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

[Eric Albus]

What is this “staying in Montana” stuff? That is not a thing in economics. State economies are not self contained structures operating in a purely competitive way. What matters is how many times the money gets spent. If a group from WY drives to MT to hunt and stops at the Billings Costco to load up, that money doesn’t “stay in Montana”. The only think that helps MT budget is the ability to tax income or collect fees. If a guide is from CA he should still have to fill out a MT tax return (again, this violates my first assumption- that everyone cheats on their taxes). The UM study was flawed in its design and incomplete in its conclusions. I could argue that $100 spent in various establishments is better than $500 given to a single entity. Velocity of the money is what matters.

Good point, one mirrored by our local watering hole in beautiful downtown Hinsdale. The owner has repeatedly thanked me for bringing in clients for the “new money”.

Please don't urge the Legislature to create more new tag laws. FG Commission and FWP already can do that, as illustrated by hunting district rules such as shoulder season and other rules specifying taking elk only on private land or in other specified areas described in the regulations.

How about a private land license species designated good for only 5-7 days? There has to be a solution to lessen pressure on public land and increase harvest on private

 

[mtmiller]

How about a private land license species designated good for only 5-7 days? There has to be a solution to lessen pressure on public land and increase harvest on private

I see your current Outfitter SRP renewal request includes BLM lands in Phillips and Valley. Would you be willing to let that go for the next ten years?

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I see your current Outfitter SRP renewal request includes BLM lands in Phillips and Valley. Would you be willing to let that go for the next ten years?

Very good question!

 

[antlerradar]

Perhaps then a license good for only public lands and one for only private land needs be created.
Perhaps a private land mule deer tag, a public land md tag, and a whitetail license, buck R&NR can only hold one buck tag per year.

I see the potential for a lot of abuse with this. Instead I would go to all draw and make the units more consistent with landownership.
For instance I live in 704. Unit 704 is huge, in the southern half there is relatively large amounts of accessible public land, in the northern half of 704 it is more private and little accessible public. If you set tag numbers for a sustainable number of the deer in 704 you will pound the deer in the southern half and some people that want to hunt the northern half will fail to draw a tag. Split 704 in half and the southern half would likely need to be a draw that you should not count on every year but chances are you could pick up a tag in the northern half second choice.
I would also split whitetails from mule deer. Another tag that you could likely pick up second choice. Hunters would still get to hunt a buck every year, but it may not be a mule deer or in the most popular units.

 

[Big Shooter]

I see the potential for a lot of abuse with this. Instead I would go to all draw and make the units more consistent with landownership.
For instance I live in 704. Unit 704 is huge, in the southern half there is relatively large amounts of accessible public land, in the northern half of 704 it is more private and little accessible public. If you set tag numbers for a sustainable number for the deer in 704 you will pound the deer in the southern half and some people that want to hunt the northern half will fail to draw a tag. Split 704 in half and the southern half would likely need to be a draw that you should not count on every year but chances are you could pick up a tag in the northern half second choice.
I would also split whitetails from mule deer. Another tag that you could likely pick up second choice. Hunters would still get to hunt a buck every year, but it may not be a mule deer or in the most popular units.

Definitely agree with the certain species type tag 100%!

 

[antlerradar]

Definitely agree with the certain species type tag 100%!

Every species has a separate hunting opportunity curve. (the relationship between opportunity and the restrictions, both natural and imposed by managers) Why we treat Elk, Mule Deer and Whitetails essentially the same in Montana is beyond me.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good point, one mirrored by our local watering hole in beautiful downtown Hinsdale. The owner has repeatedly thanked me for bringing in clients for the “new money”.

How about a private land license species designated good for only 5-7 days? There has to be a solution to lessen pressure on public land and increase harvest on private

My point is: Take your proposal to FWP and Commission ... NOT to the legislature to create a new unnecessary law.

 

[antlerradar]

Good point, one mirrored by our local watering hole in beautiful downtown Hinsdale. The owner has repeatedly thanked me for bringing in clients for the “new money”.

How about a private land license species designated good for only 5-7 days? There has to be a solution to lessen pressure on public land and increase harvest on private

That would be a tough sell as the private land only tags would essentially be landowner tags.

 

[brocksw]

I see the potential for a lot of abuse with this. Instead I would go to all draw and make the units more consistent with landownership.
For instance I live in 704. Unit 704 is huge, in the southern half there is relatively large amounts of accessible public land, in the northern half of 704 it is more private and little accessible public. If you set tag numbers for a sustainable number of the deer in 704 you will pound the deer in the southern half and some people that want to hunt the northern half will fail to draw a tag. Split 704 in half and the southern half would likely need to be a draw that you should not count on every year but chances are you could pick up a tag in the northern half second choice.
I would also split whitetails from mule deer. Another tag that you could likely pick up second choice. Hunters would still get to hunt a buck every year, but it may not be a mule deer or in the most popular units.

Isn't a lot of private land in 704 leased up by outfitters, hunting outfits, etc.? If so, this would basically do the same thing that 143 does.

The private land draw pool will always be smaller, with better odds of drawing the desired tag. Because most hunters don't have leases or pay for guides. It creates a pool of applicants and hunters that have better odds because they have access to private lands and/or pay for an outfiitter on private land. So of course Eric and the other outfitters want that. Their clients wouldn't have to compete with the unwashed masses in the draw anymore.

I see your concept here, but if we're after equitable access to wildlife I'm just not sure that would do it.

I def agree with MT needing to split whitetail and mule deer tags.

 

[Carnage2011]

Isn't a lot of private land in 704 leased up by outfitters, hunting outfits, etc.? If so, this would basically do the same thing that 143 does.

The private land draw pool will always be smaller, with better odds of drawing the desired tag. Because most hunters don't have leases or pay for guides. It creates a pool of applicants and hunters that have better odds because they have access to private lands and/or pay for an outfiitter on private land. So of course Eric and the other outfitters want that. Their clients wouldn't have to compete with the unwashed masses in the draw anymore.

I see your concept here, but if we're after equitable access to wildlife I'm just not sure that would do it.

I def agree with MT needing to split whitetail and mule deer tags.

There is no such thing as equitable access to wildlife. There is never going to be access to many of the private ranches unless you book with an outfitter or lease the land. End of story.

704 has access. Knock on some doors and you may have some. Private land only tags would be a good option as long as anyone can apply for them. If an average Joe wants to get a private land tag and try to gain some access that’s great. Basically everything you are saying is that there is no private land available unless you have a lease or an outfitter. That is blatantly false and if people aren’t willing to knock on a few doors and be told “no” a couple times then they will never see that. I don’t agree with much of what Hank Worsech said about HB505, but I’m beginning to believe that he is right about one thing....people need to work on their landowner relations and try to gain some access.

 

[Big Shooter]

Isn't a lot of private land in 704 leased up by outfitters, hunting outfits, etc.? If so, this would basically do the same thing that 143 does.

The private land draw pool will always be smaller, with better odds of drawing the desired tag. Because most hunters don't have leases or pay for guides. It creates a pool of applicants and hunters that have better odds because they have access to private lands and/or pay for an outfiitter on private land. So of course Eric and the other outfitters want that. Their clients wouldn't have to compete with the unwashed masses in the draw anymore.

I see your concept here, but if we're after equitable access to wildlife I'm just not sure that would do it.

I def agree with MT needing to split whitetail and mule deer tags.

Do you want equitable access to wildlife or equitable access to licenses?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What about just making smaller districts, drawing boundaries to have mostly private and mostly public units and then setting quotas based on the herd dynamics of those units.

NR apply for a specific district in the draw not a statewide tag.

 

[huntin24/7]

Units need to be restructured. Make more units a draw(there will still be plenty of leftover licenses in several units so most everyone can buck hunt somewhere each year), there needs to be a distinction between whitetail and mule deer management, and to steal from(I think it was greenhorn), change the season structure such as taking a week away and moving it up several weeks. A 4ish week season that ends early in the rut still allows everyone ample opportunity to hunt and kill a buck while allowing more 2-3 year old bucks to make it through the season too. Opportunity should mean adequate time to get out and pursue game and not a gimme hunt for young love drunk thanksgiving bucks.

 

[brockel]

Units need to be restructured. Make more units a draw(there will still be plenty of leftover licenses in several units so most everyone can buck hunt somewhere each year), there needs to be a distinction between whitetail and mule deer management, and to steal from(I think it was greenhorn), change the season structure such as taking a week away and moving it up several weeks. A 4ish week season that ends early in the rut still allows everyone ample opportunity to hunt and kill a buck while allowing more 2-3 year old bucks to make it through the season too. Opportunity should mean adequate time to get out and pursue game and not a gimme hunt for young love drunk thanksgiving bucks.

I think the problem is majority of Montanans think everything is just fine the way it is. Half will piss and moan about the quality of animals in the field but when you suggest a season restructure to help with that they throw a fit about losing part of their 3 month long deer season

 

[Carnage2011]

I think the problem is majority of Montanans think everything is just fine the way it is. Half will piss and moan about the quality of animals in the field but when you suggest a season restructure to help with that they throw a fit about losing part of their 3 month long deer season

Ding ding ding!!!!
The vast majority of people in Montana care more about having a couple months to hunt than having mature bucks running around. I’m not saying that’s the right way, but that’s how the majority of Montana hunters want it.

 

[huntin24/7]

@brockel, you’re absolutely right. It would be really hard on the road hunters not hunting the peak muley rut, and where I live in NE Montana, that’s well over half the deer hunters. I mentioned it to a co worker the other day who hunts. He said that might be fine for someone like me but would make it hard for him. We work the same schedule. If it’s important to you, you’ll find enough time to do it and hunt hard enough to get a buck.

 

[brockel]

@brockel, you’re absolutely right. It would be really hard on the road hunters not hunting the peak muley rut, and where I live in NE Montana, that’s well over half the deer hunters. I mentioned it to a cow worker the next the other day who hunts. He said that might be fine for someone like me but would make it hard for him. We work the same schedule. If it’s important to you, you’ll find enough time to do it and hunt hard enough to get a buck.

I know a guy here in town that will have to get his oil changed middle of the season because he puts on so many miles. He only hunts locally too so not like he’s driving a couple hours to hunt everytime.

edited to add that is just in November on weekends except thanksgiving week

 

[Big Shooter]

@brockel, you’re absolutely right. It would be really hard on the road hunters not hunting the peak muley rut, and where I live in NE Montana, that’s well over half the deer hunters. I mentioned it to a cow worker the next the other day who hunts. He said that might be fine for someone like me but would make it hard for him. We work the same schedule. If it’s important to you, you’ll find enough time to do it and hunt hard enough to get a buck.

I brought this up to one of our vets the other day after we tested bulls. He didn’t like it because he is always so busy during the first part of the season and it would take away his opportunity. He didn’t get the response fro me that he wanted to hear. Apparently he doesn’t want to hunt whitetail does around Thanksgiving!

 

[brocksw]

There is no such thing as equitable access to wildlife. There is never going to be access to many of the private ranches unless you book with an outfitter or lease the land. End of story.

Right, so why should they get their own pool of tags? That's exactly my point.

704 has access. Knock on some doors and you may have some. Private land only tags would be a good option as long as anyone can apply for them. If an average Joe wants to get a private land tag and try to gain some access that’s great.

I know it has "some" access but I know for a fact some of the areas I've been in 704 and the areas around where family friends hunt it's leased up tight. I was just there this last fall on multiple occasions.

Anyone could get an outfitter too but we don't support them getting their own pool of tags either. How is this different?

Basically everything you are saying is that there is no private land available unless you have a lease or an outfitter. That is blatantly false and if people aren’t willing to knock on a few doors and be told “no” a couple times then they will never see that.

No, that's not what I said. I said that in 704(the unit that was specifically mentioned) a lot of acreage is leased up and that creating a separate pool of tags for private land will lead to a similar result as 143. Where people who have access to that land will get better odds because a vast majority of hunters don't have access to it. Why should anyone have better odds of drawing a tag because they have exclusive access to land? Same concept as why no one should have better odds of drawing a tag because they're willing to pay for an outfitter.

I know a stretch in 704 where it's all locked up for miles. How many doors do I knock on before I give up and say eff it I'm going to hunt public? This goes beyond being told no a couple times.

If I had the means, nothing would prevent me from slipping a landowner a grand under the table to guarantee my exclusive access every year. Now I put in for the private land draw knowing I have a place to go, knowing that if someone knocks on his door they get told No. Now he's discouraged because he's spent so much damn time trying to hunt with this private land tag that he won't apply for it again. This will just get worse over time....it's net effect is the same as 143 if just slightly different in the details.

I don’t agree with much of what Hank Worsech said about HB505, but I’m beginning to believe that he is right about one thing....people need to work on their landowner relations and try to gain some access.

I would agree. But it goes both ways. Landowners can't always answer the door with their hand out waiting for payment to hunt either. Especially when they're complaining about too many elk on their land and asking for 10 landowner tags that they can get thousands of dollars for.

 

[Carnage2011]

I brought this up to one of our vets the other day after we tested bulls. He didn’t like it because he is always so busy during the first part of the season and it would take away his opportunity. He didn’t get the response fro me that he wanted to hear. Apparently he doesn’t want to hunt whitetail does around Thanksgiving!

I think this is a big part of it. There are a lot of ranchers and ranch hands that enjoy hunting. Typically they are swamped with fall cattle work in October and don’t have time to hunt until later in the season. I’ve brought up the idea of moving deer season forward or ending it early a few times and this is usually the rebuttal I get.
Obviously this is a small sample, but it is feedback from other hunters.