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

[mtmuley]

Rainier Beer - Montana Fresh Rainier - YouTube I know this is a serious issue, but...... mtmuley

 

[Badger_55]

Rainier Beer - Montana Fresh Rainier - YouTube I know this is a serious issue, but...... mtmuley

Thank you for those.

 

[Walkalot]

Ya some bma is really good. But those are the ones they let 8 friends on and 2 outfitter guys get days on. A loophole in the sytem

 

[Gerald Martin]

Ain’t education wonderful?

 

[Brad W]

Amidst the current assault there is a good bill, SB 256, headed to the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow that needs our support. It would make it a crime to block public access to public lands by erecting gates and such. Take a look and send some letters of support. It is the rare bill that needs our help not opposition.

 

[ID Hunter 22]

Looking at the Legislature website it seems like this bill is still in committee with no date assigned for a hearing?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Looking at the Legislature website it seems like this bill is still in committee with no date assigned for a hearing?

Not a bad thing.

We're in the craziest time of the session right now - transmittal week (for non-revenue bills). There are over 125 bills scheduled for hearings today & tomorrow in order to pass the house of origin by next week, or they die. That means committees & floor action is going to be super intense until transmittal break.

SB 143 sitting in Finance & Claims is expected, especially for a controversial bill. As a revenue bill, it also has a later transmittal date, so it is expected to be taken up after next week.

Not sure what the path forward is, but folks still remain hopeful that it dies, or gets some amendments to make it better than it's current form (lots of internal discussions relative to issues raised here on HT about the egalitarian-ness of the bill, etc).

Stay vigilant. We're not even 1/2 done with crazy.

 

[KRH]

Not a bad thing.

We're in the craziest time of the session right now - transmittal week (for non-revenue bills). There are over 125 bills scheduled for hearings today & tomorrow in order to pass the house of origin by next week, or they die. That means committees & floor action is going to be super intense until transmittal break.

SB 143 sitting in Finance & Claims is expected, especially for a controversial bill. As a revenue bill, it also has a later transmittal date, so it is expected to be taken up after next week.

Not sure what the path forward is, but folks still remain hopeful that it dies, or gets some amendments to make it better than it's current form (lots of internal discussions relative to issues raised here on HT about the egalitarian-ness of the bill, etc).

Stay vigilant. We're not even 1/2 done with crazy.

Ben Lamb: Thanks for the helpful update. Do you know if there is a way to determine whether it will pass or fail prior to the 4/1 application deadline? Thank you

 

[Beignet]

Ben Lamb: Thanks for the helpful update. Do you know if there is a way to determine whether it will pass or fail prior to the 4/1 application deadline? Thank you

Hopefully this bill dies, but if even if it were to pass before the 2021 NR application deadline it would not be implemented for the 2021 hunting season. (If that's what your question was regarding).

 

[KRH]

Hopefully this bill dies, but if even if it were to pass before the 2021 NR application deadline it would not be implemented for the 2021 hunting season. (If that's what your question was regarding).

That is what I am asking. Thanks for the helpful input

 

[Dakotakid]

If you look at the last sentence of the text of the bill itself it will list the proposed effective date. Most are October but I think this one is later but you can check it on the Montana legislature website easily.

 

[Dakotakid]

December 1 2021

 

[MTGomer]

@Ben Lamb Since the Finance and Claims hearing on this was cancelled, what does that mean? If they don't bring it up in that committee does it just die?

 

[Ben Lamb]

@Ben Lamb Since the Finance and Claims hearing on this was cancelled, what does that mean? If they don't bring it up in that committee does it just die?

The bill has until.revenue transmittal to move across to the House. By not moving, it means there is not enough support to do anything with it, or the sponsor has asked that it not be heard while they try something different to generate support.

Heard today they may try to make this fit into the weed money bill dropping, or try to get it out in the budget. It would be a huge lift, but that's how the did the apprentice hunter bill after it died in committee.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

If you wondered what kind of new bills would be pushed in the current Montana legislature, here is a sample. Reinstating the outfitter license that was done away with by citizens ballot initiative is back.

Full text of the bill is at this link - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/SB0143.pdf

It is bad for residents and bad for self-guided non-residents.

Hearing the Senate Fish & Game Committee on February 2nd.

Here are the members of the Senate Fish & Game Committee:

Hinebauch, Steve (R) ‑ Chair
Brown, Bob (R) ‑ Vice Chair
Jacobson,Tom (D) ‑ Vice Chair
Blasdel, Mark (R)
Cohenour, Jill (D)
Ellsworth, Jason (R)
Flowers, Pat (D)
Hertz, Greg (R)
Howard, David (R)
Keenan, Bob (R)
McClafferty, Edie (D)

To find the email or phone number for your Senator, here is the link - https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/

I would strongly recommend you weigh in on this one.

Can someone with a higher IQ than myself summarize this? The way I interpret it is that landowner “sponsors” will be awarded tags for nonresidents that will be guided by them, amount of tags relates to amount of property owned. If I understand correctly these tags are in addition to the amount of tags already distributed to non-residents? Does this change anything with limited entry permits or only for the big game combo licenses? Public land access part sounds like it will compensate landowners who allow access across private land to public land? Is this tied in to this Bill in order to sway the public’s opinion of the “sponsor” tags? Sorry if these are stupid questions but legal language with the B-10, B-11 stuff sort of lost me and if I’m going to write in on behalf of this bill I would
Like to fully understand it.

Montana Outfitters and Guide association is sponsoring a bill that severely limits non-resident hunters to hunt the state of Montana on their own while forcing non-residents to use their members services and paying an additional fee. This fee and the fact that it only applies to non-resident hunters is how they are selling this bill to State lawmakers pitting hunters against hunters. This is a short sighted social welfare issue that only benefit outfitters in this state on the backs of their primary clients (the non-resident hunter). It will further negatively impact the value that non-resident hunters get from participating in the Montana hunt as the State is already the most expensive and difficult to participate in. To be clear, there is no value of this whatsoever to the non-resident hunter.

The outfitter's association seems to believe that they are doing us (non-residents), a favor because they can help us poor dumb non-residents navigate the complicated Montana system.

Using a guide certainly has a value for many as it can provide certain types of adventure that can't be found otherwise and especially / specifically for those hunts that involve heavy logistical considerations. Sometimes the hunter just does not wish to go through all the planning, scouting and purchasing specific equipment for the hunt and in the end Outfitter provides an invaluable service. However, the employment of those services should be based on reputation and perceived need, rather than on unfair, unwanted forced government regulation.

 

[Eric Albus]

Montana Outfitters and Guide association is sponsoring a bill that severely limits non-resident hunters to hunt the state of Montana on their own while forcing non-residents to use their members services and paying an additional fee. This fee and the fact that it only applies to non-resident hunters is how they are selling this bill to State lawmakers pitting hunters against hunters. This is a short sighted social welfare issue that only benefit outfitters in this state on the backs of their primary clients (the non-resident hunter). It will further negatively impact the value that non-resident hunters get from participating in the Montana hunt as the State is already the most expensive and difficult to participate in. To be clear, there is no value of this whatsoever to the non-resident hunter.

The outfitter's association seems to believe that they are doing us (non-residents), a favor because they can help us poor dumb non-residents navigate the complicated Montana system.

Using a guide certainly has a value for many as it can provide certain types of adventure that can't be found otherwise and especially / specifically for those hunts that involve heavy logistical considerations. Sometimes the hunter just does not wish to go through all the planning, scouting and purchasing specific equipment for the hunt and in the end Outfitter provides an invaluable service. However, the employment of those services should be based on reputation and perceived need, rather than on unfair, unwanted forced government regulation.

To be clear, SB 143 certainly does help the outfitted NR.

SB 143 does not force a NR to use an outfitter, just to be clear.

The ONLY argument I have heard that even remotely resonates is about the fairness of having a certain number of license set aside for use by outfitters, and why an outfitted client deserves a better chance of drawing a license. The only answer I have for that is economics, outfitted clients bring far more "bang for the buck", literally, than do unguided NR hunters. It is an indisputable fact. Even were I not involved with outfitting I would much rather see a NR have to leave maximum dollar. As a resident sportsman I see the NR as a "taker", you come to Montana and take something of "ours" home with you. If you are not making a large economic impact, why should we have you? I will not disparage that NR's who are not guided make an impact economically, but at 5-7 unguided, vs.1 guided, no comparison to the benefit for Montana. 5 deer/elk gone to unguided hunters(who are competing with every Resident hunter), vs. 1 deer/elk per guided hunter(hunting lands that are mostly inaccessible). On this merit I can make a case that every NR should be outfitted, just as I can make a case for NR's being treated unfairly on license price on public lands, the rub comes from the wildlife belonging to the State of Mt.

Onto SB 143, my take.

I will agree with anyone that asking for 60% of the NR license take was not a good move, certainly one I would have never sanctioned.

The way it was amended to 39% of the NR license quota represents the number of NR hunters for the last 20 years choosing to hunt with an outfitter. This is what should have been in the original bill, from what I have gleaned the 60% ask was on account of knowing that it'd be bargained down to a lesser number. I thought/think it looked bad and we should have went forward asking only for what we have been traditionally using for the last 20 years.

If 143 does not pass the resident hunters can expect a big influx of DIY NR hunters on accessible lands from this point forward. Unless by a miracle it does pass, then Res. hunters will only have to deal with an influx this fall.

 

[Mkamman]

To be clear, SB 143 certainly does help the outfitted NR.

SB 143 does not force a NR to use an outfitter, just to be clear.

The ONLY argument I have heard that even remotely resonates is about the fairness of having a certain number of license set aside for use by outfitters, and why an outfitted client deserves a better chance of drawing a license. The only answer I have for that is economics, outfitted clients bring far more "bang for the buck", literally, than do unguided NR hunters. It is an indisputable fact. Even were I not involved with outfitting I would much rather see a NR have to leave maximum dollar. As a resident sportsman I see the NR as a "taker", you come to Montana and take something of "ours" home with you. If you are not making a large economic impact, why should we have you? I will not disparage that NR's who are not guided make an impact economically, but at 5-7 unguided, vs.1 guided, no comparison to the benefit for Montana. 5 deer/elk gone to unguided hunters(who are competing with every Resident hunter), vs. 1 deer/elk per guided hunter(hunting lands that are mostly inaccessible). On this merit I can make a case that every NR should be outfitted, just as I can make a case for NR's being treated unfairly on license price on public lands, the rub comes from the wildlife belonging to the State of Mt.

Onto SB 143, my take.

I will agree with anyone that asking for 60% of the NR license take was not a good move, certainly one I would have never sanctioned.

The way it was amended to 39% of the NR license quota represents the number of NR hunters for the last 20 years choosing to hunt with an outfitter. This is what should have been in the original bill, from what I have gleaned the 60% ask was on account of knowing that it'd be bargained down to a lesser number. I thought/think it looked bad and we should have went forward asking only for what we have been traditionally using for the last 20 years.

If 143 does not pass the resident hunters can expect a big influx of DIY NR hunters on accessible lands from this point forward. Unless by a miracle it does pass, then Res. hunters will only have to deal with an influx this fall.

Why will residents have to deal with an influx of NRs?
Are they still not capped?

 

[Finnman]

To be clear, SB 143 certainly does help the outfitted NR.

SB 143 does not force a NR to use an outfitter, just to be clear.

The ONLY argument I have heard that even remotely resonates is about the fairness of having a certain number of license set aside for use by outfitters, and why an outfitted client deserves a better chance of drawing a license. The only answer I have for that is economics, outfitted clients bring far more "bang for the buck", literally, than do unguided NR hunters. It is an indisputable fact. Even were I not involved with outfitting I would much rather see a NR have to leave maximum dollar. As a resident sportsman I see the NR as a "taker", you come to Montana and take something of "ours" home with you. If you are not making a large economic impact, why should we have you? I will not disparage that NR's who are not guided make an impact economically, but at 5-7 unguided, vs.1 guided, no comparison to the benefit for Montana. 5 deer/elk gone to unguided hunters(who are competing with every Resident hunter), vs. 1 deer/elk per guided hunter(hunting lands that are mostly inaccessible). On this merit I can make a case that every NR should be outfitted, just as I can make a case for NR's being treated unfairly on license price on public lands, the rub comes from the wildlife belonging to the State of Mt.

Onto SB 143, my take.

I will agree with anyone that asking for 60% of the NR license take was not a good move, certainly one I would have never sanctioned.

The way it was amended to 39% of the NR license quota represents the number of NR hunters for the last 20 years choosing to hunt with an outfitter. This is what should have been in the original bill, from what I have gleaned the 60% ask was on account of knowing that it'd be bargained down to a lesser number. I thought/think it looked bad and we should have went forward asking only for what we have been traditionally using for the last 20 years.

If 143 does not pass the resident hunters can expect a big influx of DIY NR hunters on accessible lands from this point forward. Unless by a miracle it does pass, then Res. hunters will only have to deal with an influx this fall.

A "Taker"? Not every NR notches their tag. What's the success rate? Those that go home with unused tags "take" nothing. Just another statement trying to divide R's and NR's to fatten your own wallet. Pretty sickening!

 

[Eric Albus]

The NR are still capped, but there has been for the last 20 years around 8-8500 using the services of outfitters. This year that may not be case. I am hearing from many of my peers who have repeat clients that will only have 1 pt. going into this years drawing, as of Feb. 20th there were 21,000 NR who had a pt, possibly making this a true 2 pt draw, in which case by my best reckoning will put about 6-7000 DIY guys competing with Res. hunters. Remember my earlier post, "be sure to write those who oppose 143 a thank you when your favorite hunting spot has way more NR DIY guys.

If you think for one minute guys like the owner of this web site care about you and your hunting opportunity ahead of a DIY(who is paying their bills) care about "us" as Res. sportsmen, think again.

 

[Eric Albus]

urho, I am sorry, just echoing the sentiment of nearly every honest resident hunter I talk with.

Like it or not there is, has been, and always will be a division between R and NR hunters. It is not to fatten my wallet. It is what it is.