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

[Brad W]

I testified and stumbled as I tried to condense my prepared remarks down to 2 minutes. Posewitz was exceptional. It would have been helpful if more residents had testified in opposition. MOGA definitely rolled down in force. There were a lot of arguments against this bill that were not presented. Mac Minards comments at the end highlight what is at stake. This is just a foothold for them and they will be back hat in hand to ask for more tags once this goes through. The most frustrating part of watching the hearing was getting the sense that the thousands of e-mails and calls they got in the last four days didn’t mean much compared to the in-person testimony of 50 outfitters.

 

[Bullbrl]

I testified and stumbled as I tried to condense my prepared remarks down to 2 minutes. Posewitz was exceptional. It would have been helpful if more residents had testified in opposition. MOGA definitely rolled down in force. There were a lot of arguments against this bill that were not presented. Mac Minards comments at the end highlight what is at stake. This is just a foothold for them and they will be back hat in hand to ask for more tags once this goes through. The most frustrating part of watching the hearing was getting the sense that the thousands of e-mails and calls they got in the last four days didn’t mean much compared to the in-person testimony of 50 outfitters.

I got the sense they were annoyed they received so many emails and calls

 

[Brad W]

The line that

I got the sense they were annoyed they received so many emails and calls

agreed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The most frustrating part of watching the hearing was getting the sense that the thousands of e-mails and calls they got in the last four days didn’t mean much compared to the in-person testimony of 50 outfitters.

I've seen it where 100 people turn out in opposition to a bill, as well as thousands of emails & they pass bad bills out of committee.

There's a reason lobbyists get paid well.

 

[MTGomer]

I wish I would have signed up to call in. I thought there’d be dozens in opposition testifying already.

 

[shoots-straight]

Should we start collecting signatures for the next Initiative. Maybe this time to do away with any privatization, commercialization of our wildlife?

 

[WIbiggame]

This was a small battle in a larger war. Let's all stay the course and unite stronger and with more people. Now we all know what we are up against.

 

[MNElkNut]

What I haven't seen addressed (missed part of the opposition testimony) was what happens in the future. If, and that is a BIG IF, they are correct on the historical levels being 40% then nothing changes. Okaaaay, but what happens when demand increases? the DIY hunters takes all of that in the shorts because the outfitters, as long as they don't get bigger and they have said that repeatedly, then they still get their 40%. But the DIY hunter odds are going to drop....and drop....and drop as more people apply. They bear the complete brunt of it. So when they say this will not effect DIYers, they conveniently leave that part out. I would like to see one of our resident outfitters address this. I do believe the author (or one of the first speakers) even said something at the beginning that is was good for nonguided nonresidents. Uh, I will need that explained in detail to buy that.

And that 5X multiplier...explain that in detail too. I think they conveniently forgot to say that the nonguided hunters also have a 5X multiplier.

Bottom line, in 5 years, big fat cat lawyers and doctors can hunt every year, guaranteed, while the average joe is going to be lucky to hunt every 2-3 years.

 

[Bullbrl]

I’d sign that. The landowners and outfitters commercializing our wildlife could use a wake up call.

Obviously they couldn't care less about what NR have to say. This is up to you Montanans to talk with your friends, representatives, and business owners who rely on hunters....hunters who hang around towns, hunters who make extra trips to scout, hunters who aren't taken to lodges or backcountry camps and never seen in the towns.

 

[Brad W]

Bottom line is that none of the republicans on the committee care about NR draw odds. If we are going to win this fight it has to be about Montana residents and Montana businesses that are losing out. Montana outfitters bring in a lot of money to the state. The 5 or 7x multiplier is BS. That claim means that every hunter who pays $6500 for a five day deer hunt is contributing $32500-$45500 to the MT economy over the length of their trip. We aren’t talking stone sheep here.

 

[rmyoung1]

Hopefully, Montana residents, who enjoy hunting with out-of-state friends & relatives, make their voices heard. Residents should ask their legislators why their out-of-state hunting partners need to move to the back of the nonresident line simply because a guided hunt isn't a part of the plan. And I need to make some phone calls to my dad and brother (Gallatin Valley residents) to make sure they're paying attention.

 

[Finnman]

Anybody want my 13 NR elk points? Pretty discouraging!

 

[8andcounting]

Anybody want my 13 NR elk points? Pretty discouraging!

I’m in about the same boat .... this isn’t over . They had their turn today . We (the opposition) will have our turn .

 

[Bullbrl]

I see this fight in Montana as a very similar example to the commercial gilnetting issue Oregon/Washington has been dealing with in the Columbia river for decades. Special regulations, harvest quotas, etc. for a small commercial group benefitting off the resources. We have been fighting this with emails, calls, meetings, lobbyists, etc for literally over a 100 years, yet nothing has changed. The gilnetters still ask for more of a limited resource without any concern for others.

Like Randy eluded to, it's absolutely amazing what outside money can do to politicians.

Like some have stated, I think there is more greasing going here and this is just a first salvo in a much bigger plan.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Man, I cant believe how alot of the members just seemed to ignore so many valid questions. Mainly the the fact that MONTANANS VOTED THIS DOWN in 2010

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Also link to the petition started a day ago, currently almost a thousand people have signed. I tried to put Gienforte on it but it wouldnt let me, seems like he doesnt have an updated govenor profile on change.org. Still it will be sent to the MT senate, house, tester and daines.

Sign the Petition

No on Montana Senate Bill No. 143

www.change.org

 

[Big Fin]

I was able to catch most the testimony of the supporters and most of the rebuttals questions from the committee. It was pretty much what was expected for a hearing such as this, on a topic such as this. The rehearsed and choreographed parade of supporters got their chance to make their case.

The bill was crafted poorly and without much thought from the sponsor. You could quickly tell that the bill was written for him, not by him, and he was treading water trying to make a compelling case for most parts of it, often citing information that was incorrect. When asked about parts of the bill in rebuttal, he deflected answers from Senators Flowers, Jacobsen, and Brown.

Surely the bill was crafted with no input from hunter groups, supported by the stumbling deflection answer the sponsor provided when asked that question near the end. Those given the pen to write a bill toss out their best hopes and see what opposition pops up. When a lot of opposition is apparent, as became the case last week, they retreat to their next most hopeful position; in this case making 40-45% and trying to paint the case as though they are giving the world a great deal, while ignoring they are overturning a citizen's ballot initiative from 2010.

When a committee is stacked to the favor of one side or the other, this is usually the way it unfolds. By my vote count, there are seven supporters who have been lobbied hard. There are four folks opposed to this bill. In questioning, each Senator gets to take part in the rehearsed Q&A of the sponsor or informational witnesses. With a 7-4 margin, the side with seven Senators gets to ask a lot more softball questions to the sponsor and other supporters than does the group with four Senators.

Some have commented about Montana residents showing up. They showed up with their calls and emails. Senator Heck stated he had over 7,000 emails, which he seemed to discount as being from non-residents and explained his annoyance with that. I suspect a good number of those were from residents who have been chiming in on this. These Senators who have been lobbied hard are inclined to discount those comments, whether in person, by email, or by phone and whether the comments come from residents or non-residents. We've all been to these hearings and seen it happen where the vote is cast not based on the number of comments in support or opposed, rather who is owed favors and how the political calculus shakes out.

There are always some points of worth to take from most any hearing on a contentious issue.

This bill, this session, and the issues key to hunting, are a long game. This hearing is one step in a process. This bill is one of many they have loaded in the breech for the greatest land grab they have ever attempted against the current status, against conservation easements, and against public access. It is not practical to think that one can overcome such stacked odds in every hearing and on every bill. There will be more steps along the way in this bill and there needs to be resistance at every step.

This bill, this session, is not the end of the debates on these bigger topics. This is a concentrated effort against the current arrangement for tag allocations, access, habitat, conservation funding, by leveraging political power to help one side be the winner and one side take it in the shorts.

All that goes beyond just this bill. History shows us that when folks feel they have power to bludgeon the other side, rather than govern and seek supportable solutions, our system usually balances that out over the course of time. The changing demographics of Montana do not favor those who want to embark on a policy land grab on these topics with disregard for the sentiment of the resident voters.

Every bill that is heavily slanted against public opinion, no matter how it looks in committee testimony, is hard to pass all the way through to the Governor's signature without amendments (we already know that with this one). Every bit of opposition usually results in amendments and always extracts political capital to get it to the next step.

This process so far has the supporters of this bill regauging how much capital they are willing spend to overturn a previously passed citizen's ballot initiative. It also forces people to recalibrate how much capital they are going to spend on other bills in this session and on other actions once this session is over.

A ton of bills are yet to be heard that will hurt public access. They know it. So, they try to put some language in this bill that is supposedly to help with public access, but that is highly devalued in the context of the other efforts these same groups support that hurt access and how many restrictions are placed in this bill. Other bills on the docket will restrict further the use of access funds, make your conservation easement subject to what kind of relationship you have with a county commissioner, restrict who can do certain things with their lands, and a host of other attacks on access and easements, making the access language of this bill moot if the rest of their bills will disallow its use. Or as this bill does, restrict how the funds can be best used.

When those anti-access bills come forward this month, where will the folks be who testified today that this bill somehow helps public access? They will be absent at best, with history showing them most likely supporting those anti-access provisions as part of the political debt reconciliation. If you listened to some of the supporters of the bill today, you would think they had altruistic reasons for this bill and it was mostly to support public access. Yet, when asked to help defeat anti-access bills, the reasoning for being silent or on the wrong side of those bills will be this statement we most often hear, a true statement, "We are an industry lobbying organization. We don't get involved in those things." They will suddenly lose their worry about access and crowding, though it was a focus of their comments today.

Know that every step of this process has benefit. I give this example. Today, marital harmony dictated I could only step away from my wife and her family gathering for about an hour. The most valuable hour for me is always the sponsor introducing the bill and the rehearsed comments of the supporters and who they have make each of their points. We now know what they feel are their strongest/weakest points, based on what points they mentioned first or what points they ignored, who they had speak to those points (their most experienced people) or the fact that they completely ignore those points for which they have a very bad case. All of that is useful for the remainder of this session, including the remaining steps on this bill

Today's hearing on bills like this one is expected for those who have been doing this a long time. My reason for writing this long ramble is to try give some perspective to that and share how much progress I think was made over the last week. It is already being amended. The capital expended has been huge. The wake up call has been given. They have had to make the critical decision that they are willing to override a previously passed ballot initiative, a point the sponsor tried his best to ignore when questioned, and they know history looks very poorly at such actions.

Thanks for all who wrote/called/emailed, and especially to those who were able to testify in person or virtually. Stand by. This is just the first step of a very long process, spanning multiple hearings, regarding many bills, and entailing more than one legislative session. There will be many more chances to direct the end result.

 

[Bullbrl]

I was able to catch most the testimony of the supporters and most of the rebuttals questions from the committee. It was pretty much what was expected for a hearing such as this, on a topic such as this. The rehearsed and choreographed parade of supporters got their chance to make their case.

The bill was crafted poorly and without much thought from the sponsor. You could quickly tell that the bill was written for him, not by him, and he was treading water trying to make a compelling case for most parts of it, often citing information that was incorrect. When asked about parts of the bill in rebuttal, he deflected answers from Senators Flowers, Jacobsen, and Brown.

Surely the bill was crafted with no input from hunter groups, supported by the stumbling deflection answer the sponsor provided when asked that question near the end. Those given the pen to write a bill toss out their best hopes and see what opposition pops up. When a lot of opposition is apparent, as became the case last week, they retreat to their next most hopeful position; in this case making 40-45% and trying to paint the case as though they are giving the world a great deal, while ignoring they are overturning a citizen's ballot initiative from 2010.

When a committee is stacked to the favor of one side or the other, this is usually the way it unfolds. By my vote count, there are seven supporters who have been lobbied hard. There are four folks opposed to this bill. In questioning, each Senator gets to take part in the rehearsed Q&A of the sponsor or informational witnesses. With a 7-4 margin, the side with seven Senators gets to ask a lot more softball questions to the sponsor and other supporters than does the group with four Senators.

Some have commented about Montana residents showing up. They showed up with their calls and emails. Senator Heck stated he had over 7,000 emails, which he seemed to discount as being from non-residents and explained his annoyance with that. I suspect a good number of those were from residents who have been chiming in on this. These Senators who have been lobbied hard are inclined to discount those resident comments, whether in person, by email, or by phone and whether the comments come from residents or non-residents. We've all been to these hearings and seen it happen where the vote is cast not based on the number of comments in support or opposed, rather who is owed favors and how the political calculus shakes out.

There are always some points of worth to take from most any hearing on a contentious issue.

This bill, this session, and the issues key to hunting, are a long game. This hearing is one step in a process. This bill is one of many they have loaded in the breech for the greatest land grab they have ever attempted against the current status, against conservation easements, and against public access. It is not practical to think that one can overcome such stacked odds in every hearing and on every bill. There will be more steps along the way in this bill and there needs to be resistance at every step.

This bill, this session, is not the end of the debates on these bigger topics. This is a concentrated effort against the current arrangement for tag allocations, access, habitat, conservation funding, by leveraging political power to help one side be the winner and one side take it in the shorts.

All that goes beyond just this bill. History shows us that when folks feel they have power to bludgeon the other side, rather than govern and seek supportable solutions, our system usually balances that out over the course of time. The changing demographics of Montana do not favor those who want to embark on a policy land grab on these topics with disregard for the sentiment of the resident voters.

Every bill that is heavily slanted against public opinion, no matter how it looks in committee testimony, is hard to pass all the way through to the Governor's signature without amendments (we already know that with this one). Every bit of opposition usually results in amendments and always extracts political capital to get it to the next step.

This process so far has the supporters of this bill regauging how much capital they are willing spend to overturn a previously passed citizen's ballot initiative. It also forces people to recalibrate how much capital they are going to spend on other bills in this session and on other actions once this session is over.

A ton of bills are yet to be heard that will hurt public access. They know it. So, they try to put some language in this bill that is supposedly to help with public access, but that is highly devalued in the context of the other efforts these same groups support that hurt access and how many restrictions are placed in this bill. Other bills on the docket will restrict further the use of access funds, make your conservation easement subject to what kind of relationship you have with a county commissioner, restrict who can do certain things with their lands, and a host of other attacks on access and easements, making the access language of this bill moot if the rest of their bills will disallow its use. Or as this bill does, restrict how the funds can be best used.

When those anti-access bills come forward this month, where will the folks be who testified today that this bill somehow helps public access? They will be absent at best, with history showing them most likely supporting those anti-access provisions as part of the political debt reconciliation. If you listened to some of the supporters of the bill today, you would think they had altruistic reasons for this bill and it was mostly to support public access. Yet, when asked to help defeat anti-access bills, the reasoning for being silent or on the wrong side of those bills will be this statement we most often hear, a true statement, "We are an industry lobbying organization. We don't get involved in those things." They will suddenly lose their worry about access and crowding, though it was a focus of their comments today.

Know that every step of this process has benefit. I give this example. Today, marital harmony dictated I could only step away from my wife and her family gathering for about an hour. The most valuable hour for me was the sponsor introducing the bill and the rehearsed comments of the supporters and who they had make each of their points. We now know what they feel are their strongest/weakest points, based on what points they mentioned first or what points they ignored, who they had speak to those points (their most experienced people) or the fact that they completely ignore those points for which they have a very bad case. All of that is useful for the remainder of this session, including the remaining steps on this bill

Today's hearing on bills like this one is expected for those who have been doing this a long time. My reason for writing this long ramble is to try give some perspective to that and share how much progress I think was made over the last week. It is already being amended. The capital expended has been huge. The wake up call has been given. They have had to make the critical decision that they are willing to override a previously passed ballot initiative, a points the sponsor tried his best to ignore when questioned, and they know history looks very poorly at such actions.

Thanks for all who wrote/called/emailed, and especially to those who were able to testify in person or virtually. Stand by. This is just the first step of a very long process, spanning multiple hearings, regarding many bills, and entailing more than one legislative session. There will be many more chances to direct the end result.

Thanks Randy.

May I ask what other bills are coming up that you're referring to? Are these being brought up by MOGA as well?

 

[TwistedSage]

I just don't get it, in what other industry can the government guarantee clients to private business. Imagine if you had to apply to draw a certain set aside amount of DIY home remodeling permits? Only 40 percent of applicants will be approved to DIY the remodel, the other 60 percent needs to hire the state sponsored businesses with guaranteed permits to ensure the businesses don't go under.

 

[Brad W]

I was able to catch most the testimony of the supporters and most of the rebuttals questions from the committee. It was pretty much what was expected for a hearing such as this, on a topic such as this. The rehearsed and choreographed parade of supporters got their chance to make their case.

The bill was crafted poorly and without much thought from the sponsor. You could quickly tell that the bill was written for him, not by him, and he was treading water trying to make a compelling case for most parts of it, often citing information that was incorrect. When asked about parts of the bill in rebuttal, he deflected answers from Senators Flowers, Jacobsen, and Brown.

Surely the bill was crafted with no input from hunter groups, supported by the stumbling deflection answer the sponsor provided when asked that question near the end. Those given the pen to write a bill toss out their best hopes and see what opposition pops up. When a lot of opposition is apparent, as became the case last week, they retreat to their next most hopeful position; in this case making 40-45% and trying to paint the case as though they are giving the world a great deal, while ignoring they are overturning a citizen's ballot initiative from 2010.

When a committee is stacked to the favor of one side or the other, this is usually the way it unfolds. By my vote count, there are seven supporters who have been lobbied hard. There are four folks opposed to this bill. In questioning, each Senator gets to take part in the rehearsed Q&A of the sponsor or informational witnesses. With a 7-4 margin, the side with seven Senators gets to ask a lot more softball questions to the sponsor and other supporters than does the group with four Senators.

Some have commented about Montana residents showing up. They showed up with their calls and emails. Senator Heck stated he had over 7,000 emails, which he seemed to discount as being from non-residents and explained his annoyance with that. I suspect a good number of those were from residents who have been chiming in on this. These Senators who have been lobbied hard are inclined to discount those resident comments, whether in person, by email, or by phone and whether the comments come from residents or non-residents. We've all been to these hearings and seen it happen where the vote is cast not based on the number of comments in support or opposed, rather who is owed favors and how the political calculus shakes out.

There are always some points of worth to take from most any hearing on a contentious issue.

This bill, this session, and the issues key to hunting, are a long game. This hearing is one step in a process. This bill is one of many they have loaded in the breech for the greatest land grab they have ever attempted against the current status, against conservation easements, and against public access. It is not practical to think that one can overcome such stacked odds in every hearing and on every bill. There will be more steps along the way in this bill and there needs to be resistance at every step.

This bill, this session, is not the end of the debates on these bigger topics. This is a concentrated effort against the current arrangement for tag allocations, access, habitat, conservation funding, by leveraging political power to help one side be the winner and one side take it in the shorts.

All that goes beyond just this bill. History shows us that when folks feel they have power to bludgeon the other side, rather than govern and seek supportable solutions, our system usually balances that out over the course of time. The changing demographics of Montana do not favor those who want to embark on a policy land grab on these topics with disregard for the sentiment of the resident voters.

Every bill that is heavily slanted against public opinion, no matter how it looks in committee testimony, is hard to pass all the way through to the Governor's signature without amendments (we already know that with this one). Every bit of opposition usually results in amendments and always extracts political capital to get it to the next step.

This process so far has the supporters of this bill regauging how much capital they are willing spend to overturn a previously passed citizen's ballot initiative. It also forces people to recalibrate how much capital they are going to spend on other bills in this session and on other actions once this session is over.

A ton of bills are yet to be heard that will hurt public access. They know it. So, they try to put some language in this bill that is supposedly to help with public access, but that is highly devalued in the context of the other efforts these same groups support that hurt access and how many restrictions are placed in this bill. Other bills on the docket will restrict further the use of access funds, make your conservation easement subject to what kind of relationship you have with a county commissioner, restrict who can do certain things with their lands, and a host of other attacks on access and easements, making the access language of this bill moot if the rest of their bills will disallow its use. Or as this bill does, restrict how the funds can be best used.

When those anti-access bills come forward this month, where will the folks be who testified today that this bill somehow helps public access? They will be absent at best, with history showing them most likely supporting those anti-access provisions as part of the political debt reconciliation. If you listened to some of the supporters of the bill today, you would think they had altruistic reasons for this bill and it was mostly to support public access. Yet, when asked to help defeat anti-access bills, the reasoning for being silent or on the wrong side of those bills will be this statement we most often hear, a true statement, "We are an industry lobbying organization. We don't get involved in those things." They will suddenly lose their worry about access and crowding, though it was a focus of their comments today.

Know that every step of this process has benefit. I give this example. Today, marital harmony dictated I could only step away from my wife and her family gathering for about an hour. The most valuable hour for me was the sponsor introducing the bill and the rehearsed comments of the supporters and who they had make each of their points. We now know what they feel are their strongest/weakest points, based on what points they mentioned first or what points they ignored, who they had speak to those points (their most experienced people) or the fact that they completely ignore those points for which they have a very bad case. All of that is useful for the remainder of this session, including the remaining steps on this bill

Today's hearing on bills like this one is expected for those who have been doing this a long time. My reason for writing this long ramble is to try give some perspective to that and share how much progress I think was made over the last week. It is already being amended. The capital expended has been huge. The wake up call has been given. They have had to make the critical decision that they are willing to override a previously passed ballot initiative, a points the sponsor tried his best to ignore when questioned, and they know history looks very poorly at such actions.

Thanks for all who wrote/called/emailed, and especially to those who were able to testify in person or virtually. Stand by. This is just the first step of a very long process, spanning multiple hearings, regarding many bills, and entailing more than one legislative session. There will be many more chances to direct the end result.

Thank you for imparting some wisdom and common sense. This is the first time I have directly participated in a legislative process beyond signing petitions, writing emails and calling my reps. It won’t be the last. It is easy to lose the forest from the trees when you are fighting one fight. I sincerely appreciate the perspective you bring.
I learned about this bill from gohunt. I regularly read the news there. What is the best way to keep informed about these issues? I am an RMEF member and recently joined MWF as well.