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

[WIbiggame]

Looks like some are already assuming this is a done deal.

 

[Big Fin]

Next step. Continue the opposition. It still has a Senate floor vote, a House Committee hearing, a House floor vote, then the final request to the Governor for his signature. All places to exert more pressure and extract more political capital from those pushing it.

Not sure these folks want to be on record of overturning a citizen's initiative. That is the strongest and most effective point for residents to use in opposition to this.

At its most basic terms, the folks requesting this bill are counting on having enough political capital to convince these Senators, Reps, and Governor to override a position the state citizens already have weighed in on. That is asking them to walk into some serious political fire two and four years from now. If so, they are playing a very short game on a very long field.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

Hello All,

Not particularly experienced in these types of forums but a friend pointed me here and felt compelled to comment given the importance of this issue. To answer a question from lots of posts ago, my name is Andrew Posewitz and I was the person who testified in opposition and yes, Jim was my dad. For those who sent along well wishes upon his passing last year, they are greatly appreciated.

As I said in my testimony, I oppose this bill for 4 key reasons:

• It is antithetical to the values of our nations founding fathers that the wildlife be everyone’s, not because of who your parents were or what you could afford.
• This bill is also antithetical to the North American Wildlife Recovery Model which is the backbone of all outfitter’s current abundance, so to advocate something in opposition to its core principles strikes me as hypocritical.
• The bill is antithetical to the free market. You are taking an already restricted supply and further restricting it. The government should not be picking winners and losers. Also, doesn’t it seem odd to set the tags at exactly what the free market has already decided, then prevent it from being adjusted as times change? I honestly try to avoid inferring motive, but after telling me to fear socialism, this smacks of hypocrisy.
• This bill is antithetical to the will of the Montana voters who have already decided this issue. If you think our mind has changed, put it back on the ballot, not back door it through a misguided legislature. It appears we need to be prepared to decide it again.

Our power comes from our numbers and our passion, be wary of any attempts to divide us. The resident/non-resident is just such an attempt in my mind. Perfectly aligned?- of course not, no one is. Aligned on the stuff that matters? - we need to be. If those who seek to divide us are successful today on this issue, there will be less of us tomorrow, and the next day and so on. Then we don’t have our numbers or our passion. I will leave you with this final thought, my father was once a Montana non-resident hunter.

Please do everything in your power to stop this. Call the legislators, not just yours, but all of them. If you hunt here or ever might want to hunt here, speak up. Send letters, to all of them. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. And if it passes, remember who passed it and prepare to help on a ballot initiative. This is a big deal.

Thanks for listening.

Andrew

 

[406dn]

MWF email:





The Senate Fish and Game Committee ignored the will of Montana hunters and voters and passed SB 143, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jason Ellsworth, R-Hamilton, that creates guaranteed big game hunting licenses for outfitter-sponsored clients.

Montanans made their voices very clear on this issue and voted to get rid of outfitter-sponsored licenses. We believe public hunters should have a fair shot at hunting in Montana and be on equal footing in the lottery drawing. If they then want to use the services of an outfitter, they can do so. We’ve even offered up moving up the drawing date so outfitters know sooner whom to market to.

SB 143 is going to the full Senate floor and would guarantee up to 39 percent of non-resident big game licenses to be outfitter-sponsored tags. It’s time to let the full Senate know what Montana hunters think about this. Please contact senators and tell them to vote NO on SB 143.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR OWN MESSAGE. But you can hit the following points:

Montanans have spoken on outfitter sponsored licenses and we rejected them. We hunt with family and friends from out of state and want them to have a fair chance to draw a license. And we don’t believe the government should guarantee any business customers – outfitters need to get out there and market their service. Please vote NO on SB 143.

You can send an email to senators, or call the state Capitol switchboard at 444-4800 and leave a message for Senators telling them to vote NO on SB 143.

When you are leaving an email follow the steps provided below.

1.Fill out the form provided

2.Select your Senator. If unsure, lookup your Senator HERE.

3.Select Bill Type (SB)

4.Select Bill Number 143

5.Provide Your Message

Thanks for all you do.

Thank you for making it so easy to write my Senator. I have already urged him to vote against the bill, and not override the will of Montana's voters.

 

[WIbiggame]

Try and do this in true HT form here.

Any residents of MT I have been hunting elk in your great state for 7 years and love it I hope to draw a tag for archery elk this fall. I am not looking for your honey holes, or GPS coordinates. I am just asking that you please email, call whatever you need to do to let your voice be heard and please oppose this bill. So that myself along with several other DIY guys & girls can still come and enjoy your great state!

If I ever see any of you I will personally shake your hand and buy you a drink (us diy guys make it into town and spend some $$ every once in awhile )

Thank you all from WI

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hello All,

Not particularly experienced in these types of forums but a friend pointed me here and felt compelled to comment given the importance of this issue. To answer a question from lots of posts ago, my name is Andrew Posewitz and I was the person who testified in opposition and yes, Jim was my dad. For those who sent along well wishes upon his passing last year, they are greatly appreciated.

As I said in my testimony, I oppose this bill for 4 key reasons:

• It is antithetical to the values of our nations founding fathers that the wildlife be everyone’s, not because of who your parents were or what you could afford.
• This bill is also antithetical to the North American Wildlife Recovery Model which is the backbone of all outfitter’s current abundance, so to advocate something in opposition to its core principles strikes me as hypocritical.
• The bill is antithetical to the free market. You are taking an already restricted supply and further restricting it. The government should not be picking winners and losers. Also, doesn’t it seem odd to set the tags at exactly what the free market has already decided, then prevent it from being adjusted as times change? I honestly try to avoid inferring motive, but after telling me to fear socialism, this smacks of hypocrisy.
• This bill is antithetical to the will of the Montana voters who have already decided this issue. If you think our mind has changed, put it back on the ballot, not back door it through a misguided legislature. It appears we need to be prepared to decide it again.

Our power comes from our numbers and our passion, be wary of any attempts to divide us. The resident/non-resident is just such an attempt in my mind. Perfectly aligned?- of course not, no one is. Aligned on the stuff that matters? - we need to be. If those who seek to divide us are successful today on this issue, there will be less of us tomorrow, and the next day and so on. Then we don’t have our numbers or our passion. I will leave you with this final thought, my father was once a Montana non-resident hunter.

Please do everything in your power to stop this. Call the legislators, not just yours, but all of them. If you hunt here or ever might want to hunt here, speak up. Send letters, to all of them. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. And if it passes, remember who passed it and prepare to help on a ballot initiative. This is a big deal.

Thanks for listening.

Andrew

Lot's of great points here for folks writing their legislators. Actually taking a few minutes to craft your own personal note (using these 4 points as a guideline if you wish) will typically have more impact on a legisltor/staffer than merely copying and pasting a form letter or siging a e-petition. In order of impact in my experience - (1) actually showing up for hearings; (2) phone calls; (3) personalized "non-photocopied/form" letters and emails; (4) form letters and emails; (5) e-petitions; and in far last place - doing nothing while griping about politicians and outfitters to your buddies.

Be polite at all times, if a legislator wants to vote the other way don't give them an easy way to dismiss your input by being rude or hyperbolic. Make specific reference to your place in the economic/social fabric of thier district if you can. Make reference to a direct connection if you can - met them once, shared alma mater, from the same town, etc. Good luck out their MT, us non-res are rooting for you!

 

[Lawnboy]

Next step. Continue the opposition. It still has a Senate floor vote, a House Committee hearing, a House floor vote, then the final request to the Governor for his signature. All places to exert more pressure and extract more political capital from those pushing it.

Not sure these folks want to be on record of overturning a citizen's initiative. That is the strongest and most effective point for residents to use in opposition to this.

At its most basic terms, the folks requesting this bill are counting on having enough political capital to convince these Senators, Reps, and Governor to override a position the state citizens already have weighed in on. That is asking them to walk into some serious political fire two and four years from now. If so, they are playing a very short game on a very long field.

If Gianforte ultimately votes party line on this and pushes it through I will vote for the next democrat governor over a Republican. This party line bull crap needs to stop. The Republicans killed us on the corner hopping Bill a while back as well. The people have already spoken.

 

[cahunter805]

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

I respect everyone’s opinion and their right to make a living.
What I don’t understand is why anyone trying to make a living should be guaranteed anything by a government/state bill that uses resources owned by the public.
I don’t have any problem with anyone hiring an outfitter or guide. I certainly might depending on the species and tag drawn.
What’s wrong with everyone applying for a tag and if drawn then they can choose to hire someone or choose to DIY.

 

[tjones]

It’s somewhat laughable on the day this bill passes out of committee Ellsworth’s weekly column he writes in the Bitterroot Star comes out titled
“GOP fighting to reduce government”

A bill, that if passes actually increase government. SB 143 overturns CI161 which did actually reduce government. SB143 adds even more heavy handed government with outfitter welfare tags while stiffing the DIY NR hunter.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It’s somewhat laughable on the day this bill passes out of committee Ellsworth’s weekly column he writes in the Bitterroot Star comes out titled
“GOP fighting to reduce government”

A bill, that if passes actually increase government. SB 143 overturns CI161 which did actually reduce government. SB143 adds even more heavy handed government with outfitter welfare tags while stiffing the DIY NR hunter.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

Both party's have ceased being led by principle and are now primarily governed by buying votes from reliable supporters. All claims to principle in 2021 are just smoke screens. For every policy position just follow the money and see how the recipients voted - it explains all.

 

[TheJason]

It’s somewhat laughable on the day this bill passes out of committee Ellsworth’s weekly column he writes in the Bitterroot Star comes out titled
“GOP fighting to reduce government”

A bill, that if passes actually increase government. SB 143 overturns CI161 which did actually reduce government. SB143 adds even more heavy handed government with outfitter welfare tags while stiffing the DIY NR hunter.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

FFS, this just makes my head hurt.

 

[mtmuley]

It’s somewhat laughable on the day this bill passes out of committee Ellsworth’s weekly column he writes in the Bitterroot Star comes out titled
“GOP fighting to reduce government”

A bill, that if passes actually increase government. SB 143 overturns CI161 which did actually reduce government. SB143 adds even more heavy handed government with outfitter welfare tags while stiffing the DIY NR hunter.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

His ship is being steered by outfitters here. I doubt the guy has any idea of the ramifications of the Bill. Not excusing it at all. I talked to one of the outfitters. mtmuley

 

[nontyp]

Hello All,

Not particularly experienced in these types of forums but a friend pointed me here and felt compelled to comment given the importance of this issue. To answer a question from lots of posts ago, my name is Andrew Posewitz and I was the person who testified in opposition and yes, Jim was my dad. For those who sent along well wishes upon his passing last year, they are greatly appreciated.

As I said in my testimony, I oppose this bill for 4 key reasons:

• It is antithetical to the values of our nations founding fathers that the wildlife be everyone’s, not because of who your parents were or what you could afford.
• This bill is also antithetical to the North American Wildlife Recovery Model which is the backbone of all outfitter’s current abundance, so to advocate something in opposition to its core principles strikes me as hypocritical.
• The bill is antithetical to the free market. You are taking an already restricted supply and further restricting it. The government should not be picking winners and losers. Also, doesn’t it seem odd to set the tags at exactly what the free market has already decided, then prevent it from being adjusted as times change? I honestly try to avoid inferring motive, but after telling me to fear socialism, this smacks of hypocrisy.
• This bill is antithetical to the will of the Montana voters who have already decided this issue. If you think our mind has changed, put it back on the ballot, not back door it through a misguided legislature. It appears we need to be prepared to decide it again.

Our power comes from our numbers and our passion, be wary of any attempts to divide us. The resident/non-resident is just such an attempt in my mind. Perfectly aligned?- of course not, no one is. Aligned on the stuff that matters? - we need to be. If those who seek to divide us are successful today on this issue, there will be less of us tomorrow, and the next day and so on. Then we don’t have our numbers or our passion. I will leave you with this final thought, my father was once a Montana non-resident hunter.

Please do everything in your power to stop this. Call the legislators, not just yours, but all of them. If you hunt here or ever might want to hunt here, speak up. Send letters, to all of them. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. And if it passes, remember who passed it and prepare to help on a ballot initiative. This is a big deal.

Thanks for listening.

Andrew

Andrew,

I watched your testimony from afar via webcast here in KS. Thank you. I felt like your message was the most clear, concise testimony of the entire hearing and it was evident that you are well educated on the subjects at hand. Your authenticity was also evident.

 

[devon deer]

We watched Yellowstone for the first time recently, we both thought how far fetched some of it was, disappointingly it would appear some of it isn't.

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

Well, it looks like this will be fought at each stage.

I know many of you on here aren't down w/ initiative measures, but it just may come to that if this gets rammed though like it just did in committee.

 

[brocksw]

143 vote count below:
Sen. Hinebauch (R) - Yes
Sen. Blasdel (R) - Yes
Sen. Ellsworth (R) - Yes
Sen. Hertz (R) - Yes
Sen. Brown (R) - Yes
Sen. Keenan (R) - Yes
Sen. Howard (R) - Yes

Sen. Jacobson (D) - No
Sen. Cohenour (D) - No
Sen. Flowers (D) - No
Sen. McClafferty (D) - No

 

[406dn]

I am sure the Republicans in Montana have had done good things for sportsmen and sportswomen, but I don't have anything to offer. Years ago there was a GOP legislator from Billings, Al Bishop, who was a true friend of hunters. He was a great guy, I got to know him pretty well while playing pick up basketball at the Y.

Bruce Simon was another good friend of sportsmen who was a GOP legislator from Billings. Both of those guys passed away years ago.

But for the most part, the GOP in the legislature listens pretty much only to landowners when it comes wildlife issues. They would reverse the stream access law in a New York minute if they thought it would not rain down hell on them.

This session has not surprised me in the least. Most of these bills will pass and get signed into law.

 

[MThuntr]

excuse my ignorance and failure at the search function but can someone point to me when the original "outfitter sponsored" permit became a thing?

I'm getting into a pissing match with a local (he's been posting a lot on the Montana BHA group) and I need to brush up on my facts before I call him out.

 

[TheJason]

excuse my ignorance and failure at the search function but can someone point to me when the original "outfitter sponsored" permit became a thing?

I'm getting into a pissing match with a local (he's been posting a lot on the Montana BHA group) and I need to brush up on my facts before I call him out.

I don't remember the exact year, but I believe it was in the early to mid 90's, and IIRC came about with the inception of Block Management.

 

[winmag]

143 vote count below:
Sen. Hinebauch (R) - Yes
Sen. Blasdel (R) - Yes
Sen. Ellsworth (R) - Yes
Sen. Hertz (R) - Yes
Sen. Brown (R) - Yes
Sen. Keenan (R) - Yes
Sen. Howard (R) - Yes

Sen. Jacobson (D) - No
Sen. Cohenour (D) - No
Sen. Flowers (D) - No
Sen. McClafferty (D) - No

Well that was predictable