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

[Eric Albus]

highcountry, do you think you are in the majority of NR hunters? I have lived in Eastern Mt my entire life, kind of a microcosm self admittedly, the ONLY time we see anybody over here is during the hunting season.


I don't remember the anonymous handle of who first posted what was just posted and made the statement that it all ends up in an outfitters pocket, Really? I guess we don't buy our gas/groceries/insurance/guide wages/motel/cafe/bar/restaurant/local tire/battery/pickup truck repair shop/side by side repair shop/lease dollars/BLM/State fees/bed tax/county taxes/electricians/plumbers/state tax/fed tax and probably a host of others I am forgetting. I reckon it must be at least a 95% profit business, so don't tell anyone else or everyone will want to be an outfitter. I drive my "brand new in 2001 F-350" as a subterfuge so folks won't hold me up going to the bank with all the gold and silver we mine for free.

 

[brownbear932008]

highcountry, do you think you are in the majority of NR hunters? I have lived in Eastern Mt my entire life, kind of a microcosm self admittedly, the ONLY time we see anybody over here is during the hunting season.


I don't remember the anonymous handle of who first posted what was just posted and made the statement that it all ends up in an outfitters pocket, Really? I guess we don't buy our gas/groceries/insurance/guide wages/motel/cafe/bar/restaurant/local tire/battery/pickup truck repair shop/side by side repair shop/lease dollars/BLM/State fees/bed tax/county taxes/electricians/plumbers/state tax/fed tax and probably a host of others I am forgetting. I reckon it must be at least a 95% profit business, so don't tell anyone else or everyone will want to be an outfitter. I drive my "brand new in 2001 F-350" as a subterfuge so folks won't hold me up going to the bank with all the gold and silver we mine for free.

That is quite the stretch there. I mean I've been coming to NE MT off and on for about 20 years. Guess what I have also paid 90% of the expenses you just listed while there without the help of an outfitter also. The day I can't get a tag because of this type of legislation well those folks won't see that money now will they.

 

[Big Shooter]

Brocksw....you are somewhat correct, there are quite a few outfitters that ranch/farm, and yes, many of them do it to help make ends meet. If the truth be known, many of them would not be able to continue to do so if it weren’t for the extra income they make off of outfitting. This is due to poor markets, high input costs and even higher land prices. It is not very common these days to see a family ranch/farm where one of the two (husband or wife) doesn’t have a town job or a side income of some kind. Do a little research on production agriculture and you’ll figure that out.

For those of you that don’t believe the economics part of it and the fact that the 5:1 rate of return is a false number, there is a new website with a link to the University study that proves it. The 5:1 rate of return is an industry-wide number which encompasses all outdoor non-resident tourism dollars spent in Montana such as fishing, rafting, summer pack trips, and so on. Outfitted hunting is actually higher than the 5:1. Actually...the Outfitting industry is #4 in nonresident tourism dollars only behind food, fuel and lodging. Those numbers are not just randomly pulled out of thin air like some of you would like to think. Like Albus stated earlier, the money that an outfitter makes at the end of the day stays right in Montana as well for the most part, as does landowner payments, guide wages, cook wages and so on.

On a different note......it’s -31 degrees here this morning and it may have froze my tomatoes!

 

[WIbiggame]

highcountry, do you think you are in the majority of NR hunters

He is the sample of NR DIY hunters I run into at the trailhead and talk with every fall. I would venture a % in the 70-80 range made more than 1 trip out. And 90-95% go into town and eat atleast 1 meal 4-5 times a week. I know this last trip I was out there I spent over $1000 on food, gas, processing, ice, etc.

 

[WIbiggame]

On a different note......it’s -31 degrees here this morning and it may have froze my tomatoes!

Damn thought she was cold here today only-18 .

To your stats numbers you are doing exactly what was mentioned above and using them as an over simplified political talking point. It should be that Outfittered clients of any sort of recreation spend 5x more you guys charge 5-8x more than it would cost to DIY so there fore that study is correct. But statistics 101 you learn "correlation doesn't equal causation" just by you charging more you skew those stats.

Edit: you also stated that those figures were for 365 days a year on all other guided excursions so another prime example of comparing apples to "frozen tomatoes" sorry had to add that stay warm

 

[WIbiggame]

gas/groceries/insurance/guide wages/motel/cafe/bar/restaurant/local tire/battery/pickup truck repair shop/side by side repair shop/lease dollars/BLM/State fees/bed tax/county taxes/electricians/plumbers/state tax/fed tax

You are 1 person or as an industry (400+/-) spending your $$. NR or Resident DIY hunters, fishermen, hikers, sightseeing, backpacking, rock climbing, mountain biking etc are all spending most of those things. And our #'s for out pace yours.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

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.

This is a dangerous and highly flawed philosophical basis for your argument. Money shouldn’t be the sole factor dictating access to resources, opportunity, or power and influence. Last I checked, this isn’t Soviet Russia. But...MOGA is looking more and more like a cartel by the day.

Again, if this is really an issue in Montana, perhaps there are too many outfitters running outdated business models.

 

[Hunt West]

Brocksw....you are somewhat correct, there are quite a few outfitters that ranch/farm, and yes, many of them do it to help make ends meet. If the truth be known, many of them would not be able to continue to do so if it weren’t for the extra income they make off of outfitting. This is due to poor markets, high input costs and even higher land prices. It is not very common these days to see a family ranch/farm where one of the two (husband or wife) doesn’t have a town job or a side income of some kind. Do a little research on production agriculture and you’ll figure that out.

This we can agree on.

 

[Deleted member 40728]

I don't remember the anonymous handle of who first posted what was just posted and made the statement that it all ends up in an outfitters pocket, Really? I guess we don't buy our gas/groceries/insurance/guide wages/motel/cafe/bar/restaurant/local tire/battery/pickup truck repair shop/side by side repair shop/lease dollars/BLM/State fees/bed tax/county taxes/electricians/plumbers/state tax/fed tax and probably a host of others I am forgetting.

You are going to be paying that and contributing to your local economy regardless of the outcome of this bill because you are living there.
The rest of these comments are in reference to the fact that their will be less DIY nonresidents visiting your state contributing to the economy as individuals.
The increased income you receive as an outfitter most likely won’t translate to an increase for the other local business if less people are visiting as a whole.
Aside from your guide insurance, all the examples you listed are the same expenses that the gas station owner in town would incur in everyday life as well. Difference is that the government is creating the welfare bill that makes sure a major of people have to go with him for their gasoline if they want their cars to run.

 

[Mkamman]

Brocksw....you are somewhat correct, there are quite a few outfitters that ranch/farm, and yes, many of them do it to help make ends meet. If the truth be known, many of them would not be able to continue to do so if it weren’t for the extra income they make off of outfitting. This is due to poor markets, high input costs and even higher land prices. It is not very common these days to see a family ranch/farm where one of the two (husband or wife) doesn’t have a town job or a side income of some kind. Do a little research on production agriculture and you’ll figure that out.

For those of you that don’t believe the economics part of it and the fact that the 5:1 rate of return is a false number, there is a new website with a link to the University study that proves it. The 5:1 rate of return is an industry-wide number which encompasses all outdoor non-resident tourism dollars spent in Montana such as fishing, rafting, summer pack trips, and so on. Outfitted hunting is actually higher than the 5:1. Actually...the Outfitting industry is #4 in nonresident tourism dollars only behind food, fuel and lodging. Those numbers are not just randomly pulled out of thin air like some of you would like to think. Like Albus stated earlier, the money that an outfitter makes at the end of the day stays right in Montana as well for the most part, as does landowner payments, guide wages, cook wages and so on.

On a different note......it’s -31 degrees here this morning and it may have froze my tomatoes!

I grew up and still live on a farm. Modern times mean I can’t make a living doing it. One of my cousins is the only one who does it full time now.
I do construction. Maybe I can get the government to ban DIY home improvements.

 

[406dn]

Brocksw....you are somewhat correct, there are quite a few outfitters that ranch/farm, and yes, many of them do it to help make ends meet. If the truth be known, many of them would not be able to continue to do so if it weren’t for the extra income they make off of outfitting. This is due to poor markets, high input costs and even higher land prices. It is not very common these days to see a family ranch/farm where one of the two (husband or wife) doesn’t have a town job or a side income of some kind. Do a little research on production agriculture and you’ll figure that out.

Most of us respect the grit it takes to keep a ranch or farm afloat. But no other outside income earned is getting a guarantee from the state.

It is disappointing to see the sense of entitlement concerning who should get non resident licenses. What is wrong with a level playing field, favoring no one and discriminating against no one?

 

[brocksw]

I can't wait until it's like Europe where you need to pay private land fees and a guide to do any hunting at all. Sounds sweet!

 

[ChaosOneZero]

Brocksw....you are somewhat correct, there are quite a few outfitters that ranch/farm, and yes, many of them do it to help make ends meet. If the truth be known, many of them would not be able to continue to do so if it weren’t for the extra income they make off of outfitting. This is due to poor markets, high input costs and even higher land prices. It is not very common these days to see a family ranch/farm where one of the two (husband or wife) doesn’t have a town job or a side income of some kind. Do a little research on production agriculture and you’ll figure that out.

For those of you that don’t believe the economics part of it and the fact that the 5:1 rate of return is a false number, there is a new website with a link to the University study that proves it. The 5:1 rate of return is an industry-wide number which encompasses all outdoor non-resident tourism dollars spent in Montana such as fishing, rafting, summer pack trips, and so on. Outfitted hunting is actually higher than the 5:1. Actually...the Outfitting industry is #4 in nonresident tourism dollars only behind food, fuel and lodging. Those numbers are not just randomly pulled out of thin air like some of you would like to think. Like Albus stated earlier, the money that an outfitter makes at the end of the day stays right in Montana as well for the most part, as does landowner payments, guide wages, cook wages and so on.

On a different note......it’s -31 degrees here this morning and it may have froze my tomatoes!

If you want to die on the “economics of it” hill, go ahead. But it’s an absurd argument. If you want to make this about generating money for the state’s coffers, why don’t you start with a sales tax or increases in property taxes, as opposed to trying to get an entire demographic of rich folks from others states to help balance your state’s checkbook?

 

[Sioux33]

I grew up and still live on a farm. Modern times mean I can’t make a living doing it. One of my cousins is the only one who does it full time now.
I do construction. Maybe I can get the government to ban DIY home improvements.

Of course, take a page out of the MOGA playbook and get your industry to fund some bullshit study so you can tell everyone you spread the money around, buy off your senators and boom, you've got it made. To hell with everyone else, it's just stabilizing your industry. Good lord, what a crock.

 

[Mkamman]

Of course, all you need to do is get your industry to fund some bullshit study so you can tell everyone you spread the money around, buy off your senators and boom, you've got it made. To hell with everyone else, it's just stabilizing your industry. Good lord, what a crock.

I really only want the government to guarantee me 60% of the lumber lol

 

[brocksw]

Why has the FWP not shared draw statistic impacts or comparisons? As our outfitter friend Eric Albus stated, he has repeat customers who come every year. The 143 proposal will create a small pool for outfitted hunters...protecting those repeat customers. That pool will undoubtedly be smaller proportionate to the tags available, compared to the poor man's pool. Someone who can fork over 6500 dollars a year for an elk hunt will literally buy himself a tag every year, the more money he has the farther in advance he can guarantee himself a tag...100% draw odds. The more general tags he buys, the more he will be entered into potential special permit units, this taking more opportunity from diy hunters simply by having his name in the hat every single year. Us DIY guys, who face a growingly competitive app pool, will only draw general tags 3 out of every 4 years with current stats if I remember correctly.

The bill seems to acknowledge the fact that this will distort draw stats and unfairly favor guided hunter draw odds, that's why they add the 25% 0 pref point tags. But that's not an applea to apples trade for diy hunters. It's still not a guarantee for us and it's really just a half ass attempt to offset the growth in the app pool the last few years.

How has the FWP not analyzed this and shared this info?

 

[JLS]

How has the FWP not analyzed this and shared this info?

If a state agency was not involved in the drafting of a bill, how would you expect them to have projected impacts? Also, state agencies cannot typically comment on proposed or pending legislation unless asked to by the legislature.

 

[brocksw]

If a state agency was not involved in the drafting of a bill, how would you expect them to have projected impacts? Also, state agencies cannot typically comment on proposed or pending legislation unless asked to by the legislature.

It was my impression they were present at the committee hearing and we're asked straight up how this would affect draw odds and they stated "we can't say one way or the other if this will affect draw odds".

 

[JLS]

It was my impression they were present at the committee hearing and we're asked straight up how this would affect draw odds and they stated "we can't say one way or the other if this will affect draw odds".

There are a few variables one would need to know in order to make an accurate prediction. Was FWP tasked with doing model projections?

 

[brocksw]

There are a few variables one would need to know in order to make an accurate prediction. Was FWP tasked with doing model projections?

That I don't know. The idea that this could pass without those analysis being performed and shared would seem to be a deliberate effort to keep people uninformed.

Additionally, if I am correct and they were present in the committee hearing then they were there as an information witness...not having that data on hand was either poor form on the FWPs part or they were told not to share.