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

[d-edward]

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.

It's paramount to keep these bullet points in mind as the progress of the bill unfolds. It was obvious yesterday there was a concerted effort to show residents this bill helps them. If you heard Sen. Hertz's softball question he lobbed to Minard, you saw it in action.

Montanans elect Montanans. If the opposition to this bill can dispel the myth that this somehow helps your average resident hunter, it becomes much more tenuous for Senators, House members and the Governor to throw their support behind it.

 

[Bullbrl]

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You obviously know absolutely nothing about Columbia river gill netting. There are both native and non-native gill netters. The natives obviously have treaty rights but not the regular 2nd or 3rd generation Joe blow commercial fisherman. The fight has been going on for over 100 years.

 

[Pilgrim]

From a DIY NR perspective, the only persuasive arguments for these legislators will be to show that cutting DIY NR tags will result in less money for the state FWP (fewer applications/preference point purchases/access donations) and its citizens (the small business owners who profit from DIY NRs), which, in turn, will result in fewer votes for those who caused it. If we DIY NRs can't show "what's in it for them" it will be a tough go -- though it doesn't mean I'll stop writing/calling.

I couldn't listen in yesterday, but the argument that outfitted NRs generate significantly more $$ for the local economies than DIY NRs didn't make sense ... unless they're using the cost of the guided hunt as part of their math, in which case spending $5K on a guided hunt would generate 5X more than a DIY spending $1000 in local motels, restaurants, etc. But it wouldn't do much for those local businesses.

Given the short-sightedness and self-interest driving these legislators, ultimately, its probably going to fall on you voting residents to explain why you want us DIY NR folks there in greater numbers. And to the extent you do, I sincerely thank you for it.

 

[Nameless Range]

He said only 7. some million acres are enrolled in block management, and there were 8 enrolled in it when I-161 passed. Forget that correlation is not causation, but I have the block management boundaries dataset and it is 13 million acres, so I wonder where he got that number.

Home with a sick kid today, so I had time to download this dataset again. My acreage was incorrect. Not sure what I did when I calculated it a few months ago. But the 7 million number is correct and the 13 million is not.

 

[WIbiggame]

I just finished "That Wild Country" by Mark Kenyon and he writes about exploring public lands and than talks about how they came about, very informative.

A couple things I took away from that, that I feel will help in defeating.

1) We need to put our political lines aside. This was/is the hardest one for me and given the divide assume it would be for most . I lean Republican on a lot of things and it's hard to see who is in favor of this bill. We need bipartisanship on this more than anything.

2) This is a prime example of what Mr Kenyon talked about is the "new wave" of public land attack. After the sagebrush revolution out of Utah was defeated by the public with the #keepitpublic push. Government realized that large sweeping attacks on public land wouldn't work. So they are now resorting to a death-by-a-thousand-cuts. They will wittle at the foundation of public lands. This pertains to this bill bc as some have mention and can see this will allow the outfitters a clientele base thus guaranteed $$ allowing them spend more $$ on leases thus wanting, needing and being able to afford more land for their use. And if you look at the Sponsor of this bill and the governor's stance on public land sales the writing is pretty clear on the wall that the highest bidder would be pretty happy.

Also another thing that came to me during a pretty restless night sleep was that someone needs to get in the ear of these small outfitters that were paraded by MOGA to say how great this is for them. Because it won't be in 5 years when the people applying for an outfitter tag outnumber the tags available. Who do you think is going to get the most tags? The biggest businesses with the deepest pockets to recruit and take more clients. I see smaller outfitters being bought up by the large ones.

The question was asked by Mr Fowler I believe if we will be back in 5yrs asking for a higher percent of the pool and I am sure it wasn't lost on anyone but the question was severely deflected by the man answering the question.

 

[BigHornRam]

Just caught the end of Montana Talks with Mac Minard on it. It was interesting. @Ben Lamb got a shout out. One minute Mac was touting how guided hunters come back 5 times more often than non guided and how that is good for the rural economy. Then he was saying guided hunters are mostly average Joe's who scrimp and save for years to go on a guided hunt. That dog didn't hunt.

 

[JLS]

I don't think this is so much an attack on public lands as it is the simple commercialization of wildlife. This has been in the work in MT for many years.

@Nameless Range is dead on. It doesn't matter one bit what I think or write. I'm a NR. I wrote very specific and articulate emails to each of the committee members, knowing full well they wouldn't really GAF about my talking points. That's life.

I think it is paramount that residents see this for what it is. Unfortunately, many won't because like the bogeyman, wolves, and processed cheese, NR = bad. To a certain point, they are correct. However, I'd argue it isn't so much the number of NR tags Montana issues, it's the antiquated system of hunter distribution (I use the term very loosely). Couple this with the long term issues associated with elk distribution, SB42 and the legal obligation of FWP to look like it's trying to address elk issues, and this is where you end up.

This bill directly contradicts the wishes of Montana citizens. Don't forget that. You WILL see expansion of outfitter leases. I don't know if BMA opportunities will diminish or not. My guess is you will. With expansion of leases, my guess is you'll also see more habitat manipulation to hold elk herds on private land while the schlubs patrol the boundary fences waiting to pick up the scraps. A friend of mine once said "the best elk habitat is three strands of barbed wire". He's absolutely correct.

I wish I could share Randy's optimism about killing this bill. Fight the good fight, it's all you can do. Unfortunately, I see this as the stars aligning for MOGA to make their power play into a whole new realm of commercialized wildlife.

 

[WIbiggame]

I don't think this is so much an attack on public lands as it is the simple commercialization of wildlife. This has been in the work in MT for many year

I agree with everything you stated except this part. While not directly an attack on public land YET the writing is there for it to become an attack which you alluded to farther down your post.

You WILL see expansion of outfitter leases. I don't know if BMA opportunities will diminish or not. My guess is you will. With expansion of leases, my guess is you'll also see more habitat manipulation to hold elk herds on private land

I am splitting hairs but if this what is truly going on than I would think the resident hunter would be on board even more.

 

[JLS]

I agree with everything you stated except this part. While not directly an attack on public land YET the writing is there for it to become an attack which you alluded to farther down your post.



I am splitting hairs but if this what is truly going on than I would think the resident hunter would be on board even more.

Without taking this into the weeds, here is the reality. Regardless of how much habitat manipulation is done on public land, 11 weeks of pressure from hunters creates the best habitat of all - three strands of barbed wire.

Ken Hamlin documented this in the 90's, and it's become even more true today.

 

[Nameless Range]

I wish I could share Randy's optimism about killing this bill. Fight the good fight, it's all you can do. Unfortunately, I see this as the stars aligning for MOGA to make their power play into a whole new realm of commercialized wildlife.

We will push back in the senate, the house, and if needed the governor's office on this and other bills. And if needed after that, I will donate money and write letters in favor of a citizens initiative to once again explicitly state the will of Montanans. It seems it could be a never ending fight. I have had a lot of conversations with Montanans who are not politicians in the last few days, and if I have optimism, it comes from those conversations with other Montanans. There is such a difference between them and even the politicians they vote for.

 

[JLS]

And if needed after that, I will donate money and write letters in favor of a citizens initiative to once again explicitly state the will of Montanans.

If I were a Montanan, I would simply expect this is going to be necessary. You're not getting any lube this time, don't give any in return.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I just don't get it, in what other industry can the government guarantee clients to private business.

Sadly, many - this is the hay day of chrony capitalism. EtOH is but one example of government mandating the use of a good or service for the benefit of a few.

 

[idahohuntr]

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.

I don't know that I would abandon the economic argument. I see at as a way to drive a wedge between Montana business owners (Outfitters vs. all the mom and pop shops that serve NR DIY hunters). If I'm an airbnb owner in rural MT, a gas station/sporting goods/restaurant/grocery store owner that does a lot of business with NR DIY hunters during an otherwise slow time of the year...I'd be talking to my legislators. I don't know that squabbling over who brings in more money is going to be settled, so I'd stick with the point that the government is picking winners and losers and putting the interests of outfitters over all these other businesses. My $.02.

Another thought - maybe somebody clever can work some language into this bill to create loopholes for DIY guys. Would be very entrepreneurial if a licensed outfitter offered $25 or $50 guided hunts...if this bill passes in some form I'm sure me and several thousand of my closest friends would be happy to pay such a guide fee for access to the guide pool of tags

 

[JLS]

Another thought - maybe somebody clever can work some language into this bill to create loopholes for DIY guys. Would be very entrepreneurial if a licensed outfitter offered $25 or $50 guided hunts...if this bill passes in some form I'm sure me and several thousand of my closest friends would be happy to pay such a guide fee for access to the guide pool of tags

In the past, and I admittedly haven't read the fine print with respect to this but I'd expect it to be the same, one couldn't hunt without the accompaniment of their respective sponsoring outfitter. So, if you buy your outfitter welfare tag, go hunt for a week, you couldn't stop at the BMA on your way home and hunt by yourself.

 

[Straight Arrow]

EtOH

????

 

[JLS]

????

Ethanol

 

[Mtnhunter1]

In the past, and I admittedly haven't read the fine print with respect to this but I'd expect it to be the same, one couldn't hunt without the accompaniment of their respective sponsoring outfitter. So, if you buy your outfitter welfare tag, go hunt for a week, you couldn't stop at the BMA on your way home and hunt by yourself.

But that same outfitter hunter could book another "Adventure" using another outfitter to continue his or her MT experience!

But 1000% agree with your previous statements. Change is coming with or without the approval of the average DIY sportsperson.

 

[JLS]

But that same outfitter socialist handout hunter could book another "Adventure" Suburban ride through a hay pivot using another outfitter welfare recipient to continue his or her MT experience!

Yes.

 

[turbo2thousand]

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.

I don't understand the argument of reducing people on public land either. NR get 1 tag for every 10 resident tags. Residents have more hunting days by 4x to 10x depending on the district. Its the residents that use public land 10 fold over NR.

Additionally the outfitters claim this bill will not take any tags from DIY NR hunters. If it truely takes no tags from DIY NR (spoiler alert: it does) than the argument of reducing hunters on public land is false.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

Regardless of how much habitat manipulation is done on public land, 11 weeks of pressure from hunters creates the best habitat of all - three strands of barbed wire.

As much as I dislike this truth, many resident hunters need to read this line over and over again. Along with the hoarding of animals on private land, it's not looking great. I remain optimistic and can only hope that some good change will happen someday. Change isnt going to happen if we give up.