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

[Gerald Martin]

There should be no special tags what so ever. I reject the premise (as JLS said better in post #810). Arguing amount and scope of these tags just feeds into the acceptance that they are ok in the first place - they are not. There should be no preferential tags, therefore scope is an irrelevant consideration.

Except for me. I deserve preference.

 

[406dn]

JLS....I never said you did. You have more valid points in here than most of your team members.
Vikingsguy....I apologize for my lack in professional writing, but at the end of the day, “hunt clubs” are a way bigger problem than many of you are aware of. With that being said....there is a possibility that many of you on here are members of said “hunt clubs” and this bill may affect your chances of receiving a tag. Just saying.

In a round about way you just admitted that "stabilizing" the outfitters will affect the chances of other non residents in the draw, thank you.

More than a little of the pushback is coming from Montana residents, like myself.

Hunt Clubs are a predictable situation when demand far exceeds supply. Personally speaking, I have no problem if a group of guys pool their resources, lease some land, then hunt it amongst themselves, when they draw the needed tag. If they do that to run an illicit guiding scheme,, then that's a big problem.

My major problem with 143 is that it grants favored status to one group at the expense of another group. There is no way to spin it so that it does not.

 

[Ben Lamb]

JLS....I never said you did. You have more valid points in here than most of your team members.
Vikingsguy....I apologize for my lack in professional writing, but at the end of the day, “hunt clubs” are a way bigger problem than many of you are aware of. With that being said....there is a possibility that many of you on here are members of said “hunt clubs” and this bill may affect your chances of receiving a tag. Just saying.

Keep attacking Greg Gianforte for leasing tens of thousands of acres for his exclusive use, and I'm sure your path to passage is assured.

Totally agree they are a problem. But why is what they do any different than what you do? They're locking out residents, leasing private ground, controlling access to public lands, gaming the system to try and find the best way to get a license. You keep saying that it's a bigger problem than the millions of acres of public & private land you guys control, but nobody has produced evidence to back that up. Happy to take a look at the acres leased by hunt clubs versus outfitters if you have it.

 

[Sioux33]

So.....you fellas are telling me that you SUPPORT Hunt Clubs, which at the end of the day lease private as well as operate on YOUR public ground?? I will guarantee that most of you on here are not familiar with the rules and regulations that pertain to outfitters, and I get that. I personally think there should be more as it will have ZERO affect on guys like Albus and myself and a lot of others that we call friends. But it amazes me that many of you support the ideologies of Hunt Clubs!! Unfortunately, Hunt Clubs are not considered illegal in our state, but should be because they don’t require the same stipulations that LICENSED outfitters do. But most of you think that’s fine!! Fair enough! When our clients pay the state for a tag, pay our price, tip our guides......that money stays right here within the borders of Montana.....(going to be transparent here) for the most part. Where do you suppose the money that Albus and I and all of the others, that we pay our landowners, guides, cooks, mechanics, bulk fuel providers, taxidermists....what not....the list goes on and on, goes at the end of the day?? Again.....stays within the borders of Montana versus going out of state and into the bank account of some long, stringy haired assclown from out of state!! I apologize for going off on this...but for shit sakes......pay attention here! Is this bill perfect? Hell no!! And Eric and I will agree with you on this, but at least we are held to a higher standard, in regards to reporting, than those jackasses.

The part you're not mentioning is your $$ that stays in MT to lock up private land, outbid Block Mgmt, and ultimately tie up more access for yourself. I don't see any small town bars, restaurants, and hotels doing that or demanding us to change the rules for them. In fact, they're actually thankful for all the pesky NR DIYers (especially the many who make 2 trips a year), but what do they matter, they're not part of MOGA.

To make it even worse, MOGA doesn't even have the decency to work with sportsmen before jamming a bill down our throats to overturn a ballot initiative and capitalize on our public resources? I'm not sure if it's lack of self-awareness, or just straight up greed, but the more MOGA pushes this bullshit, the deeper hole they dig when it comes to public perception and reputation, not only in MT, but throughout the West.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

As Big Fin's preference-point post and this post highlight, is it fair to say the issue is not about an outfitter's ability to plan/book any clients for an upcoming season, but the ability to plan/book REPEAT clients every year? I can at least understand the former -- though I still disagree with how 143 goes about addressing it -- but the latter is truly focused on catering to the rich, and I'm not sure why they'd need preferential treatment.

Realistically, I would imagine its a mix of both scenarios in both the case of 143 and WOGA's request. If I were an outfitter I suspect it would make everything a bit easier to have repeat customers. Both parties know what they are getting, less marketing required, less handholding through the whole process. Regardless of the reason for wanting the guaranteed licenses there is no rational justification for these licenses other than to make the Outfitters business slightly easier and potentially more profitable all the while harming the larger majority of DIY hunters. Montana legislators will show which group is more important to them with their vote.

 

[Badger_55]

There should be no special tags what so ever. I reject the premise (as JLS said better in post #810). Arguing amount and scope of these tags just feeds into the acceptance that they are ok in the first place - they are not. There should be no preferential tags, therefore scope is an irrelevant consideration.

No I agree 100%. I was being sarcastic.

 

[HSi-ESi]

bonus pt's are just like buying extra raffle tickes, problem is everyone else has same number of tickets for the cake or four wheeler.

Just a point of clarification here. Randy's post talked about Preference Points, not the Bonus Points.

Correct definition on the Bonus points. I've got too many bonus points built up for my cake(s).

 

[The Hedgehog]

Noted Montana Big Game Outfitter and FWP license draw/elk hunting pressure analyst, Dr. Barry Woodrow put together the following detailed image that shows how outfitters are ruining it for everybody.. Click Here

 

[brownbear932008]

God all this makes me depressed. Never thought starting to apply for points 6 years ago would turn into this complete shitshow.

The direction it's headed makes me sad for my kids.

You ain't seen nothing yet I'm guessing.
You know what honestly needs to happen in Montana is for the FWP to throw the dang F&W codes onto the sidewalk and light them a . I've never in my life seen such a mess. I feel for you resident hunters dealing with this crap yearly.

 

[MTGomer]

I've always considered myself well versed in the western drawing processes. Maybe I am wrong to be confused when this bill is promoted based on the sponsor saying Montana's non-resident draw for the B-10/B-11 tags is a lottery. Or when many of the proponents claimed they have no predictability of who will draw and when.

Not sure I understand how a true preference point system is a lottery. A lottery is random and unpredictable. A preference point system is designed to remove the randomness and make it entirely predictable.

Through 2018, MT non-resident draw odds were 100% at all point levels. In 2019, everyone at 1+ point drew. In 2020, everyone at 2+ drew. And as a bonus, two-thirds of the those with less than 2 points drew in the second draw for returned tags. See below:

View attachment 172689

Only way that someone doesn't know if a client will draw is if they are ignoring the data and ignorant of how preference point systems work. It is not rocket science, it's not even fractions for long division. It requires being able to count to two (2).

It seem that if you want to book your clients, you work with client with enough points and you know they will draw. That is how PP systems are designed. There is nothing random about that. It is not a lottery, in spite of what this bill sponsor and some proponents testified.

Are outfitters not aware of how a preference point system works?

Or, are they just working with any client at any point level and now they are upset that only two-thirds of non-residents below that point level end up with a bonus by drawing a tag in the reallocation of returned tags?

The Wyoming outfitters have been dealing with non-resident preference point systems for 15 years. It works well for them. They must know how draw systems work. It is completely predictable based on point levels required to draw. And they don't even have the bonus of reallocating a ton of returned tags to the lower point holders.

Wyoming outfitters work with clients to make sure they are building points. If the client is a point short, they work with them to get another point and they will draw the following year. If the client is two points short, they work with them to keep building points and know they have a predictable client two years from now.

Maybe someone can explain the comments at the hearing that the MT draw is somehow a "lottery," when it is really a highly predictable process if one uses the information that is right in front of us.

Or, how is it that Wyoming outfitter like a preference point system and they use it to provide predictability and stability to their businesses; not just for this year, but for years ahead for clients they are helping build points?

Interested in comments as to how other outfitters in other states with non-resident preference point systems prosper, but in Montana that same system is so bad for outfitters that they think the legislature should overturn a ballot initiative passed by the citizens.

YouTube boy disagrees with the Newberg level of understanding of the pp system.
I wonder if this misunderstanding has anything to do with his business struggle.

 

[MTGomer]

^MTBHA Facebook page if anybody is interested in the s.show

 

[WIbiggame]

If 143 doesn't affect NR DIY draw odds as has been said. Than can someone please explain how this bill in any way will help the resident hunter?

 

[Schaaf]

Who has the hunt club?

 

[Hunt West]

^MTBHA Facebook page if anybody is interested in the s.show

I’m seriously questioning the educational system funding and implementation in the state of Montana right now

 

[Jwill]

^MTBHA Facebook page if anybody is interested in the s.show

What's awesome is that it appears he thinks his crusade is helping his cause.

 

[Wildabeest]

Who has the hunt club?

Is there a super secret password to get in? Asking for friend.

 

[VikingsGuy]

YouTube boy disagrees with the Newberg level of understanding of the pp system.
I wonder if this misunderstanding has anything to do with his business struggle.

View attachment 172701

View attachment 172702

I love watching people use math to support their cause. As Ben Franklin said, "figures lie and liers figure"

So, let's try a more typical example:

30 tags are allocated to NRs for Unit XYZ. 300 people apply. Assuming a simple draw, it is 1:10 odds for all hunters regardless of what land they plan to hunt on. Let's say that of the 300, 50 are willing/able/interested in an outfitted hunt. The draw occurs. On average 5 outfitted clients draw and 25 non-outfitted draw - but all 300 had an equal chance.

Now let's say that outfitters get the first 60% allocated before the selection. So 18 of the 50, probably based on how much extra they would pay to go into the front of the line or by tenure with the outfitter, would be set to hunt. Now the remaining 282 people are vying for 12 tags. That gives them each a 1:23.5 chance to draw. So, after the draw, on average, 18 outfitter clients got direct tags, 1-2 outfitter clients pulled general tags and 10-11 non outfitter clients pulled general tags. So outfitter clients had effective odds of 1:2.5 and non-outfitter clients had effective odds of 1:25, an order of magnitude worse. How is this fair?

But wait, it gets worse under modified drawing systems.

If there is a bonus system in place year one, unless there is evidence that the average outfitter client has more bonus points than the average DIY - which I doubt, the probabilities don't change - it is just that some of the 300 have more tabs in the bowl. But in year two and forward it is a huge change, as rather than all 30 tag winners burning their points, and improving the year two odds of the other 270 that did not draw, the 18 who got direct outfitter tags, can go right back in every year and get a guarenteed tag - no lesser odds than all those who didn't draw for these special few. You could hunt 10 years in a row in a good unit and still get a guarenteed tag the 11th year. In turn, there was never a year that the other 282 applicants had more of a chance to draw than you. Even the other 32 applicants who wanted to go outfitted stay with a much reduced chance.

Same logic applies for preference points systems.

It's like rent controled apartments - a great deal if you are already in the system. A disaster for every other person in society.

 

[brownbear932008]

Ben, I have been hunting Montana since 1991. Quality has dropped precipitously. Crowding on public land has increased precipitously. Something really should be done.

But yet the amount of non resident tags hasn't changed right? So were has the added pressure you speak about came from? Also with block management and other properties added to public access there is way more land accessible today than in the 90s. Maybe it's just the spot you frequent the areas I've been in honestly I see no difference in hunter numbers as when I first went in 1999.

Now the game population is a different story. It has gotten worse with every trip I feel like. I think Montana needs to address and face the fact that people have moved there daily to worship the outdoors and take advantage of these resident otc opportunities for years. Until that happens and season structures, tag numbers etc change nothing is getting any better for anyone unless you have large private holdings to manage outside the states control mostly. Sorry that is a little off topic on this bill thread but it needs addressed by the state in all due respect.

 

[Wildabeest]

Greg, the 45% take is high in my estimation of what has ever been used by outfitters. Others in the organization come up with that number. I come up with a use level of 35% roughly, but this is with old data. I am hoping that BoO will come up with current use numbers. 60% was insane to ask for no question.

As I said in my post, it really doesn’t matter what the % is. The flaw is in the math and logic. Unless you get to a number that is 75% of whatever the current number of guided hunters is, it will mathematically result in worse draw odds for the NR DIY hunter. Supporters of this bill should immediately stop claiming otherwise since it is patently false.

And the above only addresses one issue with the fact that MOGA is being pretty fast and lose with the numbers being thrown around and knowingly making false statements. Even if you resolved that, there’s a whole bunch more reasons why this is a bad bill for pretty much everyone involved except outfitters and hunters choosing to hunt with outfitters. It’s outfitter welfare whether you folks choose to admit it or not.

 

[JLS]

Dr. Barry Woodrow put together the following detailed image that shows how outfitters are ruining it for everybody.. Click Here

Was anyone else a little scared to click on the link?