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

[Chad E]

[IMG alt="Big Fin"]https://www.hunttalk.com/data/avatars/m/12/12015.jpg?1571925455[/IMG]

Big Fin​

Administrator​

Staff member
JoinedDec 27, 2000Messages14,881LocationBozeman, MT
Wish I was not traveling tomorrow. I'd love to be there in person.

"Suffice to say, the Committee is squirming right now. If they think the last few days have been hectic just get this on the Governor's desk. Then things will get serious.

My name is Randy Newberg and I approved this post. What is written is my opinion, and my opinion only."

It's pretty amazing after you filled everyone full of lies, misinformation and discontent about SB143 and got many to do your dirty work, you're to much of a chicken to even show up at the Capital to answer questions from the Committee today.

All I can say is that you must really HATE the outfitting industry to put out the propaganda you posted about SB143. SB143 will only benefit resident hunters by reducing NR competition on public land and Block Management, but you failed to point that out. You suggested that SB143 would greatly harm the NR DIY hunter by taking away their chance to draw a license, but in actuality their draw success will remain the same as it was, because you failed to factor in the fact that outfitter's clients are included in the draw stats and by removing them from the general draw only keeps the draw for the non-outfitted hunter the same chance as it is now. And the last but most important thing you misrepresented to everyone was the fact that SB143 will generate millions of dollars for conservation and to improve access for Montana hunters.

Uses a internet screen name to call someone a chicken impressive tactic.
Im shocked how many of you supports of this bill can't comprehend math but I guess that video kinda clears that up for us. Your asking for a 60% setaside, while claiming somewhere between 40% and 50% already go outfitted. Then saying dont worry odds won't change because x amount already go outfitted. The difference between 40% and 60% or 50% and 60% is substantial when it comes to draw odds so your either terrible at math, disingenuous, or your playing that we shot high on the % and will come down again card which is very disingenuous.

Good policy sells itself without having to create fictitious explanations that aren't in any way rooted in fact. The amount of b.s. explanations coming from supporters of this bill should be a strong indication of the quality of this bill.

 

[Ben Lamb]

[IMG alt="Big Fin"]https://www.hunttalk.com/data/avatars/m/12/12015.jpg?1571925455[/IMG]

Big Fin​

Administrator​

Staff member
JoinedDec 27, 2000Messages14,881LocationBozeman, MT
Wish I was not traveling tomorrow. I'd love to be there in person.

"Suffice to say, the Committee is squirming right now. If they think the last few days have been hectic just get this on the Governor's desk. Then things will get serious.

My name is Randy Newberg and I approved this post. What is written is my opinion, and my opinion only."

It's pretty amazing after you filled everyone full of lies, misinformation and discontent about SB143 and got many to do your dirty work, you're to much of a chicken to even show up at the Capital to answer questions from the Committee today.

All I can say is that you must really HATE the outfitting industry to put out the propaganda you posted about SB143. SB143 will only benefit resident hunters by reducing NR competition on public land and Block Management, but you failed to point that out. You suggested that SB143 would greatly harm the NR DIY hunter by taking away their chance to draw a license, but in actuality their draw success will remain the same as it was, because you failed to factor in the fact that outfitter's clients are included in the draw stats and by removing them from the general draw only keeps the draw for the non-outfitted hunter the same chance as it is now.

Let's break this down in terms of what it means for the bill.

1.) "It's pretty amazing after you filled everyone full of lies, misinformation and discontent about SB143 and got many to do your dirty work, you're to much of a chicken to even show up at the Capital to answer questions from the Committee today. "

A solid lobbyist would get a ton of questions placed with friendly committee members who will attack the opponents of a bill by questioning their integrity & trying to provoke a response. They will ask leading & pointed questions to try and show that the person testifying should be ignored. Since the Chairman is likely not to engage in such behavior (it is Senate Fish & Game, so all bets may be off) this task often times falls to the vice-chair if the proponents are majority party favored, as outfitters are. There will be a series of questions for the sportsmen's groups that show up, tilting at the green decoy issue, calling into question how many members they have & if they polled their members on this issue. 99% of those groups don't poll members, but have legislative committees made up of volunteers that make decisions based on their organization's policies & mission. THese questions are designed to show that sportsmen's groups don't represent sportsmen, when we know that there have been over 1,000 contacts to each senator on this bill from - sportsmen.

2.) "All I can say is that you must really HATE the outfitting industry to put out the propaganda you posted about SB143. SB143 will only benefit resident hunters by reducing NR competition on public land and Block Management, but you failed to point that out."

Using demagoguery to try and present yourself as the victim of some dastardly deed against you can be effective, but here it's hamfisted and falls flat. Partly because of the audience, but mostly because the person presenting the article is frothing and not really making a solid point. A more subtle approach would be wise here, as opposed to yelling at clouds.

3.) "You suggested that SB143 would greatly harm the NR DIY hunter by taking away their chance to draw a license, but in actuality their draw success will remain the same as it was, because you failed to factor in the fact that outfitter's clients are included in the draw stats and by removing them from the general draw only keeps the draw for the non-outfitted hunter the same chance as it is now."

Obfuscate. That means to confuse people with muddy facts about what the bill will do. There is no evidence to show that increasing outfitter licenses does anything other than decrease DIY hunter access for residents and non-residents. New Mexico is a bright example of this, as is Colorado. But it's effective for legislators who don't have months to pour over draw statistics, apply in other states, know draw odds across the west and understand what this means for point creep for DIY NR's, as well as lost opportunities for resident hunters as outfitters expand the land they use under lease.

4.) "And the last but most important thing you misrepresented to everyone was the fact that SB143 will generate millions of dollars for conservation and to improve access for Montana hunters."

This is an important line of support for the bill, but it's a bit of a headfake. The application fee ($100) for the outfitter welfare tags will go towards the PAL act that was passed last session. During the negotiations on that bill, FWP was adamant that the funding for PAL come from the General License Account (We were able to secure $1 million of the GLA for this, and it was likely to get funded at the same level this session), since earmarks are frowned upon by the USFWS when it comes to State Wildlife Grants, PR/DJ funding. That may have been relaxed under the previous administration (Trump), but I can't see the Biden administration going along with this, so I'd ask for a letter from the Service on the diversion issue, or if earmarks are still unacceptable, per FWP's direction in 2019. So, the funding for PAL already existed, and was likely to be reinstated as the program is starting to see some success as an alternative form of agreement that may work for landowners in a better fashion. It's important to remember too, that unlike Habitat Montana, PAL is about increasing access to landlocked public land, and not an access program for private lands. So, while I'm glad to see MOGA try to make funding for PAL stable, it shouldn't come at the expense of a voter passed initiative, and it most certainly won't improve the budget picture for DFWP, who would receive the funding into the GLA anyway, making this portion of the bill essentially moot.

 

[Gevock]

New Mexico Wildlife Federation is bringing a bill to get rid of the set asides there:

New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act Modernizes State Wildlife Management and Increases Resident Hunting Opportunities

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jesse Deubel - 505.440.2621 - [email protected]

SANTA FE, N.M. (February 2, 2021) - Lawmakers have introduced a bill in the New Mexico Legislature that would expand and modernize wildlife management in the state while giving state residents more hunting opportunities.

The New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act, SB312, introduced by Sen. Jeff Steinborn and Rep. Nathan Small, both Las Cruces Democrats, would change the name of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

The bill would expand the wildlife department’s mission to do more to address the needs of non-game species and update several provisions implementing better wildlife management practices. While a majority of states have structured their wildlife management under ‘wildlife departments’, New Mexico is one of only 11 states that still manages wildlife within a ‘game and fish’ structure.

“It’s been a century since the New Mexico Legislature created the first game commission in 1921,” Sen. Steinborn said. “Our state has grown significantly since then, and with the fourth highest biodiversity of any state in the country, New Mexico needs a more comprehensive approach to wildlife management. We need to update our laws to provide for the next century of wildlife management in the state.”

Rep. Small emphasized that New Mexico’s wildlife plays an important role in the state’s growing outdoor economy and highlighted New Mexico’s rich hunting heritage. “I remember going deer hunting every fall with my grandfather on Mt. Taylor. Those seasons shaped me in profound ways, and our legislation recognizes that hunting will remain an important tradition for New Mexicans,” Small said. “This bill recognizes the importance of managing wildlife as a critical food source and expands the role of wildlife management to cover more species. Increasingly, people are coming to New Mexico to see all kinds of wildlife and we need management that places a premium on conservation.”

The bill has garnered support from a broad coalition of New Mexico hunting and conservation groups, including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Hispanics Enjoying Camping Hunting and the Outdoors (HECHO), Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project, Southwest Environmental Center, Animal Protection Voters, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Audubon Southwest, WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The bill would make the following changes:

• The new Department of Wildlife Conservation will have expanded authority to manage game and non-game populations of all wildlife across our diverse state. With expanded wildlife management, New Mexico will be well poised to capitalize on extensive funding opportunities [approximately $27 million annually] upon passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act in Congress.

• Repeals a widely unpopular provision that allows landowners to kill deer, elk and other protected wildlife without department permission or oversight because the wildlife posed a perceived threat to their crops. This provision has resulted in the widespread killing of elk, pronghorn antelope and other species.

• Expands New Mexico’s definition of “waste of game” to prohibit leaving edible portions of bear, cougar and javelina in the field. Current state law allows hunters to remove only the skin, claws or other body parts from bear, cougar and javelina and leave the rest to waste.

• Supports the state’s hunting heritage by providing more than 1000 additional elk tags for NM residents each year. The act will bring New Mexico in line with other western states by eliminating the outfitter set-aside and providing nonresidents an equal opportunity to compete for the full 10 percent of nonresident draw tags. New Mexico resident hunters have been treated unfairly by our state’s tag allocation system for decades. Many states, such as Arizona and Montana, set strict caps of 10 percent for nonresident licenses. For nearly 10 years, New Mexico has set aside only 84 percent of draw tags for resident hunters. The state reserves 10 percent of draw tags for hunters who hire an outfitter while only 6 percent are earmarked for nonresident hunters who don’t hire an outfitter.

• Gives the Department a one-time $1 million dollar appropriation for management of species of greatest conservation need. The Department currently does not receive any general fund money for wildlife management and typically focuses its funding on game species. This new funding would go far for animals like Pecos pupfish, pinyon jay, boreal toad, and more.

The bill calls for a $2 million state appropriation to implement its provisions, an investment that would likely bring the state millions more in federal matching funds.

Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, noted that many non-resident hunters already buy permit authorizations from private landowners without going through the draw and said any hunter is free to retain an outfitter if they choose. “It’s completely unfair to subsidize the outfitting industry at the expense of resident hunters,” Deubel said. “This legislation will bring New Mexico in line with other states in the West and provide more than one thousand additional opportunities to our resident hunters each year for elk alone.”

“The New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act brings some long-overdue changes. These changes are critical for illustrating New Mexico’s commitment to ensuring the future of wildlife populations,” said Max. O Trujillo, San Miguel County Commissioner. “Giving residents back their tags brings more opportunities to harvest our own meat - which has been a huge part of our culture. To native New Mexicans, hunting has never been about money, it has always been about food and providing for our families.”

###

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION: For over a century the New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) has been working on behalf of sportspeople across the state. Since 1914, NMWF has advocated for sound wildlife management, access to public lands, protection of waters and watersheds, and provided opportunities to pursue the outdoor traditions that helped make America what it is today.​

 

[lastlight]

I like the sounds of that New Mexico

Supports the state’s hunting heritage by providing more than 1000 additional elk tags for NM residents each year. The act will bring New Mexico in line with other western states by eliminating the outfitter set-aside and providing nonresidents an equal opportunity to compete for the full 10 percent of nonresident draw tags. New Mexico resident hunters have been treated unfairly by our state’s tag allocation system for decades. Many states, such as Arizona and Montana, set strict caps of 10 percent for nonresident licenses. For nearly 10 years, New Mexico has set aside only 84 percent of draw tags for resident hunters. The state reserves 10 percent of draw tags for hunters who hire an outfitter while only 6 percent are earmarked for nonresident hunters who don’t hire an outfitter.

 

[mtmuley]

He should keep his yap shut, but I hope Honest comes back for more. mtmuley

 

[VikingsGuy]

For the life of me, I just can't figure out how people that pretend to pride themselves so much on their strong, rural work ethic and rugged individualistic way of life are so eager to take handouts from the government.

 

[Valley1320]

New Mexico Wildlife Federation is bringing a bill to get rid of the set asides there:

New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act Modernizes State Wildlife Management and Increases Resident Hunting Opportunities

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jesse Deubel - 505.440.2621 - [email protected]

SANTA FE, N.M. (February 2, 2021) - Lawmakers have introduced a bill in the New Mexico Legislature that would expand and modernize wildlife management in the state while giving state residents more hunting opportunities.

The New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act, SB312, introduced by Sen. Jeff Steinborn and Rep. Nathan Small, both Las Cruces Democrats, would change the name of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

The bill would expand the wildlife department’s mission to do more to address the needs of non-game species and update several provisions implementing better wildlife management practices. While a majority of states have structured their wildlife management under ‘wildlife departments’, New Mexico is one of only 11 states that still manages wildlife within a ‘game and fish’ structure.

“It’s been a century since the New Mexico Legislature created the first game commission in 1921,” Sen. Steinborn said. “Our state has grown significantly since then, and with the fourth highest biodiversity of any state in the country, New Mexico needs a more comprehensive approach to wildlife management. We need to update our laws to provide for the next century of wildlife management in the state.”

Rep. Small emphasized that New Mexico’s wildlife plays an important role in the state’s growing outdoor economy and highlighted New Mexico’s rich hunting heritage. “I remember going deer hunting every fall with my grandfather on Mt. Taylor. Those seasons shaped me in profound ways, and our legislation recognizes that hunting will remain an important tradition for New Mexicans,” Small said. “This bill recognizes the importance of managing wildlife as a critical food source and expands the role of wildlife management to cover more species. Increasingly, people are coming to New Mexico to see all kinds of wildlife and we need management that places a premium on conservation.”

The bill has garnered support from a broad coalition of New Mexico hunting and conservation groups, including the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Hispanics Enjoying Camping Hunting and the Outdoors (HECHO), Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project, Southwest Environmental Center, Animal Protection Voters, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, Audubon Southwest, WildEarth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The bill would make the following changes:

• The new Department of Wildlife Conservation will have expanded authority to manage game and non-game populations of all wildlife across our diverse state. With expanded wildlife management, New Mexico will be well poised to capitalize on extensive funding opportunities [approximately $27 million annually] upon passage of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act in Congress.

• Repeals a widely unpopular provision that allows landowners to kill deer, elk and other protected wildlife without department permission or oversight because the wildlife posed a perceived threat to their crops. This provision has resulted in the widespread killing of elk, pronghorn antelope and other species.

• Expands New Mexico’s definition of “waste of game” to prohibit leaving edible portions of bear, cougar and javelina in the field. Current state law allows hunters to remove only the skin, claws or other body parts from bear, cougar and javelina and leave the rest to waste.

• Supports the state’s hunting heritage by providing more than 1000 additional elk tags for NM residents each year. The act will bring New Mexico in line with other western states by eliminating the outfitter set-aside and providing nonresidents an equal opportunity to compete for the full 10 percent of nonresident draw tags. New Mexico resident hunters have been treated unfairly by our state’s tag allocation system for decades. Many states, such as Arizona and Montana, set strict caps of 10 percent for nonresident licenses. For nearly 10 years, New Mexico has set aside only 84 percent of draw tags for resident hunters. The state reserves 10 percent of draw tags for hunters who hire an outfitter while only 6 percent are earmarked for nonresident hunters who don’t hire an outfitter.

• Gives the Department a one-time $1 million dollar appropriation for management of species of greatest conservation need. The Department currently does not receive any general fund money for wildlife management and typically focuses its funding on game species. This new funding would go far for animals like Pecos pupfish, pinyon jay, boreal toad, and more.

The bill calls for a $2 million state appropriation to implement its provisions, an investment that would likely bring the state millions more in federal matching funds.

Jesse Deubel, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, noted that many non-resident hunters already buy permit authorizations from private landowners without going through the draw and said any hunter is free to retain an outfitter if they choose. “It’s completely unfair to subsidize the outfitting industry at the expense of resident hunters,” Deubel said. “This legislation will bring New Mexico in line with other states in the West and provide more than one thousand additional opportunities to our resident hunters each year for elk alone.”

“The New Mexico Wildlife Heritage Act brings some long-overdue changes. These changes are critical for illustrating New Mexico’s commitment to ensuring the future of wildlife populations,” said Max. O Trujillo, San Miguel County Commissioner. “Giving residents back their tags brings more opportunities to harvest our own meat - which has been a huge part of our culture. To native New Mexicans, hunting has never been about money, it has always been about food and providing for our families.”

###

ABOUT THE NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION: For over a century the New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF) has been working on behalf of sportspeople across the state. Since 1914, NMWF has advocated for sound wildlife management, access to public lands, protection of waters and watersheds, and provided opportunities to pursue the outdoor traditions that helped make America what it is today.​

MTGomer started another thread on this in case some hadn't noticed

 

[Ben Lamb]

While this drama is unfolding, it's important to remember that bills like SB 143 are only part of theMOGA agenda for 2021. There's bills like this too: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/LC1649.pdf

it removes sportsmen from the board of outfitters so that it's only outfitters overseeing themselves. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

 

[JLS]

@Ben Lamb, the Board of Outfitters has long been a joke. Their refusal to address their own issues has been embarrassing at times.

I just emailed all of the committee members. I should have done it yesterday, but hopefully the message resonates with them.

Repealing a citizen's initiative is always on the table, regardless of how good or bad the CI is. It certainly should be a well thought out process though, and SB 143 doesn't strike me as well thought out.

Does it change odds, or doesn't it? If it doesn't, why do it?

As @Carnage2011 pointed out, there are limitation to the access agreements that make this less than desirable. I don't know how many noticed, but there is a $15,000 cap on any access agreements. I haven't parsed through all of the fine print, but I do know outfitters don't have caps on what they can pay.

 

[MTGomer]

As Ben says, I too am worried that legislators will be easily confused by claims this will make resident DIY hunting better.
I think the senate committee is better than the house, but I just keep remembering that when the bill to make Moose, Sheep, Goat OIL was presented last week, instead of discussing the bill, most of the hearing was occupied with confusion over whether or not there is a grizzly season and if hunters eat MSG.

Hard to get into details with people with no baseline understanding of the topic.
Cant do calculus if you can’t add and subtract.

 

[Big Fin]

As Ben says, I too am worried that legislators will be easily confused by claims this will make resident DIY hunting better.
I think the senate committee is better than the house, but I just keep remembering that when the bill to make Moose, Sheep, Goat OIL was presented last week, instead of discussing the bill, most of the hearing was occupied with confusion over whether or not there is a grizzly season and if hunters eat MSG.

Hard to get into details with people with no baseline understanding of the topic.
Cant do calculus if you can’t add and subtract.

Correct. Which is why the effort in large part has been to swamp them with comments. If they have to delete a thousand emails a day for an entire week, that should be one take away that sticks with them - no matter what they are being told, thousands of people feel strongly enough to email or call.

It is completely possible that this bill passes the Senate Committee due to politics and repaying political debts. They have received thousands and thousands of email and calls against the bill. The emails and calls in support have been minuscule in comparison.

If so, we wait until it gets to the Governor's desk and then it gets real serious. I can assure you that this is not one the Governor wants on his desk. But, if that is how the game gets played, that is how it goes. I am sure the response by hunters will be appropriate.

(Damn, typing this stuff out on a phone is a PITA. Advance apologies for spell check issues.)

 

[Bullbrl]

As Ben says, I too am worried that legislators will be easily confused by claims this will make resident DIY hunting better.
I think the senate committee is better than the house, but I just keep remembering that when the bill to make Moose, Sheep, Goat OIL was presented last week, instead of discussing the bill, most of the hearing was occupied with confusion over whether or not there is a grizzly season and if hunters eat MSG.

Hard to get into details with people with no baseline understanding of the topic.
Cant do calculus if you can’t add and subtract.

Are there any hunter's groups in Montana that will be attending this to voice concerns about this bill?

 

[turbo2thousand]

Tide pods and double the grizzly number for you folks. How many of you cashed your bullshit stimulus check or drilled the ppp? This bill comes close to achieving the guaranteed number of clients most outfitters have had for years. Not a handout, what they had. You guys are like the kid that was taken fishing, taken begrudgingly, but taken non the less. Next time i go back to my sacred hole, there’s 10 people fishing and and no one is catching fish. What a success story. Still 17,000 tags and more and more diy guys calling my friend for help mid season each and every year and he takes the same 30 guys every year. Not more clients for outfitters growing their business, just more public land Diy guys Saturating our public grounds. If you hunt public ground you have seen it. If your a legit backcountry elk hunter this is not for you. No matter your state. Too many people Are unequipped to hunt here. Its irritating as a public land owner lol Ask a game warden about the difference in game and fish law infractions. You can’t even compare non resident diy hunters in rifle season, to guided non residents. S

Its not that NR that are saturating the public land. There are 10 resident tags for every 1 NR. Look at the hunter effort number on the FWP site. Residents have 4-10 times the number of hunting day as NR depending on the district. It should be this was, there should be 10 times the resident hunters. But to blame the overrun of public land on NR is incorrect according to the numbers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The bill will get amended and will come out of committee. Your voices will be ignored or dismissed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are there any hunter's groups in Montana that will be attending this to voice concerns about this bill?

I know several will be there.

 

[JLS]

The bill will get amended and will come out of committee. Your voices will be ignored or dismissed.

Sadly, I fear you are correct.

 

[Nameless Range]

The bill will get amended and will come out of committee. Your voices will be ignored or dismissed.

Foreordained insider info?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Foreordained insider info?

Educated guess based on info from a committee member working to kill the bill.

 

[Bullbrl]

Educated guess based on info from a committee member working to kill the bill.

If that does end up being the case, is there any other recourse? When would this go into affect?

 

[williaada]

Does anyone have an update on how the meeting is going?