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

[Eric Albus]

a

I posted this link to the study on another thread, but it might be useful here.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

My main problem with the study is that the data was collected through a dual survey- one sent to outfitters and one to NR visitors. The outfitter data probably should be more accurate because they have books for tax reasons. But the study sites some answers that seem way off, like an outfitter who answered # of clients at 9,999 (max allowed). Even a rafting operator running 10 boats each day would have trouble getting to that number, so questionable answer. A survey sent to a visitor is just going to contain guesses. We know surveys are inaccurate for a lot of reasons.

The table below is a summary at the front.
As expected, the Outfitter, Guide category is the main driver of the difference (about 60%). Point of question, are "tips" included in the numbers. I would guess for visitor responses it does, but for outfitter responses, probably not. Don't take offense if you are an outfitter, I just assume everyone cheats on their taxes. The average expenditure in the outfitter number is probably low by 50% of the "tip", or lets call it $40-50.

Some numbers in the table make sense, some don't. I think it comes back to those numbers for visitors that hire an outfitter are skewed by fishing and hunting as the purpose. Keep in mind the data is for all NR visitors to Montana, not just hunters. It includes rafters, fishers, and just general vacationers. Glacier and Yellowstone visitors are 40% of all visitors who hired an outfitter. One table says 2% of Outfitter visitors (17,400) were for hunting while table on page 18 says 4% of visitors hired an outfitter for hunting while 3% of all visitors. (again, I question the survey responses when data starts to deviate and not tie back to other numbers).
View attachment 177546

As you can see above, everything in economics can be disputed. In this case, I don't dispute those that those hiring an outfitter spend more, but it mostly goes to the outfitter and shouldn't be used to drive legislative actions. That does not negate the conclusion of the importance of outfitting, but speaking in broad terms about positive economic impact is questionable at best in terms of the bill being discussed. We don't have data to compare NR hunters.
The paragraph below (page 5) is in the study about HB 161. Not sure how they concluded this but it was interesting in terms of this discussion.

Perhaps the first example of regulating guided activities was the I-161 initiative passed by the voters of Montana, 53.8 percent to 46.2 percent in 2010. I-161 was a citizen-initiated state statute to increase nonresident big game license fees and abolish outfitter-sponsored licenses. Until then, hunting outfitters were guaranteed a certain number of licenses for their clients. Clients paid almost double the price of a nonresident fee for that guarantee. Ultimately, Montana FWP lost revenue from nonresident licenses until 2017. The intent by many backers of I-161 was to open private lands to hunting by residents but it appears the opposite affect happened.

the farmers market and gambling made me laugh.

All the DIY NR hunters I have interrogated over the last 2-3 years, this is what they've told me their spending looks like, approx.

$1200-2250, counting license and costs of getting to Montana. Obviously the lower end guys are staying in tents/camper trailers, bringing gas/groceries from home. Higher end guys are staying in motel eating at restaurant. I realize some of you make multiple trips and spend 2-4k hunting Montana or more. Keep on keeping Montana green, thank you.

NR Guided hunters are spending low end $6500 per. This is figured with a $620 license, 5-700$ airfare, $3-500 rental car, $600 taxidermy bill, $2-500 tips, $4500(low end) hunt cost. This is not including incidental expenditures, like bar/restaurant/sporting goods store/ or farmers market/gambling...lol

The numbers on the study you cite are very close to the 5:1 ratio. From what I have discerned it is closer to 6 or 7 to 1.

One thing you may find funny, as the owner I don't get tipped, so I don't have to cheat. My clients think its funny when they hand out $100 bills to my guides and look over and tell me "you're the owner, you don't need tipped".

 

[Eric Albus]

Guess what, NR and R DIY hunters stop at the same places....some even cut lease checks too.

Nobody owes outfitters a living off the States Wildlife assets. Outfitters don't even provide a red cent to the Montana FWP for management. Sportsman's dollars stock the shelves with Wildlife, outfitters take from those shelves we stock and forget to stop at the cash register on the way out.

A good start to further your argument would be start paying into the wildlife you take...and before you say it, its your CLIENTS that are paying license fee's not outfitters.

Guess what, myself(as a landowner) and my landowners are paying for the wildlife. Who the hell you thinks houses and feeds these deer year round? I had 3-500 deer nightly eating hay this winter, along with 20K ducks, so spare me the indignity.

 

[mtmiller]

Ouch, Why not just tag me next time?

I kept it generic. If specific to you I would have thrown in Busted Knuckle.

 

[BuzzH]

a

the farmers market and gambling made me laugh.

All the DIY NR hunters I have interrogated over the last 2-3 years, this is what they've told me their spending looks like, approx.

$1200-2250, counting license and costs of getting to Montana. Obviously the lower end guys are staying in tents/camper trailers, bringing gas/groceries from home. Higher end guys are staying in motel eating at restaurant. I realize some of you make multiple trips and spend 2-4k hunting Montana or more. Keep on keeping Montana green, thank you.

NR Guided hunters are spending low end $6500 per. This is figured with a $620 license, 5-700$ airfare, $3-500 rental car, $600 taxidermy bill, $2-500 tips, $4500(low end) hunt cost. This is not including incidental expenditures, like bar/restaurant/sporting goods store/ or farmers market/gambling...lol

The numbers on the study you cite are very close to the 5:1 ratio. From what I have discerned it is closer to 6 or 7 to 1.

One thing you may find funny, as the owner I don't get tipped, so I don't have to cheat. My clients think its funny when they hand out $100 bills to my guides and look over and tell me "you're the owner, you don't need tipped".

Every guided hunter has their deer, elk, pronghorn mounted from their guided hunts and all of them done in Montana? Some fancy statistics you have there.

 

[Eric Albus]

Just to correct, the Ducks were not eating hay, they were eating grain. Ducks are not browsers, they are free-grazers.

 

[Eric Albus]

Every guided hunter has their deer, elk, pronghorn mounted from their guided hunts and all of them done in Montana? Some fancy statistics you have there.

Probably not everyone one but a lot of them do.

 

[BuzzH]

Guess what, myself(as a landowner) and my landowners are paying for the wildlife. Who the hell you thinks houses and feeds these deer year round? I had 3-500 deer nightly eating hay this winter, along with 20K ducks, so spare me the indignity.

That doesn't pay for management...

If you want less wildlife and want to complain about it, you have options.

 

[BuzzH]

Probably not everyone one but a lot of them do.

I'd say less than 50% even get their animals mounted and less than 10% have it done locally.

That's a grossly exaggerated expenditure...and we both know it.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Just to correct, the Ducks were not eating hay, they were eating grain. Ducks are not browsers, they are free-grazers.

Free loaders. Try swans. We've got dozens in winter stubble. I swear they're digging to China when they're not trying to beat up the tractors and trucks. Can't drive a wheeler near them anymore or you might not make it home.

 

[SAJ-99]

Who the hell you thinks houses and feeds these deer year round? I had 3-500 deer nightly eating hay this winter, along with 20K ducks, so spare me the indignity.

This is a different argument and one for a landowner, not an outfitter. If you want a payment for that "game damage" I am for it. Maybe not the ducks, those are probably Canadian. Start a thread on Block Managment and allowing game damage hunts. That is the solution for landowners. Most of us don't want to hear them cry about game eating grass when they don't allow hunters. Also, I have never seen an angus that was starving to death, so clearly there is some amount of excess. It is pretty easy to see bales of hay from 2, 3, 5 years ago sitting on a ranch unused.

 

[brocksw]

This is a different argument and one for a landowner, not an outfitter. If you want a payment for that "game damage" I am for it. Maybe not the ducks, those are probably Canadian. Start a thread on Block Managment and allowing game damage hunts. That is the solution for landowners. Most of us don't want to hear them cry about game eating grass when they don't allow hunters. Also, I have never seen an angus that was starving to death, so clearly there is some amount of excess. It is pretty easy to see bales of hay from 2, 3, 5 years ago sitting on a ranch unused.

Imagine the hurt bag he'd be in if there was still 60 million bison and 10 million elk running around the country. Apparently getting those numbers down to 31,000 and 1 million respectively isn't enough.

But yes, tell us more how hunters and wildlife haven't sacrificed enough.

 

[BuzzH]

Imagine the hurt bag he'd be in if there was still 60 million bison and 10 million elk running around the country. Apparently getting those numbers down to 31,000 and 1 million respectively isn't enough.

But yes, tell us more how hunters and wildlife haven't sacrificed enough.

Listening to Albus, they're already in the hurt bag with APR having 800 bison on their own land...

 

[brockel]

Which is a shame, because it's gorgeous out there.

Depends where you are standing

 

[MLaird]

View attachment 177557

So like this? Seems unlikely...

I was thinking this today. If, historically speaking, 40% of NR use an outfitter, that number suddenly changes if 143 doesn't pass? There hasn't been outfitter-sponsored tags for 10 years now and the numbers have stayed the same, the economy is ok(or at least people are still applying for tags, and in record numbers), so 143 not passing automatically means more NR DIY? Maybe I'm missing something...

I've not been on a guided hunt or fishing trip, I don't have the money. I do think they are a good thing for some people. But I don't think that people who want to use an outfitter should be able to jump to the front of the line.

 

[WIbiggame]

I was thinking this today. If, historically speaking, 40% of NR use an outfitter, that number suddenly changes if 143 doesn't pass? There hasn't been outfitter-sponsored tags for 10 years now and the numbers have stayed the same, the economy is ok(or at least people are still applying for tags, and in record numbers), so 143 not passing automatically means more NR DIY? Maybe I'm missing something...

I've not been on a guided hunt or fishing trip, I don't have the money. I do think they are a good thing for some people. But I don't think that people who want to use an outfitter should be able to jump to the front of the line.

I think what Eric and Bret are saying is that if this doesn't pass their repeat clients won't be drawing every year so those tags will go to DIY NR instead of guided clients.

I am sure both of these guys will be fine and adapt to their repeat clients drawing every 2-3yrs and will get new clients to fill the gaps.

 

[WIbiggame]

These threads are all sides continuing to present the same arguments and no one changes their mind.

You are correct and I don't think anyone should expect to change anyone's mind on this type of forum.

With that said I can say that the number of people who have sent me the link to this thread,that I didn't even know cared about Montana hunting, telling me I need to oppose this have been awesome to see!

While we might not be changing anyone here's mind; the people far outside this forum are being reached, and those are the influential people whose minds can be changed and reached.

I have developed a better understanding and appreciation for the outfitters just based on Eric and Brad's comments. While I don't agree with them they have made me think a little differently about things.

 

[Walkalot]

Landowners, ranches, outfitters blur distinction between livestock and wildlife. They frequently seize private profits at the expense of the public interest. Their reckless behavior spreads disease, disrupts ecology and deprives the public of their heritage. They will try to deprive local interests of the right to regulate or otherwise limit these excesses by appealing to the “free market” – even as they subvert the free market by internalizing private profit while foisting the costs of their operations onto the environment and the public.

Anonymous Qoute

 

[Walkalot]

Eric gaurenteed tags only gaurentte more land leased and less opportunity for the public to have access to private.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

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.

Tags are a limited resource. There is your difference. The fact something is a limited resource does not mean the government should guarantee obtaining it. In fact show me a business, that solely relies on a limited resource to be profitable, where the government guarantees business.

 

[Big Shooter]

Eric gaurenteed tags only gaurentte more land leased and less opportunity for the public to have access to private.

BOOM!! EXACTLY the response I have been waiting for and it FINALLY reared it’s ugly head!! The very same vehicle that pushed the ever so famous I-161!! “If we cripple the outfitting industry all of this private property will open up!” I’ve got one for you fellas.....with all due respect....I was at a Bull sale the other day, sitting around having a few cold ones with some landowners that control a piss load of ground, and EVERYONE of them made the comment that “Every nonresident hunter should have to go with an outfitter.” I actually disagreed with them, even though two of them are guys I lease from, because I don’t think that is correct. But....as much as this may hurt.....that is a sample of the thoughts that run through the landowner community. I know....I know, it’s a small sample....but that is the mentality of a lot of the landowners in Montana. At the end of the day....wether you all want to admit it or not...the main reason that all of the “fringe” groups are against 143 is that they still think that they should be able to go wherever, whenever!