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

[Gerald Martin]

As I read these debates back and forth, I keep hearing about how hunters feel entitled to private access or are trying to force access.
My perception is that from outfitters I have personally interacted with there is a near universal attitude that they should have priority when it comes to the harvest of wildlife. The bills being supported by MOGA and being introduced to the legislature certainly seem to reflect that entitlement mentality.

For the record. I don’t want to force access. I want wildlife in MT to be managed in such a way that wildlife is healthy and existent on public land and accessible private lands.

For that to be a continuing reality, it requires FWP to stop managing public and accessible private with the strategy of reducing wildlife on inaccessible areas by killing everything that ventures off of sanctuary areas onto accessible land.

It doesn’t address the “problem” and causes more in the process.

Eric complains about the cost of feeding 300-500 deer. Those are our deer, (residents of MT) which happen to live on land Eric controls access to. That control of access allows Eric the ability to run a business that benefits from our deer at times and is a liability at times. If he wants the benefit, he should bear the liability.

If he wants to share that liability, I have multiple kids and know plenty of safe and respectful hunters who have or are willing to get tags to reduce some of those deer numbers.

If he doesn’t want help with reducing deer numbers by allowing access, that’s totally fine. Just don’t complain about the cost of maintaining the deer herd that allows him to build a successful business. Especially, since the numbers of deer are in part a reflection of management decisions he made on land he controls.

I realize that this is a bit simplistic and although I used Eric personally as an example, it isn’t intended to single him out personally. This dynamic is playing out across the state and conflict between users is continuing to escalate because the solutions offered aren’t working.

Wildlife has been legally defined as existing as a condition of the land. It has been legally defined as being owned by the residents of the state and managed as a public trust resource. It has been legally determined that the impact of wildlife on private land has to be considered by those entrusted to manage.

I believe in many cases, cooperation can provide solutions and ease conflict. I also believe in other cases, In localities where the affected parties have no desire or ability to cooperate it is impossible to ease conflict with the tools we have. In those cases, I am more concerned about maintaining good management policies and working with people who are cooperating instead of trying to fix problems that don’t or shouldn’t exist for people who don’t want to solve the problem.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Maybe a competent director could help us work towards not hunting deer for 11 weeks straight through the end of the rut instead of just grifting off the public’s wildlife?

But then the outfitters couldn't book as many people with such short seasons. They NEED 11 weeks to survive. OR they NEED guaranteed tags for NR to survive.

 

[Nemont]

Big Shooter,

I believe that you stated exactly verbatim what a large land owner said about all NR hunters should be required to use an outfitter. I believe that landowners get sick and tired of answering the knocks on the door or finding trespassing hunters. I have spoken to many landowners who painted all the gate posts orange after years and years of allowing access and didn't lease to an outfitter but rather just want to be left in peace from Sept. to January.

Access to private lands should be controlled by the land owners, no argument with that, access to private property should be approached on a basis of what is best for said land owner and if the answer is no to public access then fine. Now be honest, if the gripe is feeding wild animals but the landowners doesn't allow a reduction in the number said wild animals by not allowing access to hunt those animals, why should the state, DIY hunters, the general public and the legislature care what happens on said private lands? Wouldn't that be a consequence of exercising your private property rights? The land owner could have allowed the reduction of the wild animals but chose not to, why not own the results of that decision and pay the price?

Nemont

 

[Gerald Martin]

Big Shooter,

I believe that you stated exactly verbatim what a large land owner said about all NR hunters should be required to use an outfitter. I believe that landowners get sick and tired of answer the knocks on the door or finding trespassing hunters. I have spoken to many landowners who painted all the gate post orange after years and years of allowing access and didn't lease to an outfitter but rather just want to be left in peace from Sept. to January.

Access to private lands should be controlled by the land owners, no argument with that, access to private property should be approached on a basis of what is best for said land owner and if the answer is no to public access then fine. Now be honest, if the gripe is feeding wild animals but the landowners doesn't allow a reduction in the number said wild animals by not allowing access to hunt those animals, why should the state, DIY hunters, the general public and the legislature care what happens on said private lands? Wouldn't that be a consequence of exercising your private property rights? The land owner could have allowed the reduction of the wild animals but chose not to, why not own the results of that decision and pay the price?

Nemont

@Nemont for governor,2024. I already have his slogan. “Give common sense a chance!”

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

Never one time has any outfitter stated or thought that they would be “guaranteed” clients/business with 143. What it will do is allow an outfitter to run that business or serve said client that he/she gathered up through marketing and a good reputation. There needed to be sideboards and if Albus and I and a couple of other guys would have gotten our way there would have been. Eric and I knew this shit storm was coming.....but it it is what it is.

 

[Big Shooter]

Big Shooter,

I believe that you stated exactly verbatim what a large land owner said about all NR hunters should be required to use an outfitter. I believe that landowners get sick and tired of answering the knocks on the door or finding trespassing hunters. I have spoken to many landowners who painted all the gate posts orange after years and years of allowing access and didn't lease to an outfitter but rather just want to be left in peace from Sept. to January.

Access to private lands should be controlled by the land owners, no argument with that, access to private property should be approached on a basis of what is best for said land owner and if the answer is no to public access then fine. Now be honest, if the gripe is feeding wild animals but the landowners doesn't allow a reduction in the number said wild animals by not allowing access to hunt those animals, why should the state, DIY hunters, the general public and the legislature care what happens on said private lands? Wouldn't that be a consequence of exercising your private property rights? The land owner could have allowed the reduction of the wild animals but chose not to, why not own the results of that decision and pay the price?

Nemont

I could not agree more sir! Many of my good friends that live in or close to the Breaks have to deal with elk, and they are fine with it due to the fact that it is the lesser of two evils. You get it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

Just to extend my remarks as I may have left an incomplete impression. While I pointed out I can understand why outfitting is an easy answer for landowners, I do believe that private property does come with some public responsibilty. I think that landowners should very much consider if the exclusive monetization of land access to public wildlife is really living up to a responsibility we each have to a broader community. I say this not as a greedy NR, but as a landowner that controls some landlocked public here in MN - land where I have not refused a reasonable DIY access (at zero cost) request. Even if I lose a chance at a few $$ or risk a jerk now and then, I benefit greatly from this adjacent public land and the public wildlife that finds its way onto my land and all that this offers me and my family year-round - allowing non-destructive, non-disruptive, and reasonable access seem to be a fair return. I disagree with the rabidness of some western landowners. I have only been public land hunting in the west for a few years, but I, unfortunately, have met more rabid jerk landowners in a few weeks than I ever have in years of living and owning land in ND, CA or MN. I encourage western states landowners to take a breath and remind themselves of the past norm, where giving a guy/gal access to shoot a deer was commonplace and not a major economic undertaking.

 

[tjones]

Much appreciated, and for the rest of you, I‘m pretty sure I would not have stated it if it weren’t true.

deleted,,,,

 

[golfer]

Big Shooter,

I believe that you stated exactly verbatim what a large land owner said about all NR hunters should be required to use an outfitter. I believe that landowners get sick and tired of answering the knocks on the door or finding trespassing hunters. I have spoken to many landowners who painted all the gate posts orange after years and years of allowing access and didn't lease to an outfitter but rather just want to be left in peace from Sept. to January.

Access to private lands should be controlled by the land owners, no argument with that, access to private property should be approached on a basis of what is best for said land owner and if the answer is no to public access then fine. Now be honest, if the gripe is feeding wild animals but the landowners doesn't allow a reduction in the number said wild animals by not allowing access to hunt those animals, why should the state, DIY hunters, the general public and the legislature care what happens on said private lands? Wouldn't that be a consequence of exercising your private property rights? The land owner could have allowed the reduction of the wild animals but chose not to, why not own the results of that decision and pay the price?

Nemont

I as well know a few guys who won’t even answer or go as far as unplugping the phone starting mid August because their answering machines are full by 10am with messages from people with out of state area codes, that they have zero idea of who they are wanting to hunt. Kind of tough to harvest a crop run or ranch if you have to constantly be answering the phone. They’ve stated we don’t feel comfortable allowing those we don’t know on our place to hunt because we don’t know if they are individuals who will treat their property with respect. Side note neither of these landowners complain about the wildlife being too populated or eating them out of house and home.

 

[Bambistew]

Never one time has any outfitter stated or thought that they would be “guaranteed” clients/business with 143. What it will do is allow an outfitter to run that business or serve said client that he/she gathered up through marketing and a good reputation. There needed to be sideboards and if Albus and I and a couple of other guys would have gotten our way there would have been. Eric and I knew this shit storm was coming.....but it it is what it is.

Then why do you need the license? You want the set-aside because you want to be able to run a business so the people you have contracted will get licenses (aka guaranteed), even though you know they won't get a license? Once you get a big enough pool of clients, it really doesn't matter, you should have enough that will get a tag each fall. What I get is you worried that the number of people who use an outfitter will decline in the future and you want to make sure you keep your market share. Doesn't sound like a lack of clients has been an issue, then why do you need the guaranteed tags?

I just don't understand how a set-aside number of tags will keep the "system" from hurting business growth in the future, or sustain it. At some point it will be saturated, and you'll need more ground to lease up to keep going, at that point you'll either need more NR tags, or cut the number of outfitters to make the model sustainable.

I am totally sympathetic to LO and having to deal with hunters. I can only imagine. I also understand that having someone run an outfitting business on PL would take a lot of headache away from the LO who wants game managed, but doesn't want to deal with Joe Public. What I find strange is how the blame is laid on NR, when supposedly 40% of them are hunting with outfitters already, so that leaves the total population of NR harassing LO in the 5% of all hunters... the numbers don't add up. My folks and family have property in MT and the number of knuckle head hunters that call and do stupid stuff, usually have a 5, 6 or 7 license plate attached to their vehicle.... Just say'n.

 

[Finnman]

Did I just become a member of a “fringe” group without knowing it? Does “fringe” = DIY hunter?

No we're deplorables!

 

[Big Shooter]

Then why do you need the license? You want the set-aside because you want to be able to run a business so the people you have contracted will get licenses (aka guaranteed), even though you know they won't get a license? Once you get a big enough pool of clients, it really doesn't matter, you should have enough that will get a tag each fall. What I get is you worried that the number of people who use an outfitter will decline in the future and you want to make sure you keep your market share. Doesn't sound like a lack of clients has been an issue, then why do you need the guaranteed tags?

I just don't understand how a set-aside number of tags will keep the "system" from hurting business growth in the future, or sustain it. At some point it will be saturated, and you'll need more ground to lease up to keep going, at that point you'll either need more NR tags, or cut the number of outfitters to make the model sustainable.

I am totally sympathetic to LO and having to deal with hunters. I can only imagine. I also understand that having someone run an outfitting business on PL would take a lot of headache away from the LO who wants game managed, but doesn't want to deal with Joe Public. What I find strange is how the blame is laid on NR, when supposedly 40% of them are hunting with outfitters already, so that leaves the total population of NR harassing LO in the 5% of all hunters... the numbers don't add up. My folks and family have property in MT and the number of knuckle head hunters that call and do stupid stuff, usually have a 5, 6 or 7 license plate attached to their vehicle.... Just say'n.

I agree with some of what your saying, 100%. Unfortunately....the blame doesn’t always lay on the nonresident....more often than not, the resident.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I can sympathize with landowners who want to manage game numbers but are skeptical of all the people. In the world we live in there are people that dont have respect for the property, there are people that will sue the landowner if they get hurt on the property if its their own fault, there are people that shoot bulls/bucks when they are only allowed to shoot cows/ does.... etc. The work that I do allows me to meet alot of large landowners and I always pick their brain about hunting season and all it comes with just out of curiosity. Many of them are new (wealthy) landowners that allow no access, these people usually have solely bought the property for hunting or as a way to protect some of their money. However, some of the people I work for are still using the land to make a living and thus cannot to tollerate lots of elk/ deer. They almost all say that hunting season is their least favorite time of year beacuse of all the insanity that comes along with it. Last summer I had one landowner tell me the previous hunting season finding a lady packing a huge buck out on his property when he had only given her permission to shoot a doe. Going forward Im not sure how we (public hunters) can ever reapir the relations with landowners. Perhaps we have to be more critical among our own ranks when we see something even more so than landowners are.

 

[Eric Albus]

Then why do you need the license? You want the set-aside because you want to be able to run a business so the people you have contracted will get licenses (aka guaranteed), even though you know they won't get a license? Once you get a big enough pool of clients, it really doesn't matter, you should have enough that will get a tag each fall. What I get is you worried that the number of people who use an outfitter will decline in the future and you want to make sure you keep your market share. Doesn't sound like a lack of clients has been an issue, then why do you need the guaranteed tags?

I just don't understand how a set-aside number of tags will keep the "system" from hurting business growth in the future, or sustain it. At some point it will be saturated, and you'll need more ground to lease up to keep going, at that point you'll either need more NR tags, or cut the number of outfitters to make the model sustainable.

I am totally sympathetic to LO and having to deal with hunters. I can only imagine. I also understand that having someone run an outfitting business on PL would take a lot of headache away from the LO who wants game managed, but doesn't want to deal with Joe Public. What I find strange is how the blame is laid on NR, when supposedly 40% of them are hunting with outfitters already, so that leaves the total population of NR harassing LO in the 5% of all hunters... the numbers don't add up. My folks and family have property in MT and the number of knuckle head hunters that call and do stupid stuff, usually have a 5, 6 or 7 license plate attached to their vehicle.... Just say'n.

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

Walk, we did not grow with UNLIMITED LICENSE available for 20 years. We actually decreased in acreage when the audit was done. The growth period for the outfitting industry is over.

 

[Eric Albus]

View attachment 177557

So like this? Seems unlikely...

when those hunters who traditionally(last 20 yrs) book with an outfitter fail to draw, and DIY guys pull the tag, expect to see an increase on accessible land. or am I missing something???

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

BINGO!

The problem with repeat clients is they want to come and hunt every year, not every 2-3 years.

 

[brocksw]

BINGO!

The problem with repeat clients is they want to come and hunt every year, not every 2-3 years.

Yeah....so do a lot of other people. DIYers included.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

when those hunters who traditionally(last 20 yrs) book with an outfitter fail to draw, and DIY guys pull the tag, expect to see an increase on accessible land. or am I missing something???

How do you know they will go to DIY hunters and not hunters who want to hire a guide?

 

[TheTone]

I assume both Eric and Rod offer a bunch of cheap antlerless hunts to help control all these awful critters being forced upon the landowners?

 

[Big Shooter]

I assume both Eric and Rod offer a bunch of cheap antlerless hunts to help control all these awful critters being forced upon the landowners?

Nope! I sure don’t, can’t speak for Eric, but pretty sure he doesn’t either. My landowners aren’t too concerned about the high doe numbers in the mule deer anyway. We are smart enough to know that you can’t go hammering away on those and expect to keep your numbers where they need to be. If I have 2 guys a year that want to shoot a doe as well, that’s a lot.