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

[Big Fin]

Randal.....your math is simply smoke and mirrors on the B-11 (deer tag).
6,600x.39%=2574
6,600-2574=4026
That is the correct number. You double dipped.

So, you saying this bill does away with the 2,000 landowner sponsored licenses? No smoke and mirrors. Outfitters would get 2,574, as shown in my calculation, the same as is included in yours.

You seem to think the 2,000 landowner allocation is going away. It is not. I suspect we will see it used even more and fewer unused tags going from that pool to the general pool.

I'm confident in my calculations. What did I "double dip" with?

If we have full allocation of the outfitter pool and the landowner pool, it is exactly as I say; it "could be as low as 31%" for the self-guided non-resident.

I got an email this week with a large MT outfitter promoting two new ranches leased up that have 55,000 and another of 50,000, with advertisements of great private land deer hunts, giving me comfort that if I could bet on the future of where these are going, my money is that this bill would result in greater utilization of the landowner sponsored pool, not less.

 

[BenInMT]

I still find it hard to justify why we (residents) should have a leg up on public lands for LE permits. I like it this way, just can't come up with a good justification myself, or buy any of the other attempts to justify or rationalize.

How about because we pay taxes here? We suffer the costs of managing the wildlife every year, all year long.

 

[Big Shooter]

So, you saying this bill does away with the 2,000 landowner sponsored licenses? No smoke and mirrors. Outfitters would get 2,574, as shown in my calculation, the same as is included in yours.

You seem to think the 2,000 landowner allocation is going away. It is not. I suspect we will see it used even more and fewer unused tags going from that pool to the general pool.

I'm confident in my calculations. What did I "double dip" with?

If we have full allocation of the outfitter pool and the landowner pool, it is exactly as I say; it "could be as low as 31%" for the self-guided non-resident.

I got an email this week with a large MT outfitter promoting two new ranches leased up that have 55,000 and another of 50,000, with advertisements of great private land deer hunts, giving me comfort that if I could bet on the future of where these are going, my money is that this bill would result in greater utilization of the landowner sponsored pool, not less.

If you read the FINE PRINT!

So, you saying this bill does away with the 2,000 landowner sponsored licenses? No smoke and mirrors. Outfitters would get 2,574, as shown in my calculation, the same as is included in yours.

You seem to think the 2,000 landowner allocation is going away. It is not. I suspect we will see it used even more and fewer unused tags going from that pool to the general pool.

I'm confident in my calculations. What did I "double dip" with?

If we have full allocation of the outfitter pool and the landowner pool, it is exactly as I say; it "could be as low as 31%" for the self-guided non-resident.

I got an email this week with a large MT outfitter promoting two new ranches leased up that have 55,000 and another of 50,000, with advertisements of great private land deer hunts, giving me comfort that if I could bet on the future of where these are going, my money is that this bill would result in greater utilization of the landowner sponsored pool, not less.

Randal , what you are missing is the fact that the 2,000 landowner SPONSORED tags are a PART of the 6,600! Your end result in your math is taking away 2,000 tags that will still be available to the public!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

If you read the FINE PRINT!

Randal , what you are missing is the fact that the 2,000 landowner SPONSORED tags are a PART of the 6,600! Your end result in your math is taking away 2,000 tags that will still be available to the public!!

So yu already get 2,000 tags in the landowner pool. Those licenses are statutorily allowed to be profited off of by outfitting. That means outfitters already have 2,000 tags allocated for their use, if they are outfitters, which MOGA consistently tells us the majority of their members are large landowners.

The bill adds 2000 B11 licenses, and gives you 30% of those. Randy's numbers are correct. Outfitters would get roughly 60% of the B11's. And that doesn't count the B11's that get sold due to turn ins. If I were a deer outfitter, I'd be eager for people not to explore this section, since it's a massive tag grab at the expense of working class stiffs who want to shoot a buck in MT.

If I used your kind of math, I'd be looking for welfare as well.

 

[Big Fin]

If you read the FINE PRINT!

Randal , what you are missing is the fact that the 2,000 landowner SPONSORED tags are a PART of the 6,600! Your end result in your math is taking away 2,000 tags that will still be available to the public!!

Yes, that is exactly what I am showing. Those 2,000 tags are not available to the public in the B-11 draw.

We start out with 6,600, then we subtract the 39% to outfitters, we subtract the 2,000 that are NOT available to the public if fully utilized, and we get 2,026 left for the "unwashed masses."

How does that math double dip?

 

[WIbiggame]

I still find it hard to justify why we (residents) should have a leg up on public lands for LE permits

But it seems easy for you to justify that Outffitted Clients because they "bring in more $" should get a leg up over NR DIY. The circles you are talking are just boring your hole deeper.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, that is exactly what I am showing. Those 2,000 tags are not available to the public in the B-11 draw.

We start out with 6,600, then we subtract the 39% to landowners, we subtract the 2,000 that are NOT available to the public if fully utilized, and we get 2,026 left for the "unwashed masses."

How does that math double dip?

Because he consistently tells people 150" is 180"?

 

[brocksw]

As a proud independent voter, I approve this message.

Republicans everyday:
We shouldn't make decisions based on emotion, the market will sort these things out.

Montana Republicans supporting SB 143: Think about the families that need stability to put food on the table, they can't be expected to adapt to the market.

 

[Eric Albus]

WI you miss the point entirely.

Ben, the number of landowner tags used last year was 850 or there about, the balance went into the general pool.

A lot of MOGA membership is comprised of landowners, but the use of the NR Landowner License is minimal. In fairness 1000 of those license need added to the NR pool with current data we have.

 

[Ben Lamb]

WI you miss the point entirely.

Ben, the number of landowner tags used last year was 850 or there about, the balance went into the general pool.

A lot of MOGA membership is comprised of landowners, but the use of the NR Landowner License is minimal. In fairness 1000 of those license need added to the NR pool with current data we have.

So if you are not currently using the set-aside licenses available to you, why do you need more, especially if there are close to 10,000 B11's issued? If those are undersubscribed, it would seem you should just leave the B-11's alone entirely, not raise the cap, and utilize the landowner set-asides more to increase your market potential.

 

[Eric Albus]

oh, and one other thing I just thought of, someone in a post past questioned me about shooting 3 yr old bucks vs. 4 yr old bucks. If you were guiding for me you'd need to look for another job if you have a client kill a 4 yr. old. Our goal is No 4 yr old buck gets shot. Must be 5 or older. Oldest bucks we have taken (2 of them) were 11(aged by a lab) oldest taken this year was 9.5, I have several years of photos of him. We did take one 4 1/2 yr old this year, but he was a 200" buck with a 10 inch drop. I have photos of him when he was 2, and knew he was 4 1/2, but you can't count on him growing a drop tine like that again. Begrudgingly I let a young lady client shoot him.

 

[Gerald Martin]

oh, and one other thing I just thought of, someone in a post past questioned me about shooting 3 yr old bucks vs. 4 yr old bucks. If you were guiding for me you'd need to look for another job if you have a client kill a 4 yr. old. Our goal is No 4 yr old buck gets shot. Must be 5 or older. Oldest bucks we have taken (2 of them) were 11(aged by a lab) oldest taken this year was 9.5, I have several years of photos of him. We did take one 4 1/2 yr old this year, but he was a 200" buck with a 10 inch drop. I have photos of him when he was 2, and knew he was 4 1/2, but you can't count on him growing a drop tine like that again.

You obviously have a management program that works to produce quality deer for you. If you have clients unwilling to work within your management program then wouldn’t it be at your discretion to not allow them back to camp?
Managing their behavior and willingness to voluntarily accept your voluntary (and acceptable) management policies ultimately is your responsibility. Access to licenses to assist you with your goals isn’t necessary, fair or reasonable.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben, In hindsight they possibly could've been used. The problem for me with the LO sponsored tag is the sponsored hunter is limited to hunting just that private land of the owner. It may have been more palatable to have taken 1000 of the LO tags and putting them into an outfitter pool.

Gerald, I don't allow anybody back into my camp that will not follow my rules and management program. I also have a strict "one and done" policy, draw blood on an animal and your hunt is over.

burpinsnowcone, I have never used a landowner license, but not for those reasons. Outfitters do keep harvest records and submit them to the Board of Outfitters, but none of that is used for biological reasons. and the record keeping for landowner tags is not used for biological management either.

 

[hank4elk]

Just saw this......I forget how complicated the MT lic. system was. Gave up on MT after the good old 70's were gone.
I forget how long there has been a welfare pool for outfitters in NM. Finally looking like we could be rid of it.

Good luck with that MT.

 

[lastlight]

Im enjoying watching a hunting guide (not that you can’t be educated in mathematics) argue with an accountant, no offense!

 

[winmag]

LOL trying to tell a CPA they did simple math wrong. Cracks me up.

 

[tjones]

LOL trying to tell a CPA they did simple math wrong. Cracks me up.

No kidding.
I now see why the outfitters need .gov help with their businesses.

 

[mtmuley]

Im enjoying watching a hunting guide (not that you can’t be educated in mathematics) argue with an accountant, no offense!

My thoughts also. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gerald, I don't allow anybody back into my camp that will not follow my rules and management program. I also have a strict "one and done" policy, draw blood on an animal and your hunt is over.

But wasn’t it you that stated if your clients can’t draw every year they might not be willing to pass on younger deer?

 

[WIbiggame]

@Eric Albus please explain what point I missed? You said you can't justify why residents should have a leg up but you are ok with NR having a leg up on other NR?

Where is the confusion?