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

[WIbiggame]

Outfitters don’t deserve to be forced out of business.
Neither do they deserve priority for limited public trust resources.

100% this ^^

 

[Gerald Martin]

Also, I am a strong believer in letting the market dictate things, as long as it not destructive to the resources it is using. If an outfitter is providing a valuable service it will thrive and be profitable. It should not require the protection of government. If it is run poorly then it should cease to exist.

Ah yes, a conservative economic principle( which I happen to agree with). One, which the majority party espouses loudly and emphatically when an “undeserving” demographic receives government subsidies and handouts. A principle that also is convenient to forget when “a deserving” demographic stands to benefit from a government subsidy in
the form of set aside outfitter licenses.

 

[huntin24/7]

I love the logic a couple guys on here are using to convince us residents how great this is for us. I think the majority of don’t have any issue with the number of non residents that hunt here. The largest issue is that this state is by and large a free for all. The fact that almost the entire state is a general tag and that 50,000(just throwing out a number) hunters could try to kill a buck in the same county is mind blowing. Managing units is how you spread out hunters, reduce conflict, and have better deer herds. You couldn’t convince me that this bill was good for me as a resident diy hunter as a 6th grader let alone someone pushing 40 years old with much more experience. Throw that opinion in the trash and move on.

 

[crouchgc]

Well I waited until I was retired to hunt Montana so I could spend the time scouting different units. As it stands now NR BGCombo draw is about 70ist % for NR. With this bill it’s below 30%.
Guess waiting all these years was a bad discussion.

 

[marksjeep]

19 pages.... I keep circling back to post #205...the sentiment of which has been reflected by many in the thread, on both sides of the argument. But this summarizes it the most succinctly, from the main proponent of the bill in this thread.

"It also does nothing to address the real problem, which is management of wildlife. Hopefully a new Gov. and Commission will look to manage wildlife biologically in the state."

The only thing folks seem to be in agreement on is that wildlife management is all jacked up in Montana. It's negatively affecting resident DIY, NR DIY, and public land outfitters in some way, shape, or form.

The crony capitalism aspect aside, the bill does not address any of the issues that everyone seems to recognize are causing the problems. Ugh.

My emails have been sent, for what they are worth.

 

[d-edward]

This is truly amazing. Sounds like most of you want to run our public lands into the ground and you don’t even pay taxes here. Double maskers if you will. “I’m a public landowner” lol maybe in your state. Elk are on private land now more then ever, for a reason. It’s not even comparable to when there were guaranteed outfitter tags over a decade ago. Huh I wonder why? Human pressure with the help of predators that had the help of humans. Some people have gained monetarily as well as built notoriety by publicizing our public lands as well. Seems slimy to me. Our public lands have become inundated with people. Non residents, old residents, new residents but no new guides? Really the same allotments and usage for guides on BLM, state and forest going back decades. It’s people. Masses of people being sold the public land dream. Why are outfitters that take clients on private hunt miles from public painted with this broad brush as villains. Those clients that have one week and save all year to hunt instead of going on a cruise are now rich elites? When is the last time any of you talked to a outfitters or guides from a neutral position??? How about the guide who lost 10-15% of client draw the past few years pre COVID due to an excess of the diy non residents that show up with no plan? Thaycall an outfitter while there here poking for information because they seen more hunters and kennetrek tacks than elk or elk tracks. Or the outfitter who lost multiple groups last year to COVID. What about him? Meanwhile his yearly loyal clients spend a pile of money in those communities. Most of which being processing and taxidermy. Two things most nr diy hunters do not invest in Montana by and large. Never Mind guide employment and those clients spending money in town during the week at motels, cafes and sporting stores. That money does stay in those areas. I think loyalty to our wildlife and residents should take precedence over diy non residents. It’s a privledge to hunt here as a non resident. Give the guide industry some better footing, allow our clogged public ground some room to breath for our tax paying locals, wildlife and those lucky 40% diy non residents. The numbers also don’t indicate that nr diy are going to be losing out on the draw like some are propagating. How many already go to outfitters? Now your guaranteeing you have a 40% chance of coming here as a nr diy hunter. Every other year most likely. That’s not good enough? There are other states you can hunt. You don’t just have to hammer Montana. If you want to hunt here every year, then move here and participate in our year round economy, instead of taking a natural resource from us for a fraction of the cost and head back home. Maybe if this passed those elk will jump back over the fence on public and I won’t run into a guy from the Midwest on the county rd disgruntled because he had no idea there would be that many people at a trailhead in Montana. “Seems like Colorado up here” he says. There is something for all of us in this bill. I hope it passes

What I find interesting (amusing?) in reading the perspective of outfitters who responded to the reasoning for pursuing SB143 is the tone in the narrative. From 60% of NR tag allocation as a "starting point" in negotiations, to saying this is not a government subsidized handout to belittling DIY resident and nonresident hunters who frequent the forum...it's puzzling that representatives from the outfitting industry think your average hunter is incapable of grappling with the facts and outcomes of the bill.

We would all be better off initiating discussion from a place of honesty on the core issues MOGA and Eric mentioned: state wildlife management and volatility in the outfitting business. As a constituent, I would have more appetite for working towards solutions on those items than having a bad bill jammed down my throat and being told I don't understand what I'm talking about.

Moreover, I would think you'd want to level with and engage in respectful dialogue with some of the very people who might be prospective clients if the bill passes for those hunters who hope to obtain a NR tag in Montana.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Will the meeting tomorrow be live streamed on youtube or somewhere similar?

 

[Bulltrout]

Montanans (and Americans) who care about a fair shake should be very alarmed when private land owners and private outfitters work together to control the management of our public resources. The impetus of this bill SB143 is as much about concentrating wealth and power with land owners, if not more so, than outfitters. (Look at the makeup of the legislature.) This bill fits with similar efforts in Montana to undo public stream access, restrict wildness of the American Bison, and to maintain super-cheap grazing fees on public lands and even cheaper if not free enormous (and wasteful) consumption of our most precious resource (WATER) for beef "production".

If sound bites are any use, I'd go with "keep it wild" way before "cows not condos." Controlling protein in the hands of the glorified, mythified western cowboy is a tremendous rip-off of our public lands, waters, and a disaster for the diverse wildlife (and healthy food sources) that depend on our lands and waters. Thus, a heavily lop-sided resource allocation in the name of "feeding the world." Don't buy it!

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Also, if redditors can break wall street (i.e gamestop) I have faith the public land diy hunters can come together to be herd they kill this bill. Perhpas DIY hunters need thier own lobbiying group

 

[golfer]

Will the meeting tomorrow be live streamed on youtube or somewhere similar?

Yes it will be.

 

[bigsky2]

Will the meeting tomorrow be live streamed on youtube or somewhere similar?

It will be streamed here: http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/View/UpcomingEvents

 

[Dakota79]

This is probably a silly question but I just don't know so please help me understand. Would making some of these licenses that are going to outfitters only valid on private land help public land hunters? Would that put more pressure on private land herds therefore making them go to public land where the average Hunter has a better chance or would you just cause outfitters lease up more private land?

 

[JLS]

This is probably a silly question but I just don't know so please help me understand. Would making some of these licenses that are going to outfitters only valid on private land help public land hunters? Would that put more pressure on private land herds therefore making them go to public land where the average Hunter has a better chance or would you just cause outfitters lease up more private land?

A hunter with an outfitter guaranteed license can only hunt with an outfitter, so yes it would likely reduce pressure on public land. It would also create a bigger incentive to lease more private land, and try and keep more elk on said private lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It will be streamed here: http://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/View/UpcomingEvents

If you wish to testify on this (and you can) you have to sign up by noon MST today here: https://www.leg.mt.gov/public-testimony/

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

I CREATED A PETITION ON CHANGE.ORG against the bill, Simply click the link below or put it in your browser. It will be sent to the MT senate, house, tester, and daines.

Can you spare a minute to help this campaign?

No on Montana Senate Bill No. 143

chng.it

 

[Ben Lamb]

I CREATED A PETITION ON CHANGE.ORG against the bill, Simply click the link below or put it in your browser. It will be sent to the MT senate, house, tester, and daines.

Can you spare a minute to help this campaign?

No on Montana Senate Bill No. 143

chng.it

Should not go to Tester or Daines, but to Governor Gianforte.

 

[TheTone]

Do outfitted non residents have a higher success rate than non outfitted? If yes and this is a resource/species management issue shouldn’t they be wanting less clients to help recruitment of deer and elk?

 

[406dn]

This is probably a silly question but I just don't know so please help me understand. Would making some of these licenses that are going to outfitters only valid on private land help public land hunters? Would that put more pressure on private land herds therefore making them go to public land where the average Hunter has a better chance or would you just cause outfitters lease up more private land?

I don't think it would help in that regard. The outfitters are mostly interested in larger bulls. Presently the shoulder seasons run in some of the same private land that is outfitted. There won't be so much more pressure to change things appreciatively.

Also the public land outfitter would be harmed if those tags were only valid on private land. IMO, the most defensible outfitter that exists. They truly supply an experience that most non residents, or residents for that matter, can do on their own.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Should not go to Tester or Daines, but to Governor Gianforte.

Ill try to edit it

 

[MTGomer]

shouldn’t they be wanting less clients to help recruitment of deer and elk?

No. It’s Montana.
Elk eat valuable hay and ruin fences and deer could die from CWD if hunters don’t kill them. They want less elk, not more.
Check out the new general muzzleloader season that’s being proposed.