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

[Gevock]

A real solution would be to put forward proposals in the interim and reach out to hunters to see what we could agree on. That requires a study bill, and a lot of hard work doing the grassroots outreach. The best bills in the Legislature are the ones in which an advocate went to their biggest critics ahead of time and genuinely wanted to work together.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

Catching up on the posts over the past couple of days, as a DIY NR, this is the one that most offends. The issue isn't about creating economic opportunity/certainty for outfitters. They acknowledge they effectively get 39% of the tags every year already. And as pointed out by Randy and others, under the preference point system, the ability of outfitters to plan and book clients with a high degree of certainty, based on the points those prospective clients possess going into the draw, is quite simple.

Apparently, the real driver underlying this bill is the ability to re-book the same clients every year. That's not a Resident vs. Non-Resident issue, or even a which-type-of-NR-provides-greater-benefit-to-the-local-economy issue. It's a rich-versus-not issue: giving certainty of draw success every year to the same wealthy, guided Non-Residents at the expense -- no pun intended -- of the rest of us Non-Residents. I don't see how any Montana legislator can back that with a straight face.

 

[Bullbrl]

Catching up on the posts over the past couple of days, as a DIY NR, this is the one that most offends. The issue isn't about creating economic opportunity/certainty for outfitters. They acknowledge they effectively get 39% of the tags every year already. And as pointed out by Randy and others, under the preference point system, the ability of outfitters to plan and book clients with a high degree of certainty, based on the points those prospective clients possess going into the draw, is quite simple.

Apparently, the real driver underlying this bill is the ability to re-book the same clients every year. That's not a Resident vs. Non-Resident issue, or even a which-type-of-NR-provides-greater-benefit-to-the-local-economy issue. It's a rich-versus-not issue: giving certainty of draw success every year to the same wealthy, guided Non-Residents at the expense -- no pun intended -- of the rest of us Non-Residents. I don't see how any Montana legislator can back that with a straight face.

Simply not true! Didn't you see what the guides said, this is about them being able to make a living. They are struggling, they are booked out a couple years in advance...not good enough!

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

tjones,
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.

Here is where your logic is flawed...

That isn’t HIS deer, or yours for that matter. The wildlife belongs to ALL of us, and it’s propagated for everyone’s benefit equally. It’s the principle behind the North American model and why wildlife management in this country has been a success...

He has no more right to it than anyone else just due to the fact he can afford to hire an outfitter. Your mindset, and the mindset of MOGA that having wealth should mean more opportunity to state managed game is dangerous to wildlife, and dangerous to the future of hunting.

 

[Brad W]

I am currently listening to Randy’s discussion with Mac on Hunttalk and wanted to emphasize one point:

MOGA paints the preference point system as an obstacle for their clients because it is “so complicated”. Doesn’t that make it a business opportunity for outfitters in this state? “The preference point system is complicated, but we take care of our clients each year by doing their MT application for them and ensuring that you are in line for a tag...for a small fee”. Application services can be good money and if you are smart you can expand that to other states as well. For this premier outfitted client that wants to hunt every year in MT that fee would probably just be a drop in the bucket.

 

[JLS]

Anyone too dumb to figure out the preference point system for MT shouldn’t be near firearms.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Anyone too dumb to figure out the preference point system for MT shouldn’t be neat firearms.

*near

 

[BlakeA]

Anyone too dumb to figure out the preference point system for MT shouldn’t be neat firearms.

100%

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Another point I’d like to bring up, in 2017, according to archerytrade.org Montana had 152,000 mule deer hunters and 114,000 elk hunters. The VAST majority of those were residents.

Yet MOGA thinks they need ~6,600 of those set aside all to themselves!?

If they are worried about repeat, year after year business, why not increase marketing toward resident hunters? Seems like there are plenty of wealthy residents around Bozeman and Missoula that can afford such things, and do it year after year.

Why punish the non resident for their lack of business acumen!? If their services are really that valuable, why aren’t busy, wealthy resident hunters using them just as much if not more so than non residents?

 

[Big Shooter]

Im enjoying watching a hunting guide (not that you can’t be educated in mathematics) argue with an accountant, no offense!

I’m not saying his math is wrong.......but his facts are wrong.

 

[Big Fin]

I’m not saying his math is wrong.......but his facts are wrong.

OK, what facts are wrong? I'm asking for the sake of not putting out content that would be factually incorrect. I would correct anything I have put out, if the facts were shown to be wrong.

 

[Big Shooter]

And they are pissed at the rapidly changing process by which people engage in Government. They are accustomed to the backroom trading of political chips. It is how they got their primary votes. It is how they garnered support for their general election endorsements.

Now, along comes a different way of engagement for us deplorables who actually have to work for a living and can't take days of paid time off to go to state Capitols two days each week. This has them really pissed and they are now proclaiming they are taking objection to the wave of comments, labeling it "Georgia-style politics," whatever the hell that means.

This digital response is a change to business as usual. Keep at it. They are not prepared for this new change, nor are the groups who try to use the old process to bludgeon the unwashed masses.

I think the next two days will be very interesting on this bill and a few others. Thanks to all who continue to be engaged.

WOW!! Make sure to share your new address with everyone when you and your realtor close on your new Compound in Waco!!

 

[HighCountryCommando]

WOW!! Make sure to share your new address with everyone when you and your realtor close on your new Compound in Waco!!

And with the Senate debate only minutes away...he pushes all his chips to the middle of the table and removes his mask.

 

[tjones]

OK, what facts are wrong? I'm asking for the sake of not putting out content that would be factually incorrect. I would correct anything I have put out, if the facts were shown to be wrong.

At times most wives are like shooter is to fin.

They think the husband is wrong, not really sure what the husband is wrong about but wrong about something/ everything.

Not my wife of course, just what I hear from other guys.

 

[WIbiggame]

WOW!! Make sure to share your new address with everyone when you and your realtor close on your new Compound in Waco!!

It's public information so here you go.

107 N 7th Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715

 

[MTLabrador]

And with the Senate debate only minutes away...he pushes all his chips to the middle of the table and removes his mask.

Must be a peach of a hand....

 

[Ben Lamb]

I am currently listening to Randy’s discussion with Mac on Hunttalk and wanted to emphasize one point:

MOGA paints the preference point system as an obstacle for their clients because it is “so complicated”. Doesn’t that make it a business opportunity for outfitters in this state? “The preference point system is complicated, but we take care of our clients each year by doing their MT application for them and ensuring that you are in line for a tag...for a small fee”. Application services can be good money and if you are smart you can expand that to other states as well. For this premier outfitted client that wants to hunt every year in MT that fee would probably just be a drop in the bucket.

It was MOGA's bill in 2011 or 2013 that brought Preference Points to MT, and now it's a bullshit system that doesn't work. Got it.

https://www.montanaoutfitters.org/assets/2013-Legislative-Voting-Review.pdf

 

[idahohuntr]

Yes, that appears to remain in the bill.

Sorry to keep up with the questions - any idea how many current agreements would be impacted by a 15k cap? This seems like one element of the bill that could definitely impact resident hunter access (and nonresidents)...but maybe it's not a big issue if most agreements are well under such a cap.

 

[WIbiggame]

Sorry to keep up with the questions - any idea how many current agreements would be impacted by a 15k cap? This seems like one element of the bill that could definitely impact resident hunter access (and nonresidents)...but maybe it's not a big issue if most agreements are well under such a cap.

No expert on it but I would think with guaranteed tags and the rate at which western hunting is growing, it would affect any new agreements. Outfitter comes in with their "welfare" money and offer $17k be foolish to sign for any BLM agreement.

 

[JLS]

Sorry to keep up with the questions - any idea how many current agreements would be impacted by a 15k cap? This seems like one element of the bill that could definitely impact resident hunter access (and nonresidents)...but maybe it's not a big issue if most agreements are well under such a cap.

Not exactly apples to apples, but Block Management contracts were capped at 12k for many years. I don’t know if that cap has been adjusted. In the mid 2000s, a number of cooperators were hitting the cap on a yearly basis. Of course that’s based on hunter use days. I haven’t read the fine print on how these would be decided. Pretty sure outfitter leases aren’t capped at 15k.