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

[BWALKER77]

One thing that's not been discussed much is the transferable landowner tags. That's the worst part of this whole bill. If that provision passes Ranching for Wildlife here we come.

 

[WIbiggame]

Here is an interesting piece of information I found right from the sponsor of this bill. It is posted on his campaign page: https://jasonformontana.com/issues/

Not surprisingly he ran on a less government platform but now is sponsoring a bill that requires more government involvement that helps the "entrepreneurial dream" of a select few.

 

[antlerradar]

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

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

I think Sportsman need to be carful when drafting the next Initiative. Doing away with special tags for Outfitters and the wealthy would be an easy sell. Start adding stuff like outlawing leasing and that sell gets much tougher. I 161 passed by a bit better than 6 1/2 percent, A good margin but not an overwhelming majority. The last thing Sportsman need is to get greedy and then have the Initiative fail.

 

[MTGomer]

I think the more thoughtful, intelligent people that are found on this forum oppose this.

Looking at comments on social media, there is no shortage of simpletons that have been convinced by MOGA that the focus of this bill is to alleviate pressure on public ground.
These people have no grasp on how stupid it is to think that the intention of a bill lobbied by outfitters is focused on quality hunting for public land residents.

They view non resident hunters as being right up there with wolves: the source problem of all their hunting woes. The fact that residents put 40-100x more days in the field as non residents or that Montana is growing very quickly with people moving here for the outdoors is lost on them. They would never consider giving up shooting a mule deer on thanksgiving with a rifle for a better overall hunting experience.

I suppose the increasing cost of living in Montana and stagnant wages don’t help our cause. $10k is a lot of money to a lot of people in Montana, especially younger folks that guide. They can make that in 5 weeks guiding and when the people they look up to in their industry say this is good, they believe them.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

One thing that's not been discussed much is the transferable landowner tags. That's the worst part of this whole bill. If that provision passes Ranching for Wildlife here we come.

You are spot on @BWALKER77!

Ranching for Wildlife has been the "end game" over the last 15 years. The voters provided a hiccup in their plans but hiccups eventually go away.

My guess, this bill gets amended and is signed by our new Gov in April with the full backing of our FWPs admin.

Emails and voicemails are easily deleted along with the voices of the "average" Joe or Jane hunter.

I hope that I am wrong but the faint voice in the wind is telling me that this is already a done deal.

 

[tjones]

Here is an interesting piece of information I found right from the sponsor of this bill. It is posted on his campaign page: https://jasonformontana.com/issues/View attachment 172534

Not surprisingly he ran on a less government platform but now is sponsoring a bill that requires more government involvement that helps the "entrepreneurial dream" of a select few.

Normal Bitterroot twisted politics. I deal with folks across the state daily and continuously find myself apologizing for who the Root sends to Helena. If you ever visit the Bitterroot don't drink the water.

 

[Schaaf]

I think the more thoughtful, intelligent people that are found on this forum oppose this.

Looking at comments on social media, there is no shortage of simpletons that have been convinced by MOGA that the focus of this bill is to alleviate pressure on public ground.
These people have no grasp on how stupid it is to think that the intention of a bill lobbied by outfitters is focused on quality hunting for public land residents.

They view non resident hunters as being right up there with wolves: the source problem of all their hunting woes. The fact that residents put 40-100x more days in the field as non residents or that Montana is growing very quickly with people moving here for the outdoors is lost on them. They would never consider giving up shooting a mule deer on thanksgiving with a rifle for a better overall hunting experience.

I suppose the increasing cost of living in Montana and stagnant wages don’t help our cause. $10k is a lot of money to a lot of people in Montana, especially younger folks that guide. They can make that in 5 weeks guiding and when the people they look up to in their industry say this is good, they believe them.

Yep. Go to any season setting meeting, complaints about non-residents are barely second in line to wolves.

 

[Nameless Range]

One thing often repeated yesterday was that this does not affect Montana Residents negatively. Basic statistics in the face of increasing demand for a resource makes it obvious how it affects the NR DIY hunter, but to organize my thoughts and to better make the case of a resident's opposition to a legislature that doesn't seem to care about NRs because their opinions are easy to write off, I think it would be good to convey how it would affect Montana residents:

My quick thoughts:


-Residents who have NR friends and family who come out to hunt with them but don't pay someone to take them hunting will have a much more difficult time doing that as the pool of licenses for which equal opportunity in the drawing process exists has shrunk and demand for that pool increases.

-Access to private land elk is ever-decreasing, and this does nothing to help that, and likely will exacerbate it

-It increases the cap of NR licenses by 2,000, which of course will affect the resource that Resident hunters pursue

-Most important to this resident. The wildlife of Montana are managed in trust for Montanans. Montanans have already stated that they do not believe guaranteeing portions of the resource to an industry is the method we would like our wildlife allocated by. This reverses our will.


If anyone has more points a resident can make as to how this bill affects residents, I would like to hear them. The fact of the matter as I see it is that one resident voice is worth hundreds of non resident ones to the politicians.

 

[MTGomer]

One thing often repeated yesterday was that this does not affect Montana Residents negatively. Basic statistics in the face of increasing demand for a resource makes it obvious how it affects the NR DIY hunter, but to organize my thoughts and to better make the case of a resident's opposition to a legislature that doesn't seem to care about NRs because their opinions are easy to write off, I think it would be good to convey how it would affect Montana residents:

My quick thoughts:


-Residents who have NR friends and family who come out to hunt with them but don't take someone to take them hunting will have a much more difficult time doing that as the pool of licenses for which equal opportunity in the drawing process exists has shrunk and demand for that pool increases.

-Access to private land elk is ever-decreasing, and this does nothing to help that, and likely will exacerbate it

-It increases the cap of NR licenses by 2,000, which of course will affect the resource that Resident hunters pursue

-Most important to this resident. The wildlife of Montana are managed in trust for Montanans. Montanans have already stated that they do not believe guaranteeing portions of the resource to an industry is the method we would like our wildlife allocated by. This reverses our will.


If anyone has more points a resident can make as to how this bill affects residents, I would like to hear them. The fact of the matter as I see it is that one resident voice is worth hundreds of non resident ones to the politicians.

While I realize people like to write off ‘slippery slope’ arguments another is that this may well just be the beginning.

If all the outfitter allocations sell out and leave some people that wanted an outfitter tag, without a tag, will MOGA be back to ask for more? Will they ask for other species?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

 

[brownbear932008]

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.

Yeap you are correct! Why because we can't vote them out. Bottom line all states only want NRs money at the end of the day to support their agencies but take it in the a** every time we turn around.
As far as I'm concerned I am changing my application strategies to exit this NR money game as it pertains to hunters personally. Hope to burn my elk points there this fall after that I'll only apply for M/S/G. Been weighing this for several years now. I'm dropping UT and NV this year and calling it quits with only a few points in both. Fishing is becoming my new fav.

 

[TheJason]

Yep. Go to any season setting meeting, complaints about non-residents are barely second in line to wolves.

This. They have no fundamental understanding of what has changed with respect to public land hunting.

There really are a number of issues to address in terms of hunting quality, but strengthening the outfitter industry sure as hell isn’t going to help Simple Joe get an elk.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... 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.

When I viewed an obviously effective television political ad promoting then candidate Governor Gianforte, featuring outfitter Mr. Paul Ellis and others, I anticipated this bill or something similar. Whatever form of the bill reaches the Governor's desk, you can wager on his signature.

 

[Addicting]

This morning I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this and how it’s “better” for residents.

With the use days being limited they become exponentially more valuable if this passes. How is that good for younger residents who want to get into guiding? It’s no different that what happened to farming with property values skyrocketed. Youth stand almost no chance in taking over the farm or outfitting business when they have to buy out a few siblings. I’m going thru this now as the farm has to get sold because I cannot afford to buy out my two sisters.

So this bill in effect makes the rich richer and the average joe not able to compete. In one generation we will have to have more legislation on subsidized low interest loans to help Resident purchase or keep use days. No different than what the USDA has to do now for young farmers.

 

[Hirtlene]

While I realize people like to write off ‘slippery slope’ arguments another is that this may well just be the beginning.

If all the outfitter allocations sell out and leave some people that wanted an outfitter tag, without a tag, will MOGA be back to ask for more? Will they ask for other species?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

Your right they'll be back. Once the foot is in the door watch it get pushed open. That's the way it here in most if not all Canadian provinces, NR needs to hire a guide to hunt big game.

 

[Tomahawk]

It was kind of surreal to watch the parade of 'Don't tread on me' cowboys hat in hand asking the Government for free handouts so they can "keep livin' the dream."

 

[BuckRut]

One thing often repeated yesterday was that this does not affect Montana Residents negatively. Basic statistics in the face of increasing demand for a resource makes it obvious how it affects the NR DIY hunter, but to organize my thoughts and to better make the case of a resident's opposition to a legislature that doesn't seem to care about NRs because their opinions are easy to write off, I think it would be good to convey how it would affect Montana residents:

My quick thoughts:


-Residents who have NR friends and family who come out to hunt with them but don't pay someone to take them hunting will have a much more difficult time doing that as the pool of licenses for which equal opportunity in the drawing process exists has shrunk and demand for that pool increases.

-Access to private land elk is ever-decreasing, and this does nothing to help that, and likely will exacerbate it

-It increases the cap of NR licenses by 2,000, which of course will affect the resource that Resident hunters pursue

-Most important to this resident. The wildlife of Montana are managed in trust for Montanans. Montanans have already stated that they do not believe guaranteeing portions of the resource to an industry is the method we would like our wildlife allocated by. This reverses our will.


If anyone has more points a resident can make as to how this bill affects residents, I would like to hear them. The fact of the matter as I see it is that one resident voice is worth hundreds of non resident ones to the politicians.

This will also effect the states elk herds negatively and lead to more landowner discontent from damage which will require our dollars to have the FWP handle it. On top of that if they are this quick to hand more than half of the NR tags essentially to the highest bidder how long will it take until the greedy decide that isn't enough and we need some of the resident tags set aside as well to make more money. And the biggest negative effect is that they are taking our states wildlife that is to be held in trust for the citizens of this state and using them to directly fund private industry.

 

[Rzrbk]

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.

It's not the same. Gillnetting on the Columbia is due to Treaty obligations, not outfitters or commercial interests.

 

[Nameless Range]

Another thing, I think it would be a mistake to get mired in the economic arguments for or against this bill, no matter how dubious the claims of proponents are, and they are dubious.

We are comparing people who pay someone to take them hunting vs people who take themselves. It would come as no surprise to me that people who can afford the former would spend more money in Montana. Plebes who scraped the money together to purchase the tags probably don't have enough left over for a furnished experience. Regardless of how that injection of capital is or is not distributed across Montana, I don't think those arguments will get far and water down the real issue. IMO.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Another thing, I think it would be a mistake to get mired in the economic arguments for or against this bill, no matter how dubious the claims of proponents are, and they are dubious.

We are comparing people who pay someone to take them hunting vs people who take themselves. It would come as no surprise to me that people who can afford the former would spend more money in Montana. Plebes who scraped the money together to purchase the tags probably don't have enough left over for a furnished experience. Regardless of how that injection of capital is or is not distributed across Montana, I don't think those arguments will get far and water down the real issue. IMO.

Yep.

The best argument against this is that the people have already spoken, and what they want is an even playing field for everyone when it comes to hunting. This is about undermining the egalitarian ethic to hunting that Montana has steadfastly supported regardless of who was in the Governor's seat. This bill allows those who can afford it to purchase their way to the front of the line, which will absolutely hurt resident hunters as hunting becomes less & less viable for those who don't live in rural areas, and are forced to travel farther & farther afield to find a place to hunt.

Landowners have every right to lease to whomever they choose, like the Governor, who leases a large ranch. Outfitter guaranteed licenses do nothing to increase access for the resident hunter, and as we saw in the Breaks before the bundled LE permits, some counties were going over 90% outfitted while the public land schlub was left to fight for the scraps.

Small businesses across the nation struggle to get up and running. There are already tons of programs and tax incentives in place to help shoulder that burden from the SBA to eliminating the small business equipment tax. if those programs are not enough for outfitters, then they should try to advance options that lift all small business owners, rather than try to carve out their own welfare tags.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Screen shot from last year's push and a save by our Governor.



New person sitting at that desk this go-round!

In fact, Gianforte, Rosendale and Daines were all scheduled as speakers at this year's MOGA Winter Convention. That convention took place at the Delta Hotel in Helena on the 16th of last month.

There is a whole lot of power and money supporting this bill.....