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

[timmy]

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.

All of this BS does nothing to address the issue of season structure and why Montana is struggling. Believe me I see both sides. But all I see is bullshit from both sides with no regard to wildlife. Public land hunters fighting to keep things the same and private land guys trying to make money. It’s all BS I don’t agree with either side.

 

[Big Shooter]

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

For easy figuring, say outfitters have been taking roughly 8,000 clients a year industry wide. Ever since the I-161 debacle, outfitter clients have basically had access to a guaranteed tag up until a few years ago. Currently in 2021, if outfitters draw 50%, that means that around 4,000 more nonresident DIY hunters will be helping out with the overcrowding issues that currently exist because an outfitted client didn’t draw said tag.

 

[timmy]

For easy figuring, say outfitters have been taking roughly 8,000 clients a year industry wide. Ever since the I-161 debacle, outfitter clients have basically had access to a guaranteed tag up until a few years ago. Currently in 2021, if outfitters draw 50%, that means that around 4,000 more nonresident DIY hunters will be helping out with the overcrowding issues that currently exist because an outfitted client didn’t draw said tag.

Non-residents are annoying no doubt but if we change the season structure they are less likely to dive into Montana. And the good outfitters could still kill good bucks. Non-residents pay a ton to hunt bucks when they are most vulnerable. Take that away and things may change.

 

[Gerald Martin]

4000 DIY NR’s on public land over the course of a season across MT isn’t going to have that big of an effect.

It would have even less of an effect if FWP’s management policies wouldn’t be skewed towards trying to kill all the elk on accessible lands to appease the people who want low objectives even though the the problem elk are on inaccessible private property.

I don’t have as much heartburn over 143 with its amendments as I did in its original drafting, even though I hope it doesn’t pass.

 

[Big Fin]

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.

Hmm.

Your understanding of what pays my bills is probably as foggy as my understanding of what pays your bills. I'll not make uninformed/misinformed comments about what pays your bills or what are your motivations.

I care about the opportunity of all hunters, specifically the self-guided hunters. Nothing in my message is Resident v. Non-resident, no matter what state we are talking about.

I get that MOGA benefits from painting this bill, and its opposition, as a resident v. non-resident issue. Not sure how many here find much sincerity in MOGA's sudden concern about the impact their bill will have on the DIY resident hunter, given the context of decades of MOGA support of bills that have negative impacts on resident DIY hunters.

I'm not interested in new laws that split hunters against hunters, as this bill does and as does most the other bills that MOGA introduces; bills you most often support. If it were up to me, we would disband the F&G Committees in every legislature. Nothing I encounter is in such a bad state of affairs that it is worth the risk of what end product might come from legislative processes.

I appreciate your fortitude to participate here, knowing your opinions will often be in the minority. That earns my respect and I would bet respect from most who post here. Hearing your perspective is very helpful for all of us.

Your effort to manufacture some kind of boogey man that displays your ignorance of my situation, is counter to the normal credibility you build here. Contrary to your assessment of what drives me and what I care about, I will continue my decades of advocating for hunters, especially the Montana resident hunter of which I am one, and that will likely have us on different sides of the debate. When opportunity comes to work toward better management of resources, I look forward to being on the same side of the debate.

This bill, and this session, will come to a conclusion in a month. MOGA had the entire deck stacked in their favor coming into this legislative session. With good leadership and some tact, they should emerge from this legislative session with all they want or asked for. If they don't accomplish their goals with such favorable tail winds and downhill slope, the end result is on the MOGA leadership, not me, not this site, not the hunters opposed to this and other bills that are being promoted by MOGA.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Is the outfitting industry struggling in Montana? How about we let the consumers/purchasers decide whether we want to hire an outfitter instead of gov't welfare to keep the bottom tier outfitters in business? If they suck, you'd think the reputable outfitters would want them out of the industry as they drag down the ones doing it right.

Montana leaves a lot to be desired with their mismanagement of their resources, and it seems to only be getting worse with junk legislation like this. There's plenty of NR tags for outfitters to pitch their services to the way it sits now.

 

[Big Shooter]

Non-residents are annoying no doubt but if we change the season structure they are less likely to dive into Montana. And the good outfitters could still kill good bucks. Non-residents pay a ton to hunt bucks when they are most vulnerable. Take that away and things may change.

Very well said!

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think if a bill was introduced to cut the general season two weeks shorter or end the season for mule deer by Nov.5 the MT hunters on this forum would be in full support.

 

[Big Shooter]

Is the outfitting industry struggling in Montana? How about we let the consumers/purchasers decide whether we want to hire an outfitter instead of gov't welfare to keep the bottom tier outfitters in business? If they suck, you'd think the reputable outfitters would want them out of the industry as they drag down the ones doing it right.

Montana leaves a lot to be desired with their mismanagement of their resources, and it seems to only be getting worse with junk legislation like this. There's plenty of NR tags for outfitters to pitch their services to the way it sits now.

You can take the very best outfitters in Montana, and put them in a situation whereas the consumer/purchaser can’t obtain a license and they are on the same level as the outfitter that “sucks”! It is still the nonresident’s choice to hire or to not hire an outfitter, nobody is holding a gun to their head like some would like to think...

 

[Big Shooter]

I think if a bill was introduced to cut the general season two weeks shorter or end the season for mule deer by Nov.5 the MT hunters on this forum would be in full support.

I bet you are fairly correct!

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

For easy figuring, say outfitters have been taking roughly 8,000 clients a year industry wide. Ever since the I-161 debacle, outfitter clients have basically had access to a guaranteed tag up until a few years ago. Currently in 2021, if outfitters draw 50%, that means that around 4,000 more nonresident DIY hunters will be helping out with the overcrowding issues that currently exist because an outfitted client didn’t draw said tag.

I-161 debacle aka “that time those annoying Montana citizens voted against my interests.”

 

[Mkamman]

You can take the very best outfitters in Montana, and put them in a situation whereas the consumer/purchaser can’t obtain a license and they are on the same level as the outfitter that “sucks”! It is still the nonresident’s choice to hire or to not hire an outfitter, nobody is holding a gun to their head like some would like to think...

Then be better. Be better at marketing your services. Help them navigate the point system, not that it’s difficult. Try expanding your client base if the same guy can’t come every year because I can’t. If hunting with you is so great your clients will still come even if they have to skip a year every now and then. I’m self employed and no one guarantees my clients. I work hard to be better and grow without government interference.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

You can take the very best outfitters in Montana, and put them in a situation whereas the consumer/purchaser can’t obtain a license and they are on the same level as the outfitter that “sucks”! It is still the nonresident’s choice to hire or to not hire an outfitter, nobody is holding a gun to their head like some would like to think...

This argument could be made for all kinds of professions. Perhaps legislature could pass a law requiring 60% (or 39%) of people who move to Montana to build a new construction home. Probably a plenty of newcomers building new construction anyway. That 60% would not be allowed to DIY or purchase an existing home. I’m sure more money would enter the economy through all of the local general and sub-contractors getting paid as opposed to just a realtor making a little money or the local lumberyard or Home Depot. If legislature tried this we’d think they’re crazy for legislating an industry that doesn’t need it and is doing fine without their intrusion. Even if it benefits current residents we can still see it as an overreach of state government that makes us really uncomfortable.

 

[Eric Albus]

Is the outfitting industry struggling in Montana? How about we let the consumers/purchasers decide whether we want to hire an outfitter instead of gov't welfare to keep the bottom tier outfitters in business? If they suck, you'd think the reputable outfitters would want them out of the industry as they drag down the ones doing it right.

Montana leaves a lot to be desired with their mismanagement of their resources, and it seems to only be getting worse with junk legislation like this. There's plenty of NR tags for outfitters to pitch their services to the way it sits now.

The “guaranteed” license was the start of the shaking out of the unsuccessful outfitter. In spite of all the rhetoric from the opposition of a “guaranteed living” “guaranteed clientele” more outfitters went out of business during its tenure, and in the aftermath of 161 with a basically unlimited license available to outfitters more went out of business. Approx 500 outfitters before OSL to about 380 today(hunting outfitter).

 

[Eric Albus]

This argument could be made for all kinds of professions. Perhaps legislature could pass a law requiring 60% (or 39%) of people who move to Montana to build a new construction home. Probably a plenty of newcomers building new construction anyway. That 60% would not be allowed to DIY or purchase an existing home. I’m sure more money would enter the economy through all of the local general and sub-contractors getting paid as opposed to just a realtor making a little money or the local lumberyard or Home Depot. If legislature tried this we’d think they’re crazy for legislating an industry that doesn’t need it and is doing fine without their intrusion. Even if it benefits current residents we can still see it as an overreach of state government that makes us really uncomfortable.

The difference in this and outfitting is If/when you find someone wanting to build a house you don’t make them purchase a lottery ticket to see if they get to use your services. When they don’t draw you ask them “maybe next year”? Most will look at another state to build their house in.

 

[Eric Albus]

Hmm.

Your understanding of what pays my bills is probably as foggy as my understanding of what pays your bills. I'll not make uninformed/misinformed comments about what pays your bills or what are your motivations.

I care about the opportunity of all hunters, specifically the self-guided hunters. Nothing in my message is Resident v. Non-resident, no matter what state we are talking about.

I get that MOGA benefits from painting this bill, and its opposition, as a resident v. non-resident issue. Not sure how many here find much sincerity in MOGA's sudden concern about the impact their bill will have on the DIY resident hunter, given the context of decades of MOGA support of bills that have negative impacts on resident DIY hunters.

I'm not interested in new laws that split hunters against hunters, as this bill does and as does most the other bills that MOGA introduces; bills you most often support. If it were up to me, we would disband the F&G Committees in every legislature. Nothing I encounter is in such a bad state of affairs that it is worth the risk of what end product might come from legislative processes.

I appreciate your fortitude to participate here, knowing your opinions will often be in the minority. That earns my respect and I would bet respect from most who post here. Hearing your perspective is very helpful for all of us.

Your effort to manufacture some kind of boogey man that displays your ignorance of my situation, is counter to the normal credibility you build here. Contrary to your assessment of what drives me and what I care about, I will continue my decades of advocating for hunters, especially the Montana resident hunter of which I am one, and that will likely have us on different sides of the debate. When opportunity comes to work toward better management of resources, I look forward to being on the same side of the debate.

This bill, and this session, will come to a conclusion in a month. MOGA had the entire deck stacked in their favor coming into this legislative session. With good leadership and some tact, they should emerge from this legislative session with all they want or asked for. If they don't accomplish their goals with such favorable tail winds and downhill slope, the end result is on the MOGA leadership, not me, not this site, not the hunters opposed to this and other bills that are being promoted by MOGA.

Fair enough. Shouldn’t have added the part
about not caring about R vs NR, as you’ve advocated for the DIY guy equally.

 

[whiskeydog]

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.

I'll take that chance. I hunt the same very small mountain range every year...all public land. That public land is outfitted as well, and the guide brings in 10 hunters every week of the season. Whether this bill passes or not, those numbers aren't changing.

I propose that for the next legislature, we introduce a bill that requires 60% of tourists to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants. Only 40% will be allowed to to camp in the backcountry and cook their own meals. What makes MOGA so special that they need the gov't to guarantee them clients year after year?

 

[antlerradar]

For easy figuring, say outfitters have been taking roughly 8,000 clients a year industry wide. Ever since the I-161 debacle, outfitter clients have basically had access to a guaranteed tag up until a few years ago. Currently in 2021, if outfitters draw 50%, that means that around 4,000 more nonresident DIY hunters will be helping out with the overcrowding issues that currently exist because an outfitted client didn’t draw said tag.

I-161 debacle aka “that time those annoying Montana citizens voted against my interests.”

Looks to me that removing I-161 was a good thing for outfitters. They were able to increase there guaranteed clients from 5500 to over 8000. I-161 also made nonresident hunt clubs a viable option for well off nonresidents. If you ask me voting for I-161 turned out to be voting against the interests of those that appose the commercialization of wildlife. Now that demand for Nonresident Montana tags is greater than the quota the outfitters and hunt clubs want to solidify those gains.

 

[Carnage2011]

The difference in this and outfitting is If/when you find someone wanting to build a house you don’t make them purchase a lottery ticket to see if they get to use your services. When they don’t draw you ask them “maybe next year”? Most will look at another state to build their house in.

No no, let me give you a better example. Someone shows up and wants you to build them a home and they have no money to put down for the loan....they may find a credit union to approve them but I wouldn’t count on it. The next guy shows up and wants to build a home and has $200k to put down...I’d plan on that business.
It’s amazing to me that you guys act like the points system doesn’t exist.

 

[brocksw]

The difference in this and outfitting is If/when you find someone wanting to build a house you don’t make them purchase a lottery ticket to see if they get to use your services. When they don’t draw you ask them “maybe next year”? Most will look at another state to build their house in.

Draw statistics are available to everyone. MT is super predictable. I can easily look at the points I hold and say I have XX% chance of drawing my general tag and XX% of drawing a special permit. The remainder is the odds I will not draw said tags. Nothing is a surprise.

Did it ever occur to you to tell your clients, "Hey man, if you don't have any preference points there's a good chance you may not draw this tag this year. You can take a chance but I'm going to overbook to cover myself, you may want to wait until next year when your odds will virtually guarantee the tag" or do you just tell everyone to apply and hope for the best? Then when a bunch of people didn't draw you go complain to the Government asking them to fix the system for you?

I see this as just another form of a business plan....every other business has to have one. Your logic doesn't hold water. We get it. We get where you're coming from. We understand. But.....your argument still doesn't work and it still sucks. I'd be willing to bet there are very few people on this entire forum that don't want you to succeed. I know I want you to succeed. I hope you notch every tag every year. I hope you get great referrals and have a long and successful guiding career. But I don't support you siphoning off tags via the Government, which lessens everyone else's chances of drawing the tags they deserve just as much as your clients. If your career isn't successful and you get washed out of the business, I'm never going to go to the government and ask people to donate their tags to save you, but I'd gladly and empathetically drink a case of yellow jackets with you and talk about how much it sucks that you didn't make it.