clients in the draw, which means that those licenses ended up in the hands of DIY Non-Residents. That’s great, I have no problem with that........but....those hunters that were fortunate enough to draw those tags had to hunt somewhere and that is one reason that it appeared that there were way more “orange coats” on the public landscape. Again, I have no problem with that.

5) It was brought to our attention this morning that one of the opponents to this Bill yesterday is operating a
”Hunt Club” in Montana. This is not a rumor and is factual. No doubt he would oppose the bill if he fears his “clients“ draw odds might go in the tank, which they won’t. (Refer to point B)

I respect everyone’s opinion on here, don’t totally agree with all of them, but damn sure respect them. We all have knee jerk reactions at times without totally understanding all that is going on or getting brought forward, myself included.

Rod Paschke

 

[BWALKER77]

@Eric Albus, let's say we agree with you and MOGA that this won't affect NR draw odds bc you outiftters will only be getting guaranteed tags for the clients you have now, so therefore the odds stay the same bc these NR were getting the NR tags already.

With that assumption you are 100% correct but that is a horrible or in the political realm a great use of statistics to make the numbers say what you want. In the last 3 years NR applications for just elk has increased 19.5%. So your clients odds wouldn't change bc they are GUARANTEED tags but the regular NR DIY odds would drop by about 16% a year if this trend in NR applications continues.

We can help the draw odds by raising tag price 75%.

 

[Hunt West]

Sadly every state I’ve hunted has some sort of outfitter welfare with the exception of AZ and currently MT.

NM- LO tags and outfitter draw
CO- LO tags and RFW
NV- outfitter draw, LO tags
UT- CWMU, LO tags
ID- LO/outfitter tags
WY- wilderness law

 

[WIbiggame]

This bill should have little, if any, negative affect on the Non-Resident draw odds due to the fact that Non-Resident guided hunters are currently using 40-45% of the available Non-Resident licenses.

Please see my above post. The only odds not being hurt are your clients who would get the guaranteed tags.

 

[Hunt West]

So, apparently there are some misconceptions on here that need to be “respectfully“ cleared up.

A) There is absolutely NOTHING in this Bill that says ANYTHING about a ”Transferable Landowner Tag“. They do not exist! Since 1990 there have been 2000 Landowner Sponsored B-11 (Deer combo) licenses available. When they do the drawing, those are drawn first and the remainder of the 2000 that are not used go into the General draw pool to be drawn from for all applicants. This is the process every year. So with that being said, there have been NO additional tags added.

B) The 60% of all non-resident licenses has now been whittled down. Yesterday, prior to the hearing, Albus and I and a couple of other guys looked over numbers from years past, did quite a little math, and came up with accurate numbers that can actually be proven. This percentage is around 40-45%. Albus and I would both agree that 60% was a little much. 45% of the available licenses will put us about par to what our current use is.

C) This bill should have little, if any, negative affect on the Non-Resident draw odds due to the fact that Non-Resident guided hunters are currently using 40-45% of the available Non-Resident licenses. (Refer to point B).

D) What is the #1 complaint that we all hear at the end of every season (this past one being the worst)?
Over-crowding on accessible public and Block Management is the answer. Even to the extent that some bafoons were accusing the FWP of issuing more tags than ever before, which most on this site would agree didn’t happen. There were plenty of outfitters that lost a lot of clients in the draw, which means that those licenses ended up in the hands of DIY Non-Residents. That’s great, I have no problem with that........but....those hunters that were fortunate enough to draw those tags had to hunt somewhere and that is one reason that it appeared that there were way more “orange coats” on the public landscape. Again, I have no problem with that.

5) It was brought to our attention this morning that one of the opponents to this Bill yesterday is operating a
”Hunt Club” in Montana. This is not a rumor and is factual. No doubt he would oppose the bill if he fears his “clients“ draw odds might go in the tank, which they won’t. (Refer to point B)

I respect everyone’s opinion on here, don’t totally agree with all of them, but damn sure respect them. We all have knee jerk reactions at times without totally understanding all that is going on or getting brought forward, myself included.

Rod Paschke

If you don’t understand how draw odds will be affected (your point C) then I just don’t know how to explain it to you. There are several posts showing the math.... it’s easy to understand I promise.

see post 708 bullet point #3....

 

[WIbiggame]

We can help the draw odds by raising tag price 75%.

Don't need them helped the outfitters are the only ones asking for that.

 

[WIbiggame]

We can help the draw odds by raising tag price 75%.

Would still be about $4000 cheaper than getting a welfare tag.

 

[Schaaf]

. We all have knee jerk reactions at times without totally understanding all that is going on or getting brought forward, myself included.

Rod Paschke

I understand it is a direct repudiation of I-161.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So far this conversation has focused only on the effects of NR’s trying to draw a general tag. The effects don’t stop there. This bill will also have a negative impact on a DIY NR’s ability to draw a special permit for a limited area since a general tag is a prerequisite for being able to draw a permit.
Even though he can buy bonus points he will only have the possibility of drawing on years he draws a general license.
An outfitted hunter is going to have an advantage since he is guaranteed to be entered in the special permit draw every year since his prerequisite tags are guaranteed.

 

[WIbiggame]

But @Gerald Martin this bill "WON'T AFFECT NR DRAW ODDS" havent you been listening

 

[Wind Gypsy]

There were plenty of outfitters that lost a lot of clients in the draw, which means that those licenses ended up in the hands of DIY Non-Residents.

Rod Paschke

But had those licenses been reserved for outfitters and the DIY non-residents didn't get them.. the DIY NR draw odds wouldn't have changed?

 

[NDGuy]

God all this makes me depressed. Never thought starting to apply for points 6 years ago would turn into this complete shitshow.

The direction it's headed makes me sad for my kids.

 

[WIbiggame]

, Albus and I and a couple of other guys looked over numbers from years past, did quite a little math, and came up with accurate numbers that can actually be proven.

This is pretty basic math not what I would consider "quite a little math" you take the last 3 years of clients add them together than divide by 3. There is your average number that was mentioned last night in the meeting. Now if you were trying to fudge numbers and find creative ways to spin it (cough cough this won't hurt NR draw odds) than yes that would take "quite a little math"

 

[406dn]

C) This bill should have little, if any, negative affect on the Non-Resident draw odds due to the fact that Non-Resident guided hunters are currently using 40-45% of the available Non-Resident licenses. (Refer to point B).



Rod Paschke

Rod, for the same reason you want to assure that your clients get a tag is the reason SOME ONE won't get a tag that otherwise would have in a random draw.

It can be no other way. If you increase the odds for one subset, you diminish the odds in the remaining subset. Frankly, you would have more credibility if you just admitted it. Spinning mathematical nonsense is stupid at best, dishonest at worst.

There are implications to the resident sportmen as well. Many have out of state friends and extended family,,,,who like hunting in Montana. These are some of the people taking in the shorts so that an outfitter can guarantee a client a license. I'm sorry it bothers me that our chance to hunt with out of state family and friends is damaged, so that an outfitter gets the first 40-45% of the licenses before any other non resident gets a crack at them.