Advertisement

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
That literally has nothing to do with it. A lot of us grew up as MOGA further commercialized our wildlife and know nothing other than hunting public land and BMA. I don’t believe I ought to be able to go on any private land I want nor believe those private landowners should be able to monopolize our wildlife.
 
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!
Wow, you have more patience than I do. It only took 78 pages and how many months? Looks like we've been had, the jig is up, he's on to us...come on...its one dude. Seems like your spiking the ball on the 20 yard line instead of the end-zone.
 
Here's some data compiled from montanafreepress - data source is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BVehhHuO768_B6xh-qWGSNi2O_UPGzYZbMKuHmRpTYw/edit#gid=0

It's interesting - here is the detail on SB143.

w570iuR.png
 
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!
That wasn’t much of a boom
Some guy who controls a piss load of ground. Definitely sounds like a “bull” sale
 
I may have missed it, but has anyone shared any transparent data that confirms the 39% historical outfitter booking number? It would be interesting to see, particularly year by year data.
 
I may have missed it, but has anyone shared any transparent data that confirms the 39% historical outfitter booking number? It would be interesting to see, particularly year by year data.
I wondered this too. @Eric Albus stated earlier that the number of outfitters has declined since I-161 (don't remember which post exactly but if memory serves, like mid 500s down to upper 300s?). Since 161 wasn't really that long ago, I'd be very curious to see yearly data for the last 20 years.
 
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!

Yep. Can definitely smell that you were at the bull sale by what you just tracked in here.
 
Yep. Can definitely smell that you were at the bull sale by what you just tracked in here.
I have no idea if Big Shooter's story is BS or not, but common sense tells me a lot of large landowners would prefer to get paid more and not have to deal with the hassles of DIY trespass requests. I am grateful for those who choose otherwise and either grant rando trespass requests or subscribe to WMA-type programs, but I can understand why many do not. It probably doesn't take too many broken fences, ruffled cattle, and scattered beer cans to sour on DIYers. (Not saying any HT member would do that, but we know not all hunters are gracious hunters)
 
I have no idea if Big Shooter's story is BS or not, but common sense tells me a lot of large landowners would prefer to get paid more and not have to deal with the hassles of DIY trespass requests. I am grateful for those who choose otherwise and either grant rando trespass requests or subscribe to WMA-type programs, but I can understand why many do not. It probably doesn't take too many broken fences, ruffled cattle, and scattered beer cans to sour on DIYers. (Not saying any HT member would do that, but we know not all hunters are gracious hunters)

I'm sure the good old boys who want to keep MT like it's still 1887 part of the story is true, but the reality of the last piece, where the outfitter tries to claim that Montanans want to force access is bullshit.

I've known the guys who ran I-161 for a long time. Do they want better access to elk? Absolutely. Are they out there trying to force it through tag allocation, no. That's the line from MOGA & the crowd trying to privatize wildlife management for their own gain. The people who worked hardest to pass I-161 were the same ones who helped design the block management program, habitat Montana, access leasing, small acquisitions to open chunks of landlocked public and who fought for access to state trust lands.

Not one of them have demanded that landowners open their places to everyone. What they have demanded is that if landowners want the state to solve their problems, then they need to be willing to allow public hunting as a method for reducing damages. Public resource demands a public trust option. That's what Big Shooter & company hate - the public trust so they cast aspersions on people who have spent their adult lives volunteering to open public lands up to hunting, and creating incentive based programs for landowners to be partners in wildlife, not owners.
 
We can keep discussing this but at this point it's anyone's guess what happens next. The bill hasn't moved in over a month. Jason Ellsworth is throwing a temper tantrum that it's not what he wanted and would rather have it die than move forward as is. Our time would be better spent talking about the return of Red Ale at my local brewery and the McRib is back babyyy.

MOGA should be looking for a new director. His incompetence has been on full display.
 
We can keep discussing this but at this point it's anyone's guess what happens next. The bill hasn't moved in over a month. Jason Ellsworth is throwing a temper tantrum that it's not what he wanted and would rather have it die than move forward as is. Our time would be better spent talking about the return of Red Ale at my local brewery and the McRib is back babyyy.

MOGA should be looking for a new director. His incompetence has been on full display.
Maybe they should leave him at the helm. An incompetent MOGA director works out in our favor.
 
I have no idea if Big Shooter's story is BS or not, but common sense tells me a lot of large landowners would prefer to get paid more and not have to deal with the hassles of DIY trespass requests. I am grateful for those who choose otherwise and either grant rando trespass requests or subscribe to WMA-type programs, but I can understand why many do not. It probably doesn't take too many broken fences, ruffled cattle, and scattered beer cans to sour on DIYers. (Not saying any HT member would do that, but we know not all hunters are gracious hunters)
Much appreciated, and for the rest of you, I‘m pretty sure I would not have stated it if it weren’t true. What you said here is correct and exactly why landowners (large and small) get severe heartburn for hunting season. I would never put anyone on here in that group.....but the people that cause such problems that you stated above have given 99% of the orange clad army a bad name. It‘s no different with outfitters. Unfortunately it’s getting worse and not better every fall with what landowners have to deal with, to the extent that some landowners get about half nervous confronting folks that are in the wrong from fear of what might happen. Some of you can call BS all you want, but it is happening more and more and is not helping with the Landowner/DIY relationship building process.
 
Maybe someone asked this already, but why do outfitters think they’re going to have guaranteed business with gaurenteed tags? Wouldn't it make sense that more will start business running on that idea. Then they will have to compete for an ever decreasing pool of tags? At some point they'll end up in the same spot they are today. Then what? They have to allocate to each other individually, or ask for more tags?

Letting a free market without side boards, run a limited resource will eventually run off the track.

Outfitters whining about not knowing if they have clients is just a bunch of horse pucky... market better, build a bigger pool of clients and make your hunts worth it and you'll have a waiting list years long.

How can an outfitter argue for this if they have been successful? Are they just stating they're lazy or are they inferring that the government is keeping them from growing?

After seeing support in the 30+% range. I'll bet this passes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top