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

[Gerald Martin]

@wllm1313, you make a naive assumption if you take it for granted that Montanans factor in wanting to preserve their elk herd when making management decisions that center around the word “opportunity.”

Montana, being on the cutting edge of scientific wildlife management policy, understands how to squeeze the turnip harder. We can shoot more to grow the herd and have fun doing it.
It’s so scientific that the US Treasury hires FWP retirees to head up their alchemy department so we can return to a gold standard.

 

[sneakypete]

When is the next hearing ? I searched the FWP site and couldn’t find anything?
thx.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@wllm1313, you make a naive assumption if you take it for granted that Montanans factor in wanting to preserve their elk herd when making management decisions that center around the word “opportunity.”

Montana, being on the cutting edge of scientific wildlife management policy, understands how to squeeze the turnip harder. We can shoot more to grow the herd and have fun doing it.
It’s so scientific that the US Treasury hires FWP retirees to head up their alchemy department so we can return to a gold standard.

Little known fact elk reproduce like coyotes, if you shoot them enough in Feb they go into another estrous cycle.

 

[Ben Lamb]

When is the next hearing ? I searched the FWP site and couldn’t find anything?
thx.

Executive Action from the committee could happen as soon as tomorrow, depending on whether or not the amendments have been drafted. If it passes out of committee on Tuesday, expect action on the Senate floor as soon as Wednesday or Thursday.

 

[8andcounting]

I compared Resident MT hunters to all CO hunters, because 1. Colorado doesn't break out success rates by residency status, and 2. NR residents don't benefit from an 11 week seasons all that much compared to Residents, not many NR are driving out every weekend to hunt.

If I'm being misleading, feel free to point out the flaw. (I notice I did flip WY R and NR rates, edited)

View attachment 173259

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2019StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

View attachment 173260

Montana
View attachment 173265

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

Wyoming
View attachment 173262

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/2019-Elk-3-5-2020.pdf

I don’t know how Montana comes up with elk harvest numbers . I’ve had a Montana NR elk tag probably something like 8 times and I’ve been called for a survey 1 time 3-4 years ago . Had a tag this past fall and haven’t heard from them

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don’t know how Montana comes up with elk harvest numbers . I’ve had a Montana NR elk tag probably something like 8 times and I’ve been called for a survey 1 time 3-4 years ago . Had a tag this past fall and haven’t heard from them

Colorado also does random sampling, you can debate how accurate the methods are but they are basically the same method, so it's apples to apples.

You can also look at hunter days (2018 since 2019 doesn't have them for MT)

Montana
Overall success rate 25%, Average of 9 days in the field
.87 Bulls killed per cow



Colorado
Overall success rate 19%, Average 5 days in the field
1.28 Bulls per cow


Wyoming (2019 couldn't find 18')
Overall success rate 42.1% 18.3 days in the field.
1.08 bulls per cow

 

[Wildabeest]

Colorado also does random sampling, you can debate how accurate the methods are but they are basically the same method, so it's rotten apples to rotten apples.

Fixed it...

 

[shrapnel]

Regardless of the fruit you are comparing, Colorado=apple, Montana=banana; who needs just one fruit to make a salad. If you like apples, go to Colorado, if you want a banana, go to Montana. I for one live in Montana for lots of reasons. I don't have any problem finding animals on public or private ground. You can still find big elk, deer and antelope if you hunt.

 

[Badger_55]

No. Not true. This has long been established in the court system.

I guess it is how you want to look at it then.. Again NR have to same rights n laws as R on national land. Can be simple or very hard to argue it. State and Bureau is a whole different deal. Being from Minnesota it's clear how quickly the state can be over ruled by the federal. That goes for all 50.

 

[VikingsGuy]

No. Not true. This has long been established in the court system.

Many long established court approaches have changed over the years on much bigger issues than this. The question for 2021 should be how should it work in 2030 without constraining our thinking to how it always has been.

 

[Wildabeest]

I guess it is how you want to look at it then.. Again NR have to same rights n laws as R on national land. Can be simple or very hard to argue it. State and Bureau is a whole different deal. Being from Minnesota it's clear how quickly the state can be over ruled by the federal. That goes for all 50.

I’m not sure what kind of fight you’re trying to pick here or why, but it’s been very clearly established in the courts that, except for endangered species, the state controls and regulates the game within their boundaries. Yes, the Feds own and regulate the land itself, but you cannot hunt that land unless the state gives you a license/permit to do so, and the state dictates those terms. If they want to have separate rules for residents vs. non-residents, then they can. And do.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Again NR have to same rights n laws as R on national land.

It is unclear as to what "rights" you are referring. I think JLS was referring to hunting privileges which are regulated by each state to which the wildlife are entrusted. Those privileges vary from state to state and invariably give preference to privileges of residents over nonresidents with respect to hunting and fishing.

 

[Badger_55]

If this has any reason to do with overcrowding then it definitely should have tags pulled from the resident pool as well. Not just NR... I would be disappointed either way if it came to that as I don't agree with any of the existing tags being pulled from anyone public land hunter that wants to go at it on their own.

 

[TheJason]

I guess it is how you want to look at it then.. Again NR have to same rights n laws as R on national land. Can be simple or very hard to argue it. State and Bureau is a whole different deal. Being from Minnesota it's clear how quickly the state can be over ruled by the federal. That goes for all 50.

I am looking at it from the aspect of how the judicial system has analyzed states rights to regulate wildlife for the benefit of their resident population. This has been upheld by the appeals courts, so I’m not sure what other angle there is to look at it from, other than anarchy?

 

[Wildabeest]

If this has any reason to do with overcrowding then it definitely should have tags pulled from the resident pool as well. Not just NR... I would be disappointed either way if it came to that as I don't agree with any of the existing tags being pulled from anyone public land hunter that wants to go at it on their own.

I think most on here would agree with you on that. But the argument is about fairness, not about whether the state has the authority. Arguing authority is a losing proposition.

 

[MTGomer]

The state does a pretty decent job with post season surveys.

This is sarcasm right?

I keep missing their call but they called me as recently as last week to ask about my elk hunting from last year.
I turned my tag in for a refund in late July.

They called and spoke with me yesterday about my deer hunting.
I turned that tag in for a refund in late July too.

 

[Badger_55]

I’m not sure what kind of fight you’re trying to pick here or why, but it’s been very clearly established in the courts that, except for endangered species, the state controls and regulates the game within their boundaries. Yes, the Feds own and regulate the land itself, but you cannot hunt that land unless the state gives you a license/permit to do so, and the state dictates those terms. If they want to have separate rules for residents vs. non-residents, then they can. And do.

No fight at all. This whole thing frustrates me. I think it's all wrong. Just don't get how this is right. I get all bent out of shape when it comes down to mainly affecting the NR. Nowadays just seems like the state line is more like a national border crossing when it comes the outdoors.. one of the few great things a lot of can enjoy yearly.
No goal for fights from me.

 

[TheJason]

It isn’t necessarily fair from a public land perspective, but state management of wildlife independent of public land use. Two entirely different animals.

A state is under no obligation to make equal concessions to R and NR with respect to fish and wildlife management. This was challenged about 10 years ago under the commerce clause and it went no where.

Ironically, resident hunters typically say “tough shit, if you don’t like it move here”, but then when you move there they bitch. Funny world we live in.

 

[Wildabeest]

No fight at all. This whole thing frustrates me. I think it's all wrong. Just don't get how this is right. I get all bent out of shape when it comes down to mainly affecting the NR. Nowadays just seems like the state line is more like a national border crossing when it comes the outdoors.. one of the few great things a lot of can enjoy yearly.
No goal for fights from me.

I think most of us are equally frustrated. To me, this is really more about corporate welfare driven by MOGA than it is that the state is looking to intentionally discriminate against NR’s. It just happens to be more politically convenient to have NR’s be the victim here because we don’t have the ability to vote them out. Just the unfortunate nature of politics. But we won’t go down without a fight!

Also, it reiterates the importance of making sure the residents understand how this will negatively affect them. As the outfitters become even more wealthy and powerful, they will only further lock down more private land for their exclusive use and benefit - reducing the amount of acreage enrolled in block management or landowners allowing trespass for public access, etc. There’s literally only one constituent who benefits from this bill, and that’s the outfitter industry. Everyone else loses.

 

[406dn]

There’s literally only one constituent who benefits from this bill, and that’s the outfitter industry. Everyone else loses.

While they are not constituents, well heeled non residents who can easily afford guided hunts, will be able to with certainty, hunt Montana every year.

I fully suspect there is some greasing of the skids from that demographic.