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

[shoots-straight]

That's good comedy right there.

 

[406dn]

We do not define seeing someone in the field as a competitor but as another person sharing those treasures with each other.

I cut and pasted the above sentence from the e-mail. There must be a few outfitters who did not get the message.

More than once and by more than one outfitter, witnessed by me, has herded elk away from public land hunters to their benefit.

I did like that they only want one early bite of the apple.

 

[WIbiggame]

We do not define seeing someone in the field as a competitor but as another person sharing those treasures with each other.

I cut and pasted the above sentence from the e-mail. There must be a few outfitters who did not get the message.

More than once and by more than one outfitter, witnessed by me, has herded elk away from public land hunters to their benefit.

I did like that they only want one early bite of the apple.

I will see if I can find the picture but have found a place that an outfitter sets up his wall tent. There is attached to a pine a sign that says this spot is used by outfitter X and shall not be used for a campsite by anyone in this area.

 

[mtmiller]

An email from one of the people who leads the trade industry group pushing this bill.

Lots of interesting "stuff" there, but I do have to hand it to him for being so selfless.

We are the ones who have consistently argued that 10% of special harvest permits on federal lands is a slap in the efface to non-residents that account for 80% of the Fish and Game budget.

 

[mtmiller]

There is attached to a pine a sign that says this spot is used by outfitter X and shall not be used for a campsite by anyone in this area.

Sounds like he is "double-dog" daring me.

 

[Mountain Man]

Hi everyone, I’m a bit late to the conversation on this topic. After reading all these posts (that took awhile) and thinking through this a bit, I have a few things that I haven’t seen mentioned yet.



To me, the outfitting industry in Montana appears to have been spoiled previously when any interested client was guaranteed a tag due to there being more total supply than demand. Now that demand for tags exceeds supply, prospective clients may not draw that given year. This shock to the market is an example of a new operating environment that the bulk of businesses deal with ALL THE TIME. Why is it that all other businesses need to adjust to new environments to survive/thrive, but the outfitting industry is so fragile that it needs to seek legislative support to change the environment to make things easier? This scenario is akin to if the government forced customers to rent movies from Blockbuster rather than stream from Netflix because the only way they could watch a movie when they wanted was to go through Blockbuster. Let that analogy sink in...



My other point is more of a question: Why are Montana outfitters unable to successfully operate in a system where clients might not draw every year when Arizona outfitters can? They seem to have figured out a business model to account for the draw system when it usually takes many years to acquire a tag. For Montana outfitters to state they simply cannot handle the “unstable” situation of a prospective client not drawing a tag seems like complete nonsense. Are the outfitters in Arizona tougher? Are they better at running their businesses?

 

[Addicting]

addicting, this will not make room for more outfitters. Outfitters are already limited by NCHU(net client hunting use) on private land, BLM, state lands, and FS special use permits(I don't outfit on FS) only so many days/permit holders/NCHU out there, limiting us. So there will not be any growth, as the fear mongers would have you believe.

This is untrue, while new NCHU cannot be created existing NCHU can be sold to any willing qualified buyer. There is no limit that I could find in how the seller divided their share. Weather it is sold to one individual or sub divided into 10 buyers.

With guaranteed clients and the behind the scenes big money driving this, those NCHU days are going to sky rocket in value. In a free market New outfits are only going to be limited by the size of their bank roll.

Nice try though.

 

[Gerald Martin]

So far this discussion has revolved around outfitters and DIY hunters. Does anyone know how many of those set aside tags will be picked up by landowners for their family, friends, and clients?

 

[NativeIndian]

I have a hard time ever seeing an example of where outfitters should be guaranteed tags.

Special interest groups greasing the hands of politicians. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours and we'll both get rich. Old as time itself.

 

[Hem]

Special interest groups greasing the hands of politicians. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours and we'll both get rich. Old as time itself.

Nailed it.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

I did like that they only want one early bite of the apple.

Yeah, a bite that weighs in at 60% of the apple

 

[Wind Gypsy]

This whole deal about the draw odds not changing for NR.. how do they figure a diy NR’s draw odds don’t change when they take up to 60% of the tags out of the pool being applied for? All their clients they were worried about not getting tags could get those tags without competing with us but somehow that doesn’t impact our odds?

Eric, can you explain this logic?

 

[antlerradar]

One part that has been missing from this discussion is the "behind the scenes politics." I'll try my best to explain it.

There are some very large non-resident landowners in Montana who are not accustomed to having to stand in line with the unwashed masses, a/k/a the basket of deplorables.

These non-resident landowners and their non-resident friends have had a harder time drawing tags to hunt their big properties, due to these pesky peasants applying for this same pool of tags and now you actually need a preference point or two to draw this Montana tag. Yeah, these landowners can go in the landowner draw we have in Montana, but that is not as wide-ranging as is needed for the amounts of family and friends some of these landowners grew accustomed to hosting.

Many of these non-resident landowners, their spouses, family members, and business associates have made the maximum allowed donations to many of the Montana legislators who are involved in this effort (quick Google searches can show this information in your state). Those maxed out donations come with a lot of strings. One of the strings is to make sure these non-residents can get a tag for them, family, and friends, even if they have to enter into a deal with an outfitter.

This is an influential group behind the scenes asking for this. These non-resident landowners are quiet and they have their agents doing their lobbying. They are smart and know the current optics of non-resident landowners seeking more elk tags in this environment.

The outfitters benefit to a high degree and they are the face of this effort in public, as seen by their large presence in the Capitol to lobby on this bill. Given who has been doing the calling behind the scenes on behalf of their clients, there is little doubt that this effort is being encouraged by the wealthy non-resident landowner who dislikes being in the same line as the workin' folks.

Political debts get repaid. Just a matter of who pays the bill, in this case, the self-guided non-resident gets the largest share of the tab.

This was happening back with the old outfitter licenses. If this passes it will be happening ten fold. Will not be long and outfitters will be using the entire 60%.

 

[Browning Rifles]

Just doing the math ... when obama was president no one could afford a guided hunt. But after Trump “stabilized “
the economy everybody was ready to pay $8000.00 to get a set of horns. Goverment hand outs ... the new normal . Holding my breath for mine....

 

[Carnage2011]

Yeah, a bite that weighs in at 60% of the apple

I mean in their defense when I ask my wife for a bite of her ice cream I fully intend on taking the entire top off that thing!

 

[JM77]

An email from one of the people who leads the trade industry group pushing this bill.

Apparently MOGA and WYOGA have a direct phone line for strategy sessions.

 

[Browning Rifles]

Poor outfitters can’t make any money selling a set of horns to some rich guy that can’t hike 5 miles up a mountain to actually hunt a bull elk.

 

[Browning Rifles]

I was lucky enough to kill a bull elk this year because a a big herd decided to move off a piece of outfitted land. The day before I watched the landowner/outfitter drive chase the herd away from the the public land. Called the FWP and they said they had to see it to believe it and they would talk to them. Rich landowners can do what they want I guess. Public land hunters have no real chance.

 

[brownbear932008]

This is sarcasm right?

I keep missing their call but they called me as recently as last week to ask about my elk hunting from last year.
I turned my tag in for a refund in late July.

I've had this same experience just shows how mismanaged that agency truly is. I personally have spent a fortune in MT over the years all DIY. Not to mention a small fortune I left behind in threeforks at that wonderful restaurant.

 

[MTGomer]

My other point is more of a question: Why are Montana outfitters unable to successfully operate in a system where clients might not draw every year when Arizona outfitters can? They seem to have figured out a business model to account for the draw system when it usually takes many years to acquire a tag. For Montana outfitters to state they simply cannot handle the “unstable” situation of a prospective client not drawing a tag seems like complete nonsense. Are the outfitters in Arizona tougher? Are they better at running their businesses?

Not to mention, the vast majority of guided elk hunts in Arizona are taking place on public lands. Outfitters there can’t even sell exclusive access, yet the good ones book up fast.