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

[BuzzH]

FWP has to stop using the “we’re an opportunity state” as basically a cop out when it comes to the idea of changing management practices here. I’m totally on board with not having the chance to kill a buck every year if it means a better quality hunt when I can buck hunt. A better quality hunt doesn’t strictly mean more trophy potential by the way either. It’s been a great run with all the opportunity allowed here, but it’s time for management practices to change for the betterment of the resource.

I agree, but lets just be honest about it...nobody wants to give up a thing, and that includes a vast majority of outfitters, landowners, and hunters.

I see Eric wanting to make private land only tags good only on deeded ground. That's a joke and won't be enforced and outfitters won't follow the rules. Who is going to monitor the couple sections of BLM/State/FS that are within some private checkerboard? Nobody, that's who and it will end up like CO/UT where outfitters and landowners control public lands to the point you can't even access it via aircraft. Lets also be honest, I see what a lot of outfitters are killing each year on both public and private...they aren't "managing" their resource any better than accessible public lands. The only thing they're "managing" is their bank account and maximizing profits. Its shocking people pay to hunt about 95% of what I see them shoot on outfitted hunts.

Ask bowhunters to drop archery season to the month of the September...Montana Bow Hunters Association will lose their shit.

Ask Rifle hunters to lose mule deer buck hunting for the last 2 weeks of November, everyone loses their mind.

Then of course, you have the kill crazy MTFWP that flat refuses to do anything to help wildlife and actually manage. Puppet agency controlled 100% by the governors office and paid lobbyists who only see Montana's wildlife as a cash cow or recreation for wealthy out of state landowners.

Everyone wants changes but expects to be treated with privilege and for themselves not lose anything...and that's across the board.

 

[huntin24/7]

I agree, but lets just be honest about it...nobody wants to give up a thing, and that includes a vast majority of outfitters, landowners, and hunters.

I see Eric wanting to make private land only tags good only on deeded ground. That's a joke and won't be enforced and outfitters won't follow the rules. Who is going to monitor the couple sections of BLM/State/FS that are within some private checkerboard? Nobody, that's who and it will end up like CO/UT where outfitters and landowners control public lands to the point you can't even access it via aircraft. Lets also be honest, I see what a lot of outfitters are killing each year on both public and private...they aren't "managing" their resource any better than accessible public lands. The only thing they're "managing" is their bank account and maximizing profits. Its shocking people pay to hunt about 95% of what I see them shoot on outfitted hunts.

Ask bowhunters to drop archery season to the month of the September...Montana Bow Hunters Association will lose their shit.

Ask Rifle hunters to lose mule deer buck hunting for the last 2 weeks of November, everyone loses their mind.

Then of course, you have the kill crazy MTFWP that flat refuses to do anything to help wildlife and actually manage. Puppet agency controlled 100% by the governors office and paid lobbyists who only see Montana's wildlife as a cash cow or recreation for wealthy out of state landowners.

Everyone wants changes but expects to be treated with privilege and for themselves not lose anything...and that's across the board.

I totally agree with you buzz. It’s a minority of hunters and outfitters that are willing to have hunting/guiding more difficult for themselves for the sake of the resource. I know plenty of guys that want to have a 3 week rifle season, but they’d get pretty pouty if that 3 week season didn’t go until the 10th or so of November. I don’t have the answers but hopefully some day soon management practices are more focused on what’s best for the resource than they are on making it easy for everyone to kill a buck every year.

 

[brocksw]

I totally agree with you buzz. It’s a minority of hunters and outfitters that are willing to have hunting/guiding more difficult for themselves for the sake of the resource. I know plenty of guys that want to have a 3 week rifle season, but they’d get pretty pouty if that 3 week season didn’t go until the 10th or so of November. I don’t have the answers but hopefully some day soon management practices are more focused on what’s best for the resource than they are on making it easy for everyone to kill a buck every year.

We do a 16.5 day season here in ND that runs in November. It has pros and cons. On one hand the pressure isn't spread out over such a long period, but on the other hand, in certain units the pressure is extremely intense over that 16.5 days. Some of the Badlands units for Mule deer can get really congested since there are less roads compared to further east. You have a over a thousand hunters out there at the same time, using the same roads, it leads to a lot of frustration for some hunters and it seems like complaints about hunting pressure are starting to grow. But harvest success rates are still in line with MT at around 70 percent with a rifle.

For deer, one thing that has never made sense to me is having a rifle season to harvest does while or after they've been bred. Moving Doe harvest to strictly October means we aren't shooting pregnant does and we're making our bucks breeding efforts more efficient. They expend a lot of energy during that time of year and in some cases that doe he just bred gets shot a couple days later. Doesn't make any sense to me.

I've often wondered if splitting up the rifle season would be beneficial to all parties involved. Do an october Doe hunt and then give a portion of the buck tags for late october and a portion for mid november so hunters still have a chance at the rut hunt, just in more limited numbers.

But change is hard and many hunters(including landowners who hunt) don't even want to entertain changes.

 

[brocksw]

SB-143 and asking for 60% the tags isn’t an anomaly in the way that MOGA lobbies for the financial benefit of outfitters and disregards the effects their preferences have on the resource and other interests.

IMO, it’s just one more indication of the entitlement mentality that exists within that community. This legislative session they believed they had the political tides in their favor and made zero effort to work with other interests to mitigate effects.

The public land outfitters I have had experience with have very little concern for the resource other than it being available for their harvest. They complain like crazy when a wolf or lion eats a deer, but are the same ones that don’t care if a client shoots a forked horn mule deer if the hunt has been slow. They justify it because their hunter payed a lot of money for the hunt and has a tag. Wildlife is just a commodity to them. A commodity they believe they are justified to have priority for exploitation before other shareholders.

To me HB-143 shows the true colors of MOGA.

And even if they managed to shed that view from HB 143, Mac stood in full support of 505. So at this point, they're telling us exactly who they are and what they want. We should believe them.

 

[Gerald Martin]

And even if they managed to shed that view from HB 143, Mac stood in full support of 505. So at this point, they're telling us exactly who they are and what they want. We should believe them.

I have learned when people tell you who they are often enough, believe them.

 

[Nemont]

SB-143 and asking for 60% the tags isn’t an anomaly in the way that MOGA lobbies for the financial benefit of outfitters and disregards the effects their preferences have on the resource and other interests.

IMO, it’s just one more indication of the entitlement mentality that exists within that community. This legislative session they believed they had the political tides in their favor and made zero effort to work with other interests to mitigate effects.

The public land outfitters I have had experience with have very little concern for the resource other than it being available for their harvest. They complain like crazy when a wolf or lion eats a deer, but are the same ones that don’t care if a client shoots a forked horn mule deer if the hunt has been slow. They justify it because their hunter payed a lot of money for the hunt and has a tag. Wildlife is just a commodity to them. A commodity they believe they are justified to have priority for exploitation before other shareholders.

To me HB-143 shows the true colors of MOGA.

I guess reading BuzzH's response I can echo it. It isn't only outfitters with an entitlement mentality IMO. Hunters, whether resident or NR, in Montana are a very spoiled bunch who expect to hunt from August to March but it is always the other guy who has an entitlement mentality. Unless and until the average Joe hunter, again resident or NR, sees that the resource is limited and we need to push for changes then the current state of our deer population in terms of quality bucks will continue get worse.

We cannot blame it all on Outfitters or NR hunters or the FWP at some point we all need to look in the mirror and be honest with ourselves.

Nemont

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Until the priority is placed on the MANAGEMENT of the wildlife nothing will change! There are some really great folks in our FWPs employment but the Admin/Politicians and the $$$ involved have their hands tied.

 

[brocksw]

I guess reading BuzzH's response I can echo it. It isn't only outfitters with an entitlement mentality IMO. Hunters, whether resident or NR, in Montana are a very spoiled bunch who expect to hunt from August to March but it is always the other guy who has an entitlement mentality. Unless and until the average Joe hunter, again resident or NR, sees that the resource is limited and we need to push for changes then the current state of our deer population in terms of quality bucks will continue get worse.

We cannot blame it all on Outfitters or NR hunters or the FWP at some point we all need to look in the mirror and be honest with ourselves.

Nemont

But is it entitlement if it the animals are held in public trust? I get what you're saying and I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. But, if the wildlife belongs to the public as a whole, than isn't the public the only group who truly is entitled to it to some degree?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I agree with you,@Nemont. That’s my reason for saying I am willing to hunt or harvest less if it means a more healthy resource.

For all practical purposes, I have already been doing this for years. I have shot one mule deer buck in 18 years of hunting MT. Why? Because I don’t get excited about shooting mediocre mule deer, don’t prefer their meat to whitetail so if I am shooting a meat deer it’s going to be a whitetail, and probably a doe.
I would love to shoot a good mule deer buck, but I would rather leave a tag intact than shoot a limited resource that I don’t really need or want to harvest.

Hunting is a lot more fun since I took the pressure to fill my tags off myself.

 

[Gerald Martin]

But is it entitlement if it the animals are held in public trust? I get what you're saying and I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. But, if the wildlife belongs to the public as a whole, than isn't the public the only group who truly is entitled to it to some degree?

The entitlement mentality is expressed by hunters who ignore the reality that the resource can’t sustain the pressure we are placing on it and are satisfied as long as they get their buck or bull.

 

[Ben Lamb]

After doing a bit of soul searching and remembering why guys like Pos were for opportunity over LE permits for trophies, I think we have some cognitive dissonance going on.

1.) Opportunity is what brings new hunters to the field. That opportunity can be in form of does & ducks close to town, or it can be backcountry hunts for big bulls & bucks. By self-inflicting less opportunity in the name of trophy quality, we undersell conservation as a whole, and focus only upon the material object we wish to possess - a mature antlered animal.

2.) Focusing on the critter maturity ignores the over all habitat needs for better hunt quality, which includes more access to public lands, better herd management & opportunity. LE permits are great in limited use, but Montana's greatest gift to us all was those long seasons back when the population wasn't so large, and development so far-flung. That opportunity is what produced the men & women whose shoulders we stand on, and they did this season structure for more reasons than just walking around with a bow or rifle for months on end.

3.) There's some cognitive dissonance between this thread & the ME thread on R3. What opportunity boils down too is access to game. Not just access or opportunity to get out. If we're serious about improving herd quality, increased buck-doe ratios, etc, then some mix of LE Permits for prime areas are vital, but more than all of this - increased funding for habitat conservation & preservation. Without stewarding existing public lands and treating significant issues like noxious weeds, conifer encroachment, salt cedar, etc we end up simply continuing to argue over smaller and smaller pieces of the pie.

4.)Outfitter setasides do nothing to manage the resource better, and only further divide the public from their wildlife.

 

[Nemont]

But is it entitlement if it the animals are held in public trust? I get what you're saying and I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you. But, if the wildlife belongs to the public as a whole, than isn't the public the only group who truly is entitled to it to some degree?

Well then the public, in whose name the game is held in trust , also has a duty to advocate for what is best for said game, Correct? So IMO held in "Trust" has a different meaning then, "Being Entitled" to harvest said game in a fashion that is not currently meeting the duty held by the public to ensure healthy deer herds. Which should managed for long term and sustainable harvest and overall herd health in order to live up to the duty of Public Trust Doctrine , again my opinion.

Nemont

 

[brocksw]

Well then the public, in whose name the game is held in trust , also has a duty to advocate for what is best for said game, Correct? So IMO held in "Trust" has a different meaning then, "Being Entitled" to harvest said game in a fashion that is not currently meeting the duty held by the public to ensure healthy deer herds which are managed at sustainable levels, again my opinion.

Nemont

That's a good point and an important distinction.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Well then the public, in whose name the game is held in trust , also has a duty to advocate for what is best for said game, Correct? So IMO held in "Trust" has a different meaning then, "Being Entitled" to harvest said game in a fashion that is not currently meeting the duty held by the public to ensure healthy deer herds which are managed at sustainable levels, again my opinion.

Nemont

Good points and important to recognize that wildlife is not limited to only those species which are hunted. Owls, frogs, reptiles are all part of wildlife held in trust on behalf of the citizens of the state, but furthermore not limited to only those citizens who hunt and outfit ... but for all citizens.
Of course this is a hunting forum, but IMO hunters should also be concerned about protecting, conserving and managing all wildlife, not just what they hunt to recreate and grille to eat.

 

[antlerradar]

Perhaps what is needed is a private land license in Montana. Good only on deeded land. This might increase pressure on private, especially during archery elk season and put elk where the public can access them. Same with deer, private land license that does not compete with the DIY guy hunting public land.

Are you talking landowner tags or something similar to to CO ranching for wildlife?
Judging form the reaction to 505 I think landowner tags have about a snow ball chance in hell.
I would not participate in ranching for wildlife, but am not against the concept. Not that different from block management. Block management is cash for access, ranching for wildlife is tags for access. It is the details of these agreements that leave a bad taste.

 

[Eric Albus]

All,
FYI, Mac was not the one who asked for 60% of the NR license. This bill was ill thought out and presented to MOGA only a day or two ahead of going to the senate committee. I personally thought it was unconscious to ask for 60%, but the powers that be figured on being bargained down. If we asked for 39% the fear was we’d be bargained down to 10%.
My guess as to his testifying in favor of 505 has to do with one hand washing the other. Scratch my back I reciprocate.

The difference in outfitting private land vs. outfitting public land is night and day. There is no “let ‘em go see if they grow” on public land. Whereas on private we let dozens go to see if they grow, usually to be disappointed . So somewhere in between our(most private land outfitters) save them all, andFWPs a “fork horn in every pickup” mentality is a happy medium.
I remember a candid conversation with Jim Posewitz many years ago on the subject of mule deer management, he said,”I don’t know why the dept thinks having a mule deer buck die of old age is a sin, but they do”.

We need to change the mindset of FWP and ask them to manage our mule deer. Changing the mindset of hunters is impossible, those who have only hunted public ground their whole life have little idea what needs be done management wise. They’ve been forced(in their minds) to shoot the first thing with antlers they see. Going home with an unfilled tag is not an option for most.
LE permits should be last resort. Changing season structure, limited weapon use, pick region pick area should all be tried first. Eventually we wind up with LE permits in areas but it’ll take years, and maybe some of the band-aids will work longer than I think.
Once dialog becomes civil we find more
Common ground than anyone thinks possible.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All,
FYI, Mac was not the one who asked for 60% of the NR license. This bill was ill thought out and presented to MOGA only a day or two ahead of going to the senate committee. I personally thought it was unconscious to ask for 60%, but the powers that be figured on being bargained down. If we asked for 39% the fear was we’d be bargained down to 10%.
My guess as to his testifying in favor of 505 has to do with one hand washing the other. Scratch my back I reciprocate.

The difference in outfitting private land vs. outfitting public land is night and day. There is no “let ‘em go see if they grow” on public land. Whereas on private we let dozens go to see if they grow, usually to be disappointed . So somewhere in between our(most private land outfitters) save them all, andFWPs a “fork horn in every pickup” mentality is a happy medium.
I remember a candid conversation with Jim Posewitz many years ago on the subject of mule deer management, he said,”I don’t know why the dept thinks having a mule deer buck die of old age is a sin, but they do”.

We need to change the mindset of FWP and ask them to manage our mule deer. Changing the mindset of hunters is impossible, those who have only hunted public ground their whole life have little idea what needs be done management wise. They’ve been forced(in their minds) to shoot the first thing with antlers they see. Going home with an unfilled tag is not an option for most.
LE permits should be last resort. Changing season structure, limited weapon use, pick region pick area should all be tried first. Eventually we wind up with LE permits in areas but it’ll take years, and maybe some of the band-aids will work longer than I think.
Once dialog becomes civil we find more
Common ground than anyone thinks possible.

I was asked to provide feedback on the 143 concept in November.

 

[brocksw]

All,
FYI, Mac was not the one who asked for 60% of the NR license. This bill was ill thought out and presented to MOGA only a day or two ahead of going to the senate committee. I personally thought it was unconscious to ask for 60%, but the powers that be figured on being bargained down. If we asked for 39% the fear was we’d be bargained down to 10%.
My guess as to his testifying in favor of 505 has to do with one hand washing the other. Scratch my back I reciprocate.

The difference in outfitting private land vs. outfitting public land is night and day. There is no “let ‘em go see if they grow” on public land. Whereas on private we let dozens go to see if they grow, usually to be disappointed . So somewhere in between our(most private land outfitters) save them all, andFWPs a “fork horn in every pickup” mentality is a happy medium.
I remember a candid conversation with Jim Posewitz many years ago on the subject of mule deer management, he said,”I don’t know why the dept thinks having a mule deer buck die of old age is a sin, but they do”.

We need to change the mindset of FWP and ask them to manage our mule deer. Changing the mindset of hunters is impossible, those who have only hunted public ground their whole life have little idea what needs be done management wise. They’ve been forced(in their minds) to shoot the first thing with antlers they see. Going home with an unfilled tag is not an option for most.
LE permits should be last resort. Changing season structure, limited weapon use, pick region pick area should all be tried first. Eventually we wind up with LE permits in areas but it’ll take years, and maybe some of the band-aids will work longer than I think.
Once dialog becomes civil we find more
Common ground than anyone thinks possible.

I'm sure Mac went along with it kicking and screaming, right?

 

[Ben Lamb]

All,
FYI, Mac was not the one who asked for 60% of the NR license. This bill was ill thought out and presented to MOGA only a day or two ahead of going to the senate committee.

Here's the bill page, with some dates that tell a much different story:

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

It shows a series of actions that put the bill in the sponsors hand. I bet if we pulled the junque file, most of those correspondences would show Mac as well as your lobby team involved in crafting this bill.

 

[Eric Albus]

Here's the bill page, with some dates that tell a much different story:

LAWS Detailed Bill Information Page

It shows a series of actions that put the bill in the sponsors hand. I bet if we pulled the junque file, most of those correspondences would show Mac as well as your lobby tem involved in crafting this bill.

I

The MOGA leadership, president and board, had a meeting in Lewistown before the session started, and left with no real clear direction as to what we’d do this session. We had 143 dropped on us, and unless someone is holding out on me, we had no idea what was coming. If I’d have had any input this is not what we would’ve had for a bill.