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

[MNElkNut]

So when they talked about the finances at the hearing there where those who testified for the bill that outfitters were part of the 4th biggest part of MT economy (if I remember right, some even said they were the 4th biggest part of the economy). But that is tourism as a whole. I believe outfitting is like 10th or 11th biggest in tourism. But wait, outfitting for hunting is even smaller. But wait again, outfitting for deer and elk is even smaller yet. I would like for outfitters to be up front about the % of the economy they really represent and stop with the smoke and mirrors making it appear bigger than it is. Elk and deer outfitting only. Not sheep, not bear, not fishing, not rafting. Only elk and deer outfitting. That is a start. Then strip off the number of outfitted clients that would draw anyway under the current system as that wouldn't change (they get the licenses now, they would get them under any likely version of this bill).

Then strip off the money that would be spent by DIYers if they would get the license (oh, and remember that those dollars get multiplied bouncing around the communities too!). What is left is a pretty small number compared to the impact it has on non-rich outfitted clients. To summarize, what is the increase in dollars from NEW elk and deer outfitted clients over and above existing DIY clients under this proposal.

Someone can probably lay out the math better than I can. I haven't seen it done yet however.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I thought it was the WTO that ruled against existing COOLing for USA,CA,MX....that might just be semantics though, I see your point.

I stand corrected - typed the wrong trade acronym.

 

[brocksw]

I stand corrected - typed the wrong trade acronym.

Small matter. It should def be fixed in NAFTA. Beef imports processed in the USA by big packers should not count as US beef.

I thought I read somewhere that we're importing 1.5 lbs of beef for every lb of US beef. Not sure if that's correct.

 

[Big Shooter]

Here's who supported repealing of the Country of origin labeling (HR 2393). Would you agree COOL returning would be a good thing? It seems like a good idea to me?

H.R. 2393: Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 -- House Vote #333 -- Jun 10, 2015

The Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 would repeal the requirement for meat products to be labeled with their country of origin. Currently meat products must include information …

www.govtrack.us

It’s an outstanding idea! We (ranchers) need it as do the housewives that buy beef off of the shelf......knowing where it came from and what the regs are. Absolutely!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Some of what you said is correct.....now please educate me as to who the “people” are that can help create better markets for us. Just curious.

For example, Baucus had the Chinese beef deal wrapped up, but a trade war was more politically popular, and now MT beef ain't going to China, right?

But by educating people about meat packers & how the almost monopolistic tendencies of packers to underpay at teh feedlot while hoarding all the profit is a good place to start with the general public. I don't think 90% of the country understands how shitty a deal ag gets from packers. It's a centralized system that shorts producers in favor of middlemen. Change that, like with the plant they want to put in in Great Falls and start selling MT beef in MT stores, or regionally, with a label of where it's from. I damned sure don't want South American beef, when I get it, which is why I buy from folks I know, and get a 1/2 or a 1/4.

Local meat markets are vastly underserved, and family ag could help cut the supply chain down so it's not processed in some foriegn land, while it gets sold in the US. Adding locally produced meat to school districts would also create new markets for volume beef. OPI could look into locally sourced foods, and it would be far more healthy than what they get served now. Ranch to School. It's been done a bit in MT on a trial basis and it seemed to work.

MT is a prime meat desert. It's a shame to say it. Finding prime cuts or local abattoirs with quality meat is damned near impossible. With local grocery chains, regional shoppes, and increased education for how to run a successful butcher, you can start selling more local beef. I know a few folks looking in to this already. Those are the kinds of things that make far more allies than adversaries, which is the current MO with bills like 143.

People are tired of fighting. They'd rather work together, but someone has to step forward and extend that hand. So long as sportsmen feel as though they are under attack by outfitters & groups like UPOM, that hand feels disingenuous. USCA & MT Farmers Union seem to get this. Not sure why MOGA doesn't.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Small matter. It should def be fixed in NAFTA. Beef imports processed in the USA by big packers should not count as US beef.

I thought I read somewhere that we're importing 1.5 lbs of beef for every lb of US beef. Not sure if that's correct.

Beef imports vs Beef exports on a pound basis are fairly similar. That means that reducing imports would just force us to forego export opportunities that bring money into the US economy and would cause plants and jobs to be built in other countries to serve the foreign market. Many populist concerns in the ag space turn out to be misplaced when one really tracks the true supply chain.

 

[VikingsGuy]

For example, Baucus had the Chinese beef deal wrapped up, but a trade war was more politically popular, and now MT beef ain't going to China, right?

But by educating people about meat packers & how the almost monopolistic tendencies of packers to underpay at teh feedlot while hoarding all the profit is a good place to start with the general public. I don't think 90% of the country understands how shitty a deal ag gets from packers. It's a centralized system that shorts producers in favor of middlemen. Change that, like with the plant they want to put in in Great Falls and start selling MT beef in MT stores, or regionally, with a label of where it's from. I damned sure don't want South American beef, when I get it, which is why I buy from folks I know, and get a 1/2 or a 1/4.

Local meat markets are vastly underserved, and family ag could help cut the supply chain down so it's not processed in some foriegn land, while it gets sold in the US. Adding locally produced meat to school districts would also create new markets for volume beef. OPI could look into locally sourced foods, and it would be far more healthy than what they get served now. Ranch to School. It's been done a bit in MT on a trial basis and it seemed to work.

MT is a prime meat desert. It's a shame to say it. Finding prime cuts or local abattoirs with quality meat is damned near impossible. With local grocery chains, regional shoppes, and increased education for how to run a successful butcher, you can start selling more local beef. I know a few folks looking in to this already. Those are the kinds of things that make far more allies than adversaries, which is the current MO with bills like 143.

People are tired of fighting. They'd rather work together, but someone has to step forward and extend that hand. So long as sportsmen feel as though they are under attack by outfitters & groups like UPOM, that hand feels disingenuous. USCA & MT Farmers Union seem to get this. Not sure why MOGA doesn't.

I am all for vibrant local and niche markets, but that doesn't mean that big full-scale markets are "bad", predatory or monopolistic. Consumers get to choose and govt should not start picking winners and losers in yet another market.

 

[406dn]

Since we are wandering around on a variety of subjects.

My farrier is also a young man taking over his family's ranch. Great guy, we have interesting conversations most every time he works on my horses.

He says that much of the beef imported into the United States is destined for ground meat. It is mixed with surplus fat from domestic meat to make ground meat, or so he says.

 

[Big Shooter]

Small matter. It should def be fixed in NAFTA. Beef imports processed in the USA by big packers should not count as US beef.

I thought I read somewhere that we're importing 1.5 lbs of beef for every lb of US beef. Not sure if that's correct.

You are a smart man, well educated on the topic. Finally! I haven’t had time to weigh in on a lot of this stuff today as I’ve been covered up in calls from non residents wanting to take their money out of the stock market and buy land up here now knowing that with the new amendment that them and their buddies can spend a little extra money that they find in their couch cushions and get a tag. I told them about a handful of Block Management places that are for sale and the are all over it now. It’s really a no-brainer to them......buy the ranch, close it off and all they have to do is buy one less bottle of Merlot one week and have a tag......no questions asked. Nothing better than another side hustle in big volumes!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am all for vibrant local and niche markets, but that doesn't mean that big full-scale markets are "bad", predatory or monopolistic. Consumers get to choose and govt should not start picking winners and losers in yet another market.

They already do with the way it's set up now. They chose the packers over the producer. This sets the market back to favor the producer rather than the middleman.

There will always be large packers to deal with the general population, but COOL and expanded local markets mean more options for consumers, rather than Argentinian beef disguised as local. Shortening the food chain also helps increase quality of food. We're morons nationally when it comes to how we consume our food. That's why we're the #1 leader in diabetes & Wilford Brimley commercials.

Getting back to a more holistic approach to food saves a ton of money in health costs as well. We've free marketed our selves into processed food nightmares.

 

[Big Shooter]

Since we are wandering around on a variety of subjects.

My farrier is also a young man taking over his family's ranch. Great guy, we have interesting conversations most every time he works on my horses.

He says that much of the beef imported into the United States is destined for ground meat. It is mixed with surplus fat from domestic meat to make ground meat, or so he says.

Great point......but do we know what drugs have been put into said imported beef? Or what that same imported beef was fed, wether it be animal by products or so on. Definitely a price point commodity, but possibly not the healthiest.

 

[tjones]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

 

[406dn]

You are a smart man, well educated on the topic. Finally! I haven’t had time to weigh in on a lot of this stuff today as I’ve been covered up in calls from non residents wanting to take their money out of the stock market and buy land up here now knowing that with the new amendment that them and their buddies can spend a little extra money that they find in their couch cushions and get a tag. I told them about a handful of Block Management places that are for sale and the are all over it now. It’s really a no-brainer to them......buy the ranch, close it off and all they have to do is buy one less bottle of Merlot one week and have a tag......no questions asked. Nothing better than another side hustle in big volumes!

Too bad you can't read that on your fields or pastures. Just add some moisture and viola.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

Yes.

That was an example of ways that Landowners who outfit could actually get support from hunters, rather than simply trying to ramrod shit down our throats and then get pissy when they get push back.

 

[Flatrock]

Your on . It’s a cycle . The cycle is at peak right now .

So what are we betting? Loser makes a $100 donation to the RMEF?

 

[Big Shooter]

They already do with the way it's set up now. They chose the packers over the producer. This sets the market back to favor the producer rather than the middleman.

There will always be large packers to deal with the general population, but COOL and expanded local markets mean more options for consumers, rather than Argentinian beef disguised as local. Shortening the food chain also helps increase quality of food. We're morons nationally when it comes to how we consume our food. That's why we're the #1 leader in diabetes & Wilford Brimley commercials.

Getting back to a more holistic approach to food saves a ton of money in health costs as well. We've free marketed our selves into processed food nightmares

Any chance of getting back on topic?

This one is better!!

 

[VikingsGuy]

They already do with the way it's set up now. They chose the packers over the producer. This sets the market back to favor the producer rather than the middleman.

There will always be large packers to deal with the general population, but COOL and expanded local markets mean more options for consumers, rather than Argentinian beef disguised as local. Shortening the food chain also helps increase quality of food. We're morons nationally when it comes to how we consume our food. That's why we're the #1 leader in diabetes & Wilford Brimley commercials.

Getting back to a more holistic approach to food saves a ton of money in health costs as well. We've free marketed our selves into processed food nightmares.

Since this is HuntTalk and not CattleTalk I will let all the misleading rhetoric slide.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree. There are not enough elk in MT to exhaust the market at these prices - I would guess they could easily sell out at twice the price. Heck could probably have tiered pricing based on desirability and sell out at 4x the price for the better tier units.

But what will be eventually priced out if we stay in this path is NR hunting for the "common man". And I don't think that it the right way to handle a public resource.

NR hunting was never supposed to be for the "common man"...its a privilege granted by the Residents. NR licenses have been limited and/or expensive as long as I've hunted. Some prioritize and make it happen, some work over-time to be able to do it. Others simply wont or cant...its called life.

"Common man" hunting has always been about hunting the state you live in on the cheap.

The right way to handle a public resource is for Residents of the State that control it. Wyoming or Montana don't owe you a single tag or access to their wildlife. If they CHOOSE to give you access to it, may as well make it worth their while or they're better off just giving residents additional opportunity.

No incentive or reason for ANY state to give away their wildlife resources to NR's.

I'll pay whatever price they want to charge...or not. Not my place to whine about what they charge or how much access they give me to THEIR wildlife.

 

[brocksw]

Sounds like we're all in agreement then. The MT tags should be left as they are....and we should look to the cattle industry, specifically the meat packers who exploit producers to help our ranching/outfitting friends find stability.

 

[VikingsGuy]

NR hunting was never supposed to be for the "common man"...its a privilege granted by the Residents. NR licenses have been limited and/or expensive as long as I've hunted. Some prioritize and make it happen, some work over-time to be able to do it. Others simply wont or cant...its called life.

"Common man" hunting has always been about hunting the state you live in on the cheap.

The right way to handle a public resource is for Residents of the State that control it. Wyoming or Montana don't owe you a single tag or access to their wildlife. If they CHOOSE to give you access to it, may as well make it worth their while or they're better off just giving residents additional opportunity.

No incentive or reason for ANY state to give away their wildlife resources to NR's.

I'll pay whatever price they want to charge...or not. Not my place to whine about what they charge or how much access they give me to THEIR wildlife.

I don't disagree that is the reality, but like so much in modern life, folks want all the autonomy but for somebody else to pay the bill. There is no doubt that between federal taxpayers and NR fees that the WY & MT resident's funding for "their" wildlife is heavily subsidized by lowly NR (and not just voluntarily through tags). So what I am hearing is that I should be encouraging my govt representatives to be jacking up NR fees for those who may wish to enjoy MN wilderness/fishing and also encouraging them to vote against all federal wildlife funding in WY & MT, because the residents really want to be fully autonomous and our input and participation is a mere luxury. Go it.