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

[HSi-ESi]

Do the amendments allow a NR that doesn't want to use an outfitter to apply in the early round and pay the additional $300?

 

[HSi-ESi]

It’s big sky- tomorrow. Taking peanut butter jelly and Budweiser. Can’t afford the fancy lodge stuff. Damn DIY tight ass locals...

Cheaper than skinning up into Beehive Basin right now.

 

[MTGomer]

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 see some people so wouldn’t expect, organizing to oppose that meat packing plant in G falls. It is a good thing to build right? Always seemed crazy to me how there were so few major packers.

 

[MTGomer]

Do the amendments allow a NR that doesn't want to use an outfitter to apply in the early round and pay the additional $300?

Yes

 

[Hunt West]

Do the amendments allow a NR that doesn't want to use an outfitter to apply in the early round and pay the additional $300?

Yes

 

[BuzzH]

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.

What you should be doing is be thankful that any State allows you to hunt or fish as a NR...they don't have to.

What you do in your State with the Wildlife you control is up to the Residents of your State. If you demand they charge more for NR opportunity, your wildlife, your state, your call. I either choose to pay what you ask or move on. If they don't want me hunting your wildlife at all, I'm fine with that too.

How its worked for, well, about as long as there's been States...don't know what to say beyond that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What you should be doing is be thankful that any State allows you to hunt or fish as a NR...they don't have to.

What you do in your State with the Wildlife you control is up to the Residents of your State. If you demand they charge more for NR opportunity, your wildlife, your state, your call. I either choose to pay what you ask or move on. If they don't want me hunting your wildlife at all, I'm fine with that too.

How its worked for, well, about as long as there's been States...don't know what to say beyond that.

I agree, that's the way it is, that's their right, but I 100% think NR hunting is vital to our national wildlife ethos and that there should be some amount of consideration given to allowing access to a broad swath of the US population.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

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.

Then how about you give us back our money?

Montana gets $24.4M, Wyoming $16M in federal conservation, recreation grants

Montana received $24.4 million and Wyoming $16 million in grant funds raised by excise taxes on the purchase hunting, shooting and fishing equipment and boat fuel.

billingsgazette.com

 

[BuzzH]

I agree, that's the way it is, that's their right, but I 100% think NR hunting is vital to our national wildlife ethos and that there should be some amount of consideration given to allowing access to a broad swath of the US population.

I believe a broad swath of the US population already has that access if they want it. Applications are increasing every year, which leads me to believe there's good access or we wouldn't be setting application records every year.

I get tired of the NR's wrongfully believing they're entitled to another State's wildlife resources.

 

[BuzzH]

Then how about you give us back our money?

Montana gets $24.4M, Wyoming $16M in federal conservation, recreation grants

Montana received $24.4 million and Wyoming $16 million in grant funds raised by excise taxes on the purchase hunting, shooting and fishing equipment and boat fuel.

billingsgazette.com

Reform or change PR/DJ if its that's your priority...good luck with that.

Every State in the US receives PR/DJ funding.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I believe a broad swath of the US population already has that access if they want it. Applications are increasing every year, which leads me to believe there's good access or we wouldn't be setting application records every year.

I get tired of the NR's wrongfully believing they're entitled to another State's wildlife resources.

I have never on any thread ever said they were entitled. I have said a bigger tent approach and an acknowledgement of the huge federal funding component for these westerns states would better enable a broad base of voter support for wildlife conservation. And keeping those NR fees accessible to the common man is part of the political strategy. But as you say, states can do whatever they wish, just don't complain when the votes from other states dry up in congress. You don't owe us your wildlife and we don't owe you our tax dollars or votes. But it would be nice if we could share for the broader good.

 

[BuzzH]

I have never on any thread ever said they were entitled. I have said a bigger tent approach and an acknowledgement of the huge federal funding component for these westerns states would better enable a broad base of voter support for wildlife conservation. And keeping those NR fees accessible to the common man is part of the political strategy. But as you say, states can do whatever they wish, just don't complain when the votes from other states dry up in congress. You don't owe us your wildlife and we don't owe you our tax dollars or votes. But it would be nice if we could share for the broader good.

Ever looked at what NR's were paying in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and comparing what they pay now (taking inflation, average income, etc. into account)?

I'll take a guess and say no...or you wouldn't be carrying on like you are.

States have gone out of their way to keep NR's fees in reach of the "common man". Why do you think NR hunting is so much more popular NOW than it was 20-30-40 years ago?

SMH...

 

[HighCountryCommando]

Reform or change PR/DJ if its that's your priority...good luck with that.

Every State in the US receives PR/DJ funding.

You’ll take the money and say the issue is somebody else’s problem...that response doesn’t support your position...and it certainly doesn’t eliminate the inconvenient truth.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

What do you think the odds are that Montana passes on taking the windfall of federal non-resident generated funds coming in the next few years?

The Surge in Gun and Ammo Sales Has Created a Boom in Wildlife Conservation Funding

The surge in firearms and ammo buying has created a surge in Pittman-Robertson funding for wildlife and habitat conservation. Since 1939, the act has generated a total of $12.8 billion in Wildlife Restoration apportionments. Here's why that funding matters more than ever.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[BuzzH]

You’ll take the money and say the issue is somebody else’s problem...that response doesn’t support your position...and it certainly doesn’t eliminate the inconvenient truth.

Whining about PR funding, that hunters fund an almost insignificant part of...is another inconvenient truth.

Don't over-play your hand as to how much YOU pay into PR as a hunter...you dont.

If anyone has anything to complain about in regard to PR funding it's the recreational shooters that overwhelming fund/pay it and don't even hunt.

 

[Hunt West]

Ever looked at what NR's were paying in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and comparing what they pay now (taking inflation, average income, etc. into account)?

I'll take a guess and say no...or you wouldn't be carrying on like you are.

States have gone out of their way to keep NR's fees in reach of the "common man". Why do you think NR hunting is so much more popular NOW than it was 20-30-40 years ago?

SMH...

Automatic transmissions and a cruise control button in the truck

 

[BuzzH]

What do you think the odds are that Montana passes on taking the windfall of federal non-resident generated funds coming in the next few years?

The Surge in Gun and Ammo Sales Has Created a Boom in Wildlife Conservation Funding

The surge in firearms and ammo buying has created a surge in Pittman-Robertson funding for wildlife and habitat conservation. Since 1939, the act has generated a total of $12.8 billion in Wildlife Restoration apportionments. Here's why that funding matters more than ever.

www.outdoorlife.com

Windfall mostly funded by NR's that don't hunt...yet they don't carry on like entitled babies about it.

Again, don't overplay your hand...you have a pair of deuces...best case.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Why do you think NR hunting is so much more popular NOW than it was 20-30-40 years ago?

The internet?

 

[BuzzH]

The internet?

Internet doesn't pay for NR licenses or make it any more affordable.

The reason is because its affordable, maybe more affordable now to a bigger swath of NR hunters than it ever has been.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Internet doesn't pay for NR licenses or make it any more affordable.

The reason is because its affordable, maybe more affordable now to a bigger swath of NR hunters than it ever has been.

I would guess the internet, overcrowding in the east, an interest in "know where your food comes from", technology making public lands identification easier for out of staters, millions in industry marketing, hundreds of youtubers and tv sportsman shows, etc. etc. have contributed for the most part. But if "low" fees are part of it, then I say keeping them "low" helps the broader cause.