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

Status
Not open for further replies.
NeMont.....we have disagreed many times and I appreciate that........but Mac is a great man and he is doing what he was hired to do, just like a lot of us on here.......but I’d appreciate it if you would not cuss him. He is my very good friend and I will always have his back. At the end of the day and after all of this BS....we are all good folks and I will not tolerate that! Let’s keep the gloves on and have a mature debate like we have been having.....but don’t hack on my friends and I won’t yours!
 
NeMont.....we have disagreed many times and I appreciate that........but Mac is a great man and he is doing what he was hired to do, just like a lot of us on here.......but I’d appreciate it if you would not cuss him. He is my very good friend and I will always have his back. At the end of the day and after all of this BS....we are all good folks and I will not tolerate that! Let’s keep the gloves on and have a mature debate like we have been having.....but don’t hack on my friends and I won’t yours!
That may all be true but he is leading you into a fight where you are out numbered by a big margin and building a moat instead of a bridge. I hope your faith is placed correctly.

Would you care to point out why you believe I am wrong on the points I laid out and explain why Montana Resident should get behind this bill as it would benefit them or at least what problem this bill aims at solving for Resident hunters?
 
Last edited:
But at an order of magnitude lower numbers. Overcrowding is about total numbers not about increase in one small sub-population.

I don't want to derail the thread, but if one sub group is increasing and one sub group is pretty flat,, and there is a crowding issue,, well it is bound to draw some attention.

I think the days where either a resident or non resident is allowed to hunt most any unit needs to come to an end. The crowding problem can be addressed by making units draw only. That is a bitter pill to swallow but some day we will have to.
 
And now this:


Essentially turns outfitters into Hunt Clubs with no oversight. Removes two sportspersons requirement from the Board of Outfitters, little to no record keeping and no enforcement authority for game wardens without complaint from the "Board of Outfitters" aka MOGA. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. If you really believe there should be more rules and regulations regarding outfitters then it shouldn't be too hard for MOGA to find a legislator to carry a bill for them. Plenty of them in their pockets.
On the bright side, it makes it clear that outfitters have no respect for their customers and others they share the land with. No 60% vs 45% arguments, no tangential distractions about leasing groups, no slippery slope needed - just a flat out middle finger to everyone in the state and elsewhere to mind their own business. It would be entertaining to hear how they put lipstick on this pig (I thought of a more colorful analogy but will spare the sensitive ears of HT).

This is really too bad, as I am sure there are some really great outfitters who do good work, care about their customers and their relationship with the broader outdoors community. Those folks might want to think about how their “representatives” are casting the whole pool.
 
Last edited:
And now this:


Essentially turns outfitters into Hunt Clubs with no oversight. Removes two sportspersons requirement from the Board of Outfitters, little to no record keeping and no enforcement authority for game wardens without complaint from the "Board of Outfitters" aka MOGA. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. If you really believe there should be more rules and regulations regarding outfitters then it shouldn't be too hard for MOGA to find a legislator to carry a bill for them. Plenty of them in their pockets.
Talk about creating a deeper divide between outfitters and everyone else....MOGA must feel like they have some good backers to put this out there.

If this does't piss off every resident in Montana I'd be really shocked.

I noticed on another site there was a petition started to start getting signatures against 143.
 
This is really too bad, as I am sure there are some really great outfitters who do good work, care about their customers and their relationship with the broader outdoors community.
On both accounts.

The second MOGA bill that your quote comes from is so far out of the box... it's amazing to believe it would be placed in print! It's almost worth actually making a big print release to present MOGA in it's current form. Might bring more displeasure with their current demand for government handouts...

Sad. Amazing for the great State of Montana to even entertain these bills.
 
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.
I am not sure if those numbers are available, But in my little neighbor hood of Montana the acres leaded by clubs or individuals exceeds that of outfitters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Forum statistics

Threads
114,033
Messages
2,041,937
Members
36,439
Latest member
backstraps
Back
Top