BuzzH
Well-known member
No, it's not...
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Repeat anything long enough and some people will believe it. Especially, the ones repeating it.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I seem to remember the debate about 161 a little closer to what Big Shooter is remembering. Sure getting rid of the guaranteed outfitter sponsor licenses was a big part of the proponents arguments, but so was stopping the bleeding if not restoring access.
A five minute Google search and I found these quoits.
John Gibson on why I-161 passed. Clearly he is equating loss of access and why people voted against the outfitter sponsor licenses.
"The fact is, Montana hunters looking for a place to hunt know what they see when they go a field. It's more orange paint every year along with more roads closed and sometimes verbal harassment. They can see that the more money profiteers make from selling deer and elk, the more difficult it is for the average hunter to find a suitable place to hunt.
Initiative 161 takes some of the profit out of the game. No longer will a hunt club from back east be able to find an outfitter that will act as a broker and guarantee a license for those club members who wish to hunt the following season. No longer will the flying V be able to guarantee a license to those nonresidents willing to pay 14,000 for a bull elk. All nonresidents will have the same chance to win a license in the random draw."
Kurt Kephart responding to outfitter concerns.
"They don't want to deal with the real issue- that since guaranteed tags came out it's made it harder and harder for a Montanan to get access."
I am sure if I spent longer than five minutes on google or searched Hunt Talk I could find plenty of similar statements. To say that I-161 was not about access is revisionist history at best.
Last edited:
This looks like he is against ranching wildlife to me.
This looks like he is saying what all of us have been saying for 1629 posts. All we want is NR to have an equal chance to get a tag whether with an outfitter or not.
Thanks again for finding a quote to help your argument that ultimately helped everyone else's saying that a level playing field is all we want.
By the quotes you found it would appear that Buzz is in the right that access had nothing to do with it and a level playing field was the idea behind 161.
antlerradar
Well-known member
You can read that into them if you want. I never said that leveling the playing field was not part of the idea, but there is no denying that many of the supporters were also hoping for better access and it is good odds that access was more important than leveling the playing field for nonresidents.
This is the opening sentence from a September 27, 2010 article in the Billings Gazette by Brett French.
"Depending on whose argument you accept, Initiative 161 will either help hunters access more private land or gut Montana's hunting outfitter industry."
French did not name who was arguing 161 would help with access, but the only people mentioned in the article are Kurt Kephart (the author of I-161), Chris Marchion (a board member of MWF) and Mac Minard. Pretty safe bet it was not Minard making the argument for more access. The part of the article where Marchion is mentioned deals with the unfairness of the outfitter set aside licenses so my bet is that it was Kephart that was making the access argument. (see his quote in my previous post)
One thing I am certain of is Brett French is a good and experienced reporter. He didn't make up the access argument out of thin air.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This is what didn’t change. Maybe 161 had a narrative about “access”, but it’s really about money. Just like the bills we see this year.
T
timmy
Guest
Get rid of outfitters and landowners would gladly open their ranches. That didn’t happen. The sooner people realize they won’t get to hunt private the better. If your goal is to get rid of outfitters change the season structure.
T
timmy
Guest
I personally don’t have a problem with outfitters that hunt on land I will never set foot on. I do have a problem with the season structure that benefits outfitters and residents and nonresidents that embrace our season structure and expect to do it every year.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
How does the season structure benefit outfitters? I can think of a much better structure, similar to other states, that would benefit them far more.
T
timmy
Guest
11 weeks of public getting pounded and limited private pressure. Where are the animals going to be? Mule deer rut hunting? Where are the bucks going to be? On public where the does get pounded or on private where they graze in hay fields? It’s not hard to see.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Or in western Montana, hold the season late enough so that the deer are out of the mountains and on the private foot hills. Ever wonder why the Beartooths don't have the high county mule deer that there is across the boarder in WY. We in Montana pound them in late Nov on winter range and WY does not. You and I don't get to hunt those foot hills but someone is and most likely they are paying.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
I voted against I-161 for two reasons. One: I felt it was unfair to place all the cost on the backs of DIY Nonresidents. Two: Access is kind of like chasing a rabbit. You need to pick you races carefully or you will continually be out of breath and not dealing with the management issues that need to be addressed.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I get the dynamics of season structure, but it applies to everyone. An outfitter's ability to lease private land and limit pressure has nothing to do with season structure. All that said, I support shorter seasons. But I am pretty sure we are the minority.
This bill is up for executive action on Thursday in Senate Finance & Claims.
Word is that the MOGA lobby team have been working the chairman & others hard on it.
Take a moment to send the Senate Finance & Claims committee a brief note opposing SB 143: https://leg.mt.gov/web-messaging/
Word is that the MOGA lobby team have been working the chairman & others hard on it.
Take a moment to send the Senate Finance & Claims committee a brief note opposing SB 143: https://leg.mt.gov/web-messaging/
antlerradar
Well-known member
I don't think that changing season structure from a November to a October season would "get rid of outfitters". It would sure change the way they operate. Leasing Eastern Montana river and creek bottoms and then road hunting the bucks that migrate down out of the hills to rut with the does on the hay fields would no longer be nearly as productive. If you are leasing a foot hills ranch at the bottom of a mountain, no longer would you be able to count on old man winter pushing game off the mountain. Outfitters would have to change there tactics, the best of the outfitters would likely thrive, the one's that fail to adapt would likely fail.
Last edited:
MThuntr
Well-known member
bumping this up to the top
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
I am all for changing the season structure.
"Make the accessible lands have the quality of the closed off(private) lands, and nobody would care if an outfitter was dumb enough to lease an acre."
"Make the accessible lands have the quality of the closed off(private) lands, and nobody would care if an outfitter was dumb enough to lease an acre."
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 482
I like it!!
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,680
The word is wrong. Mac did not even know it was coming up.
spin on......
I'll let the lobbyist who watches this committee hourly & the Senators on the committee who told me know that they were wrong.
- Status
