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

[huntin24/7]

Eric,
I think we can mostly agree that the problem isn’t the number of non res DIY guys or resident DIY guys as far as pressure on public lands. It’s the fact that the pressure isn’t spread out well. That’s not the fault of DIY guys regardless of residency. That’s just a lack of herd management by FWP.

 

[Addicting]

This whole thing boils down still to the lack of quality on accessible lands. If public land had quality nobody would care one iota what a landowner/outfitter/DIY was doing.

There is nothing in this bill that will change the quality of a hunt on accessible land. Long seasons, Shoulder seasons, a OTC tag for residents, rapid growing population needs to be addressed before you can even attempt to make a difference in the quality.

How does guaranteeing a outfitter tags change any of the other issues?

 

[BWALKER77]

Curious why you would hope it hurts DIY non res hunters? Sounds pretty selfish.

Because the number of DYI public land hunters in certain areas is out of controll.

 

[JLS]

Because the number of DYI public land hunters in certain areas is out of controll.

Pretty myopic way of addressing that.

 

[antlerradar]

I am thinking that Ranching for Wildlife would be an improvement over this bill.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Because the number of DYI public land hunters in certain areas is out of controll.

Man, look past the end of your nose. The reason DIY NR’s is out of control in those areas is because they don’t have other places to hunt that still have elk.
Region one and two are basically only a good place to take a nature walk when it comes to elk hunting.
Most of the elk inhabited areas of 4,5,6,7 are under special permit requirements. That leaves one secret region which has elk and is a general tag for everyone who wants to hunt elk without an outfitter.

Too much pressure on a limited resource is the problem. NR’s get 10% of the tags, pay for the majority of FWP’s budget, fund Block Management and yet “there’s too many of them.”
Novel idea- how about we cut about 25% of the season lengths and licenses across the board residents and NR alike and show we are serious about wildlife management?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pretty myopic way of addressing that.

To be fair, now that he's not a NR, he's all about shutting the door.

I'd not want to continue to defend this either, Eric. Perhaps the next time you guys want to take on issues that you know will be controversial, you'll actually reach out to the people & organizations who are voicing their opposition, rather than try to force a bill through without any input from resident or nonresident sportsmen & women.

 

[jt13]

I can't read this any other way then legislated outfitter welfare that no one stands to benefit from but themselves. Painting it any other way is putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[MTGomer]

@Eric Albus I agree with you about the quality issues you mention.
Will MOGA in the future, use what appears to be fairly influential lobbying power to change the season structure in Montana? Shorter seasons, more draw units, picking a unit, picking a weapon, etc?
Do you see any of these ideas as solutions or is reshuffling the tag deck where it ends?

 

[Gerald Martin]

gerald, that is a thought that has not entered into any conversation on our side one time, ever, even once...... my guess is that if anyone could do that math(way over my head) the advantage is so miniscule I can't even find a word to explain it. LE draw tags? Odds of drawing are pathetic.... "up to 10%" in a LE situation ? If you could guarantee me drawing "up to 10%" of the NR sheep take in 622 I would not have to worry about taking a sheep hunter very often.

I bet the guy who has 13 bonus points won’t agree that his investment is so minuscule it doesn’t matter.

Or the guy who wants to hunt the 900 tag and now will have to wait who knows how many more years than the three -five it takes now.

I agree with you that lack of quality hunting on public lands is a major problem that should be addressed. To your credit, I have heard you express a willingness to shorten deer seasons to improve mule deer quality, but I can guarantee you that if we tried to implement some management policies that would actually improve quality by lessening “opportunity” your entire industry would be on full force opposition.

 

[Big Shooter]

MTGomer and Gerald....we have spent hours and hours discussing season dates, season lengths, pick your Region and so on. We could not agree more with you guys on that. Maybe now with a new Director we can all come together with ideas and get that changed. A lot of folks are under the impression that because we are outfitters that we just have to hunt the rut......that is not the case. Personally, I would love to be done about the first week of November and leave things alone after that and go home. Hopefully we can get that done someday soon.

 

[Gerald Martin]

MTGomer and Gerald....we have spent hours and hours discussing season dates, season lengths, pick your Region and so on. We could not agree more with you guys on that. Maybe now with a new Director we can all come together with ideas and get that changed. A lot of folks are under the impression that because we are outfitters that we just have to hunt the rut......that is not the case. Personally, I would love to be done about the first week of November and leave things alone after that and go home. Hopefully we can get that done someday soon.

Good luck convincing some of the people who testified in favor of 143 who operate on public land and take over a hundred hunters per year on “trophy” elk hunts but their clients generally end up with a 3 1/2 year old muley even though they didn’t see a legal bull.

 

[Wildabeest]

Greg, the flaw is in that 45% of the NR take is a number on a dart board. The most ever taken with the OSL(only hard info available) was around 23-2400 deer and 5800-5900 elk/deer combo. We are hoping to get the BoO to give us a count on what current numbers are as we do not have this, last number for researching this they gave MOGA blew us out of the water. The general consensus amongst us is that there has been no growth, at least not on the Eastern side of the state, as acreage leased has not increased and those numbers(around 6.2-6.4 M) are current.

Eric,

First it was 60%, then it was 45%, and now it’s a “number on a dart board”. Why did you all not do your homework and get your numbers straight before authoring and pushing this bill? It calls into question every other number you’ve put into the defense of it such as spending variance between guided and DIY hunters which I’ve seriously questioned from the very beginning. I can assure you that I spend far more money on my multiple trips to MT each year, both in and out of season, than the numbers you show for either DIY or outfitted.

According to @Big Shooter, y’all did “quite a little math” coming up with your numbers, which seems to contradict your “number on a dart board” assessment. So which is it? Did you do “quite a little math” or are you just making up random numbers? If any math was done, please show your work. My eighth grade algebra teacher would require that.

Greg Henderson
MT landowner and tax payer, and non-resident DIY hunter

 

[VikingsGuy]

Eric,

First it was 60%, then it was 45%, and now it’s a “number on a dart board”. Why did you all not do your homework and get your numbers straight before authoring and pushing this bill?

My guess is it is negotiating strategy. Ask for 60%, if it slips through you got more than you had hoped, but if there is push back offer 45%, maybe end up taking 25% and paint yourself as a grand compromiser. Then in a year our two go back and ask for a "minor tweak" of existing rules up to 45%, rinse and repeat. It gets folks focusing on the number and away from the "first principles" issue of granting outfitter specific tags at all. You look "reasonable" and you get people to start accepting the concept as OK, and view it as just a simple activity of solving for the right number. When in fact any number is the wrong number.

 

[Schaaf]

MTGomer and Gerald....we have spent hours and hours discussing season dates, season lengths, pick your Region and so on. We could not agree more with you guys on that. Maybe now with a new Director we can all come together with ideas and get that changed. A lot of folks are under the impression that because we are outfitters that we just have to hunt the rut......that is not the case. Personally, I would love to be done about the first week of November and leave things alone after that and go home. Hopefully we can get that done someday soon.

..

 

[BWALKER77]

Man, look past the end of your nose. The reason DIY NR’s is out of control in those areas is because they don’t have other places to hunt that still have elk.
Region one and two are basically only a good place to take a nature walk when it comes to elk hunting.
Most of the elk inhabited areas of 4,5,6,7 are under special permit requirements. That leaves one secret region which has elk and is a general tag for everyone who wants to hunt elk without an outfitter.

Too much pressure on a limited resource is the problem. NR’s get 10% of the tags, pay for the majority of FWP’s budget, fund Block Management and yet “there’s too many of them.”
Novel idea- how about we cut about 25% of the season lengths and licenses across the board residents and NR alike and show we are serious about wildlife management?

I agree with much of what you said. However, the reality is residents will not go for quality over opportunity. I wish they would.
Therefore forcing NR into guided private is a way to limit impact on public.
Cutting season length while helping the resource will do nothing to alleviate crowding and in fact would make it worse.

 

[BWALKER77]

To be fair, now that he's not a NR, he's all about shutting the door.

I'd not want to continue to defend this either, Eric. Perhaps the next time you guys want to take on issues that you know will be controversial, you'll actually reach out to the people & organizations who are voicing their opposition, rather than try to force a bill through without any input from resident or nonresident sportsmen & women.

Ben, I have been hunting Montana since 1991. Quality has dropped precipitously. Crowding on public land has increased precipitously. Something really should be done.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ben, I have been hunting Montana since 1991. Quality has dropped precipitously. Crowding on public land has increased precipitously. Something really should be done.

Maybe there should be a bill passed to limit your opportunity to hunt on public. If you were forced to hire an outfitter and hunt private it would lessen crowds on the public and you wouldn’t know there were crowds.

Doing something “to the other guy” is a great idea until “ the other guy” is you .

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I have been hunting Montana since 1991. Quality has dropped precipitously. Crowding on public land has increased precipitously. Something really should be done.

I don't disagree. This isn't how you do that. MOGA has refused to help increase productivity on public land and address the harboring issue over those years as well. They've focused their efforts on getting more tags and less oversight, rather than building a better resource through collaborative management w/resident hunters.

Since 91, a lot has changed both in terms of population & habitat. The best thing about MT being an opportunity state is that it produces tons of advocates for wildlife and for the opportunity to get out and hunt. The downside is that as populations grow, access gets curtailed, and animals change their behavior we end up where we are now.

There has always been an open door to discuss season structure, quotas, etc between outfitters & sportsmen. Rarely did either side step through that door to have those discussions. If we actually did sit down w/each other, Rod & Eric are right - there would be a ton of common ground, but we'd rather fight than win, as evidenced by this bill, and the coming neutering of the BOO.

The opportunity to hunt over a long period of time, where we don't have to choose our weapon or choose our season is a fantastic gift in an age of declining opportunity. It's downside is absolutely increased pressure on easily reached public lands. If the idea here is to increase the productivity of Block Management, then we should be looking at the proposed ideas from Rep. Kelly Flynn from a few years ago to create a better type 2 experience, or make it pay more for landowners who want to allow public access, but not get overrun.

 

[Wildabeest]

I think what the residents need to understand is that despite what proponents of this bill are telling them (and the legislature), if this passes it will have a negative impact on their access to property they can hunt, be it public or private. All the extra money this bill will generate for outfitters will then be applied to locking down more private land for the exclusive use of that outfitter. Those leases or ownership will prevent the ability to for DIY to obtain access to those properties either for direct hunting or simple traverse to landlocked public. The value of leases and acreage will increase as the demand increases due to more money supply in the outfitters pockets. This will make landowners less likely to their land into block management. And finally, it creates more money for lobbyist and campaign donations so that they can further their end state objective of squeezing out the DIY hunter (don’t forget that you resident DIY’s are actually a bigger threat to them than NR) and essentially privatizing the wildlife.

There’s a lot of 2A advocates on this forum, and we get all up in arms when the opponents chip away at our rights with an obvious and nefarious end goal. “Death by a thousand paper cuts” has been used to describe it. I hope MT residents realize that the same thing is going on here and don’t let this Trojan Horse inside your gates.