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

[Straight Arrow]

... state agencies cannot typically comment on proposed or pending legislation unless asked to by the legislature.

And typically the legislature does not want to be confused by truth or facts. Factual data and logical analysis might contradict the ideological intent of the legislation.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

Outfitters for just hunting? From what I read, you're number encompasses all types of outfitters (hunting, fishing, rafting, horseback, etc). So, what is the number just for hunting?

Does an outfitted client add more to the "pipeline" under this bill or does the 20% reduction in non-outfitted offset that? Or does the 20% reduction in non-outfitted NR hunters result in a net loss in the pipeline?

The other thing I keep hearing is that there are less animals and land is getting overrun. If that's the case maybe Montana should take a hard look at all the tags they are issuing. If it's truly as bad as some on this thread make it out to be then maybe they should eliminate OTC tags and make the whole state draw for everyone.

The number for just hunting outfitting appears to be around 24% of the total outfitting pot, to the tune of about $55M according to a Univ of Montana study that analyzed data from 2017. Hunting outfitters bring in less money than fishing outfitters, and just a little more than rafting/canoeing/kayaking/floating outfitters. So we can dispense with the $350M number being propagated by MOGA and Co. CC: @Ben Lamb

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=itrr_pubs

 

[TheJason]

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.

Read @Straight Arrow ‘s post again.

 

[Big Fin]

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

I have the numbers and analyzed them. It is bad for NRs that don't use an outfitter. Below is the analysis for non-resident deer under the proposed legislation.



Now look further into this, considering that 25% are given randomly, it is easiest to look at it as the entire application pool. In 2020 we had a lot of deer tags that were split off from the elk-deer combo, so we ended up with a total of 9,868 tags issued. There were 13,606 applicants, resulting in a 73% draw rate among all categories of deer licenses.

If we carve out 4,574 that will go to the outfitter and landowner pools, that leaves 9,032 applicants competing for the remaining 2,026 tags. Or, a 31% draw rate when all the other tags are allocated to the dedicated pools of applicants. Summary, the average DIY hunter, across all point levels, could be as low as a 31% draw rate if the total applicants were the same as 2020.

That is the point I am making to Mac in the podcast. This is not hard math. If one group of a population sample gets 100% draw odds, the remainder of that population sample gets much lower draw odds.

So, some folks get to hunt every year. The rest of the folks, assuming no increase in applicants, might get to draw every 3rd year. For anyone to argue against that basic level of math is laughable.

The same math principles apply for the ek-only and the elk-deer combo tags, just a function of how many people apply.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Correct and per always, outfitters contribute exactly ZERO to the management of big-game. Hunters, NGO's, etc. stock the shelves and pay the bills to have the wildlife we do...and always have.

The outfitters come along, rip everything they can off the shelf and bypass the cash register.

Used to be a name for that...shoplifting I think.

 

[brocksw]

I have the numbers and analyzed them. It is bad for NRs that don't use an outfitter. Below is the analysis for non-resident deer under the proposed legislation.

View attachment 174008

Now look further into this, considering that 25% are given randomly, it is easiest to look at it as the entire application pool. In 2020 we had a lot of deer tags that were split off from the elk-deer combo, so we ended up with a total of 9,868 tags issued. There were 13,606 applicants, resulting in a 73% draw rate among all categories of deer licenses.

If we carve out 4,574 that will go to the outfitter and landowner pools, that leaves 9,032 applicants competing for the remaining 2,026 tags. Or, a 31% draw rate when all the other tags are allocated to the dedicated pools of applicants. Summary, the average DIY hunter, across all point levels, could be as low as a 31% draw rate if the total applicants were the same as 2020.

That is the point I am making to Mac in the podcast. This is not hard math. If one group of a population sample gets 100% draw odds, the remainder of that population sample gets much lower draw odds.

So, some folks get to hunt every year. The rest of the folks, assuming no increase in applicants, might get to draw every 3rd year. For anyone to argue against that basic level of math is laughable.

The same math principles apply for the ek-only and the elk-deer combo tags, just a function of how many people apply.

Thanks Randy. We need the before and after stats for elk and big game combo too, in this same graphic format so people can see the real reduction in opportunity first hand and share that info everywhere. Including sending it to legislature.

So if you have time.....

 

[BuzzH]

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

Not sure how it works in Montana, but in Wyoming the GF representatives are present at all pertinent committee meetings...and they answer questions like brocksw suggests. The WGF cannot lobby one way or the other, but if the right questions are asked, bills here either get pushed through or go down in flames at times.

If MTFWP is being controlled to the level of not answering basic drawing odds questions like is suggested here...that's a major problem. Either they're being controlled or lazy and neither is acceptable.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks Randy. We need the before and after stats for elk and big game combo too, in this same graphic format so people can see the real reduction in opportunity first hand and share that info everywhere. Including sending it to legislature.

So if you have time.....

Here is the elk-deer analysis. For the non-max point holders, it goes from 73% to as low as 51%, assuming there is no increase in applicants. It is less dramatic here, as there is no landowner sponsored pool.

 

[TheJason]

The same math principles apply for the ek-only and the elk-deer combo tags, just a function of how many people apply.

One wild card in the elk/deer elk combos is the bull to remove limited entry permits for over objective units. If all of a sudden outfitters in central and eastern Montana can offer a guaranteed tag without the limited entry permit, that is going to really skew some odds.

 

[Big Fin]

The 25% that is allocated to the random portion of the MT draw impacts those who are not at 2+ points, the point level that gives 100% odds. So I have tried my best to compare the change in odds for anyone who won't have 100% odds under the new bill.

I think the general pattern is well established without this math exercise. I think we learned while playing marbles on the grade school playground that if one person gets to win every time, the rest of us get to win a lot less.

 

[Big Fin]

One wild card in the elk/deer elk combos is the bull to remove limited entry permits for over objective units. If all of a sudden outfitters in central and eastern Montana can offer a guaranteed tag without the limited entry permit, that is going to really skew some odds.

True. That bill would be a train wreck for so many reasons. When I looked yesterday, that bill has not yet been officially introduced to a committee.

Looking at the IP addresses who are logging in as unregistered users and viewing that thread, there seems to be a lot of interest in the Hunt Talk comments related to that bill. My admin report shows it as the most viewed thread on HT yesterday, with the greatest percentage of views from unregistered users and the highest percentage of IP addresses located in MT.

I wonder if seeing those comments are causing some to wonder if they want to open that bottle and take a swig. I almost hope they do. They think SB 143 has brought heat. Well, compared to SB 143, that bill would be a "Hold my beer and watch this" response.

 

[Eric Albus]

chason, you realize the University uses a multiplier to figure and if you do the math, roughly 400 outfitters with 7900 clients x $6500 average then use the multiplier you have a pretty good number. When the University figured hunting they counted DIY with Outfitted hunters, so their numbers were flawed.

Randy, I am opposed to the unlimited permits in the breaks and 700, don't feel I have much say in other areas. How can in good conscience one be opposed to NR opportunity (they are limited to "up to 10%" in these areas, while touting we need fairness in licensing? I am the only one to see the irony? If we remain consistent in our views the NR hunter should have access to the same pool of R LE permits on public land. I certain I am flawed in this(and certainly would never EVER support this) but thought I would see who will best rationalize their way thru this conundrum I present.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Eric Albus I respect the fact that Montanans need to make a living, and honestly I don’t begrudge MOAG for trying to help their business, but personally I have a bit of difficult buying that this is stabilizing business so much as guides and outfitters not wanting to evolve with the times.

My sample size is 1 but I have experienced outfitters slamming the door in my face for suggesting anything outside their box. I carry a garmin inreach, I can text anywhere without service, I have asked numerous outfitters if I could hunt in the general area they operate, agree on set pack out locations before hand, so a particular trail, camp, etc and then pay them for a pack out only.

Basically outfitter Mike, I’m going to hunt big elk creek, you have a camp there. If I kill a bull and pack it to your camp or to the trail .5 miles above it can I pay you $1000 to pack out the elk. I don’t want a ride out, I can wait till you pack out your hunters out, ie all you have to do is add an extra horse to your string for me. I will notify you via text when I have a bull down so you can add an extra horse.

Every outfitter I’ve talked to has said no way, not worth my time, fully guided and I’m booked through the year.

Ive also watched the price of renting llamas 2.5x in 4 years.

It appears to me there are additional revenue streams available to outfitters to grow their business, that don’t require removing opportunity from DIY hunters.

Respectfully, my company is forced to change with the market? Why is it unreasonable to ask outfitters to do the same?

 

[Big Fin]

....... How can in good conscience one be opposed to NR opportunity (they are limited to "up to 10%" in these areas, while touting we need fairness in licensing? I am the only one to see the irony? If we remain consistent in our views the NR hunter should have access to the same pool of R LE permits on public land. I certain I am flawed in this(and certainly would never EVER support this) but thought I would see who will best rationalize their way thru this conundrum I present.

"In good conscience," I am willing to leave the statutory number at 10% for LE tags and 17,000/6,600 for B-10/B-11 tags and not drop the B-10/B-11 down to 10%. Glass half-full or half-empty.

I could spin the argument as this. How can you support the 10% limit on LE tags and not demand the same for the B-10/B-11 tags. In other words, why does someone support the 10% and not ask that the entire state be put on a 10% draw for the B-10/B-11 tags. If we went to 10% on B-10/B-11 tags, good luck with outfitted clients getting the current level of general tags they get. I don't think you are advocating for that, but it seems to me that your are selective in what situations strike you as ironic.

I see no irony in either position. They are both statutory and go back over 30 years. It is what Montana decided and it hasn't changed. Most resident hunters don't see a need to push for changes. We didn't ask for SB 143, MOGA did. We look at the situation as it changes over time and we adjust accordingly.

None of the bills introduced this session to the Senate/House F&G/FWP Committees are coming from hunting groups. That fact causes one to ask, "Who is willing to keep consistency, reliability, and predictability in the system we subject non-residents to and who is asking for big changes, and why?" I could find a lot of irony in that fact.

We all know that every time a bill comes to the legislature it pits hunters against hunters, a situation I heard Mac say on my podcast is a huge detriment to all hunters. Maybe I heard him wrong, but I am sure he said that, twice.

If I have seen any irony the last month, it is a statement that pitting hunters against hunters is our long-term demise, yet that same group making such claim (a claim I agree with) introduces legislation that pits hunters against hunters in a way like I've not seen in a long time.

But, maybe I am too selective in where I see irony.

 

[brocksw]

Randy, I am opposed to the unlimited permits in the breaks and 700, don't feel I have much say in other areas. How can in good conscience one be opposed to NR opportunity (they are limited to "up to 10%" in these areas, while touting we need fairness in licensing? I am the only one to see the irony? If we remain consistent in our views the NR hunter should have access to the same pool of R LE permits on public land. I certain I am flawed in this(and certainly would never EVER support this) but thought I would see who will best rationalize their way thru this conundrum I present.

Not apples to apples. Nobody here is making the argument that residents shouldnt have a leg up in price or license availability. It makes sense, the general consensus over decades of hunting tradition is that it's still fair and accepted by the public.

Obviously, by this threads content, I161s overturn, and many other public forums discussing 143... what you're supporting does not garner that same public support or acceptance.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

chason, you realize the University uses a multiplier to figure and if you do the math, roughly 400 outfitters with 7900 clients x $6500 average then use the multiplier you have a pretty good number. When the University figured hunting they counted DIY with Outfitted hunters, so their numbers were flawed.

7900 clients at 6500/ea is $51 million, which is $4M short of the number in the UMontana study. If you use that number ($51m-$55m) and apply it to the 2019 study, which I think would be more appropriate and accurate characterization, then hunting outfitting drops to #10-#11 in nonresident economic contributions to Montana's economy - right behind "Made in Montana" - a far cry from the talking point highlighted by MOGA in every media interview and press release. So, when Mr. Minard complains about misinformation in the discourse regarding this issue, perhaps he shouldn't throw stones.

http://itrr.umt.edu/files/Prelim2019NonresExp.pdf

 

[BenInMT]

Looking at the IP addresses who are logging in as unregistered users and viewing that thread, there seems to be a lot of interest in the Hunt Talk comments related to that bill. My admin report shows it as the most viewed thread on HT yesterday, with the greatest percentage of views from unregistered users and the highest percentage of IP addresses located in MT.

Well you can count me as one of those IP addresses. This stuff is infuriating. They’re doing what republicans always do- ramming through all of their wildest dreams the instant they have power. This really feels like the end of hunting as we know it. I’ve never drawn a trophy elk tag and to see my bonus points either get devalued or disappear altogether is just depressing. And that’s just my short term white person problem. The long term ramifications of this for access, block management and wildlife on public land are what is really depressing.

 

[Big Shooter]

Randal.....your math is simply smoke and mirrors on the B-11 (deer tag).
6,600x.39%=2574
6,600-2574=4026
That is the correct number. You double dipped.

 

[Eric Albus]

chason, that number is for NR hunting impact figured by the University. They DID NOT figure outfitted vs. DIY. The 51-55M figure is what Outfitted hunters bring. Hence the $6500 x's the 7900-8300 outfitted hunting clients.

Rod is correct on his numbers I do believe.

I still find it hard to justify why we (residents) should have a leg up on public lands for LE permits. I like it this way, just can't come up with a good justification myself, or buy any of the other attempts to justify or rationalize.

If the permits were good only on private land I might could go for it, as long as there was a sunset after 2 yrs. Perhaps if there were more pressure on inaccessible lands the elk would find their way onto accessible land. If the amount of inaccessible land Increased on account of PLP(private land permit) then it could be done away with.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

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.

Your side has firmly and resolutely built the foundation of their argument on economics, I think its only reasonable to push back on that narrative strongly since the actual truth has not been vetted properly. The flavor of DIY NR hunters I represent are an inconvenient truth in the discussion. A truth that folks would rather not have to address, so they don't. We are mythical creatures that politicians are easily convinced do not exist.

When my family decided to make Montana a hunting tradition we developed a plan for discovering Montana. We take two weeks off and spend the first 3-4 days discovering new territory. Lots of driving during this period, so dining out is common, for all three meals. If we like what we've seen we stick around to fill our tags. If not we move on to areas we've had past success in and know better. We purchase the food locally when we've decided where we are going to focus our hunting. Two weeks is a long time and if we buy out of state sometimes the food goes bad, a lesson learned from past trips. When we've tagged out we have our game processed locally. I watch the guys butcher deer while taking care of the logistics (always pick up a little more detail on how to do it better), talk with the them, and leave them a nice tip every year. While we're waiting on the butchering we go scout for next years hunt or hunts for the next 2-3 days. This scouting period is just another excuse to hunt, so we bring the scatter guns and hunt upland birds while we are at it. We've already spent the gas money to get there so it makes sense to make the best use of that investment.

This year we drew the B11 tags and went to Montana twice. First in late October, we had never come that early before. We ended up not harvesting anything, we passed up a ton of forkies and spikes and decided to turn the trip into an antelope scouting trip (we will all draw next year since we have 4 points each). We went back home. We then came back out again two weeks later and spent another week and tagged out. In our second trip, as in our first, we made a huge loop through Montana starting in Missoula. Then we made stops in Great Falls, Lewistown, Jordan, Miles City, Alzada, Broadus, Ashalnd, Billings and finally back to Missoula on our way out of Montana.

Even if I only visited Montana once a year the economic outcome of that one visit is about 4 times greater than whats been attributed to the DIY NR hunter in previous analysis. So its not just the number or types of visits, its also the economic quality of DIY NR hunters that's also being misrepresented.

I absolutely understand the privilege that NR hunters enjoy in Montana. If we see Montana plates at the areas we hunt we don't hunt that area. We've been able to find enough areas that hold deer to make that policy work well for us over the years. Its probably a hold over from my days as a fly fishing guide. I just can't encroach on folks fishing or hunting experience, its not a campground or a zoo, so we try not to effect other peoples experience as such.