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

[huntin24/7]

It’s not always who leaves the most $ but also how that $ is disbursed that can mean a lot to businesses beyond the outfitter themself.

 

[Mkamman]

tjones, IF? Were it not true I would not have said it, IF you are not questioning my integrity let me know, otherwise I am apt to take it that way.

On to your question.

Having a license stabilizes the industry as a whole. I don't need it as this current system is working(not perfectly) and really have contemplated whether I want it. IF(big IF)we get this license there will be rules that go along with it, after passage of 161 the rules went out the window(unintended consequence I warned of). I worry that IF this license bill goes thru there will be "unintended consequences" that I have not foreseen that will hinder my business and put rules/regulation on it(I struggle with rules/regulation/authority, it's a personality flaw). This is a reason I find to not support the bill.

A reason I can support this bill is my for repeat clients. I have clients who have hunted with me over 20 years, these guys regularly passed up "next year deer" and let them grow up hoping to be able to have a chance the following year at them. Now they can only come every other year(current system)and they are not near as apt to let a "next year buck" go. On account they probably won't be able to come hunt the following year. I realize this is selfish on my part, but I look at it as being better for the resource. You and others may hate this, but this is the view thru my spotting scope.

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

Why should your clients be able to come every year over me?

 

[406dn]

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

So, it's better for "our" Montana that some one like me sacrifices some amount of probability of hosting my brother in law or nephew on a Montana big game hunt, so that the license can generate maximum economic return??

Sorry, that is BS. There are many things that cannot be reduced to dollars and cents. If it could, hardly anyone would hunt. It does not pay in dollars received for dollars spent. But it does pay in wonderful lasting memories. I think it sucks that you think it's fine to deprive your fellow Montanans of that, so that you have a guaranteed client base.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

At least he admits to being selfish.

 

[WIbiggame]

I struggle with rules/regulation/authority, it's a personality flaw)

But yet you ask for a subsidy from said authority?

A reason I can support this bill is my for repeat clients.

I see the answer now. If it benefits me the rules, regulations, authority and subsidy are all good.

All we are asking is everyone is on the same playing field. Does it suck your clients can't come back every year yes, but does it suck that us DIY guys and gals can't come back every year yes. Why do your clients need or deserve to be treated any differently??

 

[Wildabeest]

IF(big IF)we get this license there will be rules that go along with it

I’d be interested to know what those increased “rules” would be. In case you haven’t heard, there’s another MOGA backed Outfitter Welfare bill in committee that would remove many of the rules that currently exist and transfer the oversight of any remaining rules to the industry itself. I think it’s called “the fox watching the hen house bill”, but that may be incorrect.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

A reason I can support this bill is my for repeat clients. I have clients who have hunted with me over 20 years, these guys regularly passed up "next year deer" and let them grow up hoping to be able to have a chance the following year at them. Now they can only come every other year(current system)and they are not near as apt to let a "next year buck" go. On account they probably won't be able to come hunt the following year. I realize this is selfish on my part, but I look at it as being better for the resource. You and others may hate this, but this is the view thru my spotting scope.

If "better for the resource" is truly you goal, there are lots of better ways to achieve it.

 

[JLS]

I realize this is selfish on my part, but I look at it as being better for the resource.

Bullshit. That buck passes on the same genetics regardless of whether he dies at 3 years old or 4. The only difference is they have a bigger deer on the wall. Either your clients have unrealistic expectations, or you're cropping off too many bucks to support an older age class.

If "better for the resource" is truly you goal, there are lots of better ways to achieve it.

Like shoot fewer deer if the habitat supports it?

 

[shoots-straight]

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

Let me ask you a question? Who adds more to Montanan's economy? Outfitters or Home builders?

Now I think you know that answer and it's by the billions of dollars. So IF by your thinking outfitters deserve and need this bill to "stabilize" their industry, (compared to builders a small one). Then the same should go to the really giant industries of our country. So I move we pass a law that makes it so 60% of all construction in the state of Montana be done by certified licensed contractors and lets cap the amount of volume of all building so if you want a project done you will have to pay a Contractor for his services. Give me a break!

 

[JLS]

Instead of having a selective outfitter welfare bill, you could do the following:

1) Give first tag priority to the folks who passed up on a deer or elk
2) Allocate a certain number of tags with a "Robin Hood" clause whereby the tag holder has to drop 6 Gs into a pot and that is equitably distributed to all the service industry businesses in the county where said hunter hunts.

#1 will certainly be better for the resource because the hunters who can't kill shit will get all the tags. Automatically better hunting for the residents.
#2 may look like socialism, but it's really not. It just very closely resembles it.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

Label me a liberal crazy but what’s right for the economy isn’t always right.

 

[Deleted member 40728]

Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

The extra $4000-5300 isn’t getting dispersed to local restaurants, hotels, Dairy Queen’s etc etc. It’s going straight to you and only you. The trickle down effect is possibly non existent.

it somewhat sounds like you are raping the resources of Montana strictly for your benefit and not the benefit of the economy at all.

 

[Irrelevant]

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

So you want the European model? Where only the rich can hunt? Why not just have all tags auctioned to the highest bidder?

 

[Sytes]

Why not just have all tags auctioned to the highest bidder?

Oh geez... Outfitters begging MT State Legislature for cattle chute clients need not Neffa inspired bright ideas...

 

[Buffs35]

Why should your clients be able to come every year over me?

Yep

 

[brocksw]

A reason I can support this bill is my for repeat clients. I have clients who have hunted with me over 20 years, these guys regularly passed up "next year deer" and let them grow up hoping to be able to have a chance the following year at them. Now they can only come every other year(current system)and they are not near as apt to let a "next year buck" go. On account they probably won't be able to come hunt the following year. I realize this is selfish on my part, but I look at it as being better for the resource. You and others may hate this, but this is the view thru my spotting scope.

greenhorn, Were I not in the business I would take a step back and look at the economics. You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

The very idea your repeat clients deserve to hunt every year over DIY guys is exactly why this bill leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. That translates to those with the money get to buy a guaranteed spot...taking it away from guys with less money, guys who bust their ass to save money and get drawn,some with their kids or family. Your repeat clients do not deserve a leg up. Any idea that they do is so lost that I can't believe anyone could even stand up in front of other hunters and utter the words required to make that argument.

As for you saying you'd base it on economics if you were not in the business. That's a bold faced lie at worst and disingenuous at best. If you weren't a guide and you were a DIY hunter you'd be on the same side of the fence of rest of us, calling this protectionism, distortion and monetization of a public resource. Its laughable to say you'd give up your own opportunity for the betterment of economics in MT...spare me.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

...Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leave a lot more.

Soooo tired of this economic argument. It reduces a very complex economic relationship into a simple, made for politicians ears, sound bite. Go read the studies yourself and you will find that if assumptions were holes, the bucket of economic prosperity your carrying would drain quickly. The most fatal assumption, in my opinion, is that DIY NR hunters only hunt deer and elk in MT once a year. We hunt antelope, turkey, and upland game, we scout months ahead in advance of elk and deer season, we fish and raft (I've already put in for drawing a Smith River float this year), we bring our families to vacation in MT. We fall in love with MT, but the Montana tradition we have cultivated is based on hunting elk and deer, this is where our Montana love story starts and ends. We actually go on outfitted fishing, river floats, and backpacking experiences, since they are way more affordable than hunting via an outfitter. Non-resident DIY hunters put a lot more into the Montana economy then a few fatally-flawed assumption-filled economic studies indicate. No study done thus far has been comprehensive enough to truly answer the question of who wields more economic power outfitted NR or DIY NR hunters. But hey, what your selling sure sounds good.

 

[brocksw]

Anyone know how many outfitters/guides are also ranching? I know the main mountain range I hunt is surrounded my ranches that also offer guiding services in the summer and fall. A lot of the guides testifying in the committee hearing looked an awful lot like cowboys as well. Yet this gets spun like it's just a bunch of poor guides who can barely make ends meet if a client or two doesn't draw a tag that year.

 

[peterk1234]

Soooo tired of this economic argument. It reduces a very complex economic relationship into a simple, made for politicians ears, sound bite. Go read the studies yourself and you will find that if assumptions were holes, the bucket of economic prosperity your carrying would drain quickly. The most fatal assumption, in my opinion, is that DIY NR hunters only hunt deer and elk in MT once a year. We hunt antelope, turkey, and upland game, we scout months ahead in advance of elk and deer season, we fish and raft (I've already put in for drawing a Smith River float this year), we bring our families to vacation in MT. We fall in love with MT, but the Montana tradition we have cultivated is based on hunting elk and deer, this is where our Montana love story starts and ends. We actually go on outfitted fishing, river floats, and backpacking experiences, since they are way more affordable than hunting via an outfitter. Non-resident DIY hunters put a lot more into the Montana economy then a few fatally-flawed assumption-filled economic studies indicate. No study done thus far has been comprehensive enough to truly answer the question of who wields more economic power outfitted NR or DIY NR hunters. But hey, what your selling sure sounds good.

Very well said. I do not have a horse in this race because I do not live in Montana, nor have I ever done a guided hunt there or anywhere. Also have not done a diy hunt there yet. @HighCountryCommando summed it very nicely what the diy hunter brings to the table. I have a hard time believing that many, if any, guided hunters are bringing the entire family, renting hotel rooms and going out to eat in restaurants for a week or longer. I suspect the guided hunter flies in, maybe rents a room for the night, meets the outfitter and from then on everything is provided by the outfitter. At least it better be, given the cost of a guided hunt.

I do not want to sound like I am any outfitter, because I am not. I think it is a wonderful service that certain hunters need, or prefer. But the economic argument is not a viable one, other than the bill being economically positive for the outfitter. It is a government subsidy, plain and simple. We are not subsidizing something here that provides a critical need for the US population. We would be subsidizing a recreational pastime for a very select few; nope.

 

[brownbear932008]

You may not like what it all boils down to. Who is better for Montana's economy the DIY guy who spends $1200-2500, or the guided guy spending $6500 or more? Both are "taking" the same thing from "our Montana", the latter just leaves a lot more in an Outfiiters pocket.

There I fixed it for you! I mean this is what it boils down to, let's all just be honest and just quit the BS and blowing smoke up ones ass. We would call that the BLUF in my field. If you don't know what that is look it up I am sure many here know.