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

[Schaaf]

Is there a vote count on the bill? How well received was Tom’s amendment?
Sorry, grocery shopping and house wife stuff.

 

[Dakotakid]

26 to 24 to amend
27 to 23 to pass second reading

 

[Pucky Freak]

It could be argued that a downside would be prioritizing a certain number of tags for folks who have the means to pay extra every year.

Obviously better than the original bill, and great that the money would go to habitat MT, but still not ideal I think.

Demand for tags exceeds supply. I’d argue that legislators have a responsibility to reap the benefit of that if it can done in a way that respects the resource. The amended bill seems like a decent compromise for outfitters and their clients, all thinks considered.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

With the amendment this seems like something that would be hard for a resident hunter to dislike.

Crazy to think that just the premium $ for one application in the early draw would cover a resident's costs for Elk, Deer, Bear, upland bird, fishing, and state land use licenses for 3 years! And even an antelope tag for a year if they were into that sort of thing. So 10 big game tags and 3 years of fishing and upland bird licenses for the cost of one NR application premium.

This ^ isn't a complaint, just an observation.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm going to say this again and again until those sending emails will fully understand. It's been voiced 2 different times that the emails are annoying them...that's good but it's not going to move the needle.

I've been involved in dozens and dozens of these in Oregon in regards to fishing....Here's the short version: The only thing they care about are money and re-election. In your emails I would HIGHLY recommend that you state how those who vote for these bills, their names, will be remembered during the next election cycle. I161 told them how Montanans feel about this and a yes vote would not set very well with the voting public during the next elections....make that known in your emails. You need to start talking in a language that gets politicians attention.

I disagree, strongly. Polite, professional emails that make your point are far better than threatening them with their elected position. Threats will piss them off a lot more than a well-stated email.

And emails might be annoying them in the short-term, but they are having the desired message - keep supporting this chit and expect more emails. And if they think this bill was a large volume of emails, "Hold my beer and watch this."

It is a new way that these issues will be communicated by those who can't take days off to go to Capitol hearings. If they are annoyed by being contacted and emails, that is because they don't want pressure interfering with their pre-determined votes that repay political debts. They want to repay those debts with no friction. Friction can be good.

 

[JLS]

My position also, what’s the downside? Except a portion is earlier and a higher fee? Which helps fund access.

That it allows money to buy exclusivity, which is antithetical to the North American model. Other than that, it’s great.

 

[huntandfly]

Demand for tags exceeds supply. I’d argue that legislators have a responsibility to reap the benefit of that if it can done in a way that respects the resource. The amended bill seems like a decent compromise for outfitters and their clients, all thinks considered.

I agree that it’s a decent compromise, like I said: much better than the original. Just realize that the demand has exceeded supply for a while now, and giving advantage to those who can pay more still leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth.

That being said, I am one that would likely be willing to pay the premium, especially if the dollars go where they say they will.

 

[JLS]

We all wish the bill could have been killed. But, one must look at the massive imbalance in those elected seats when it comes to our issues. Given the complexity of legislative process and reality of how the votes are aligned, to end up with something like this should be looked at as a major victory.

Thanks to some true leaders for their work behind the scenes, both individuals and organizations.

I don’t disagree with most of this, but wildly cheering this on as if it’s a great deal, as some are, is akin to thanking the arsonist for only burning half of your house instead of all of it.

 

[MTGomer]

I wonder if some of these people even email. You can't tell me Denley Loge in the House reads or writes emails daily...

Also... What is up with not everybody using a @mtleg.gov email address? Is that normal? Are they not required to use state emails?

 

[JLS]

I wonder if some of these people even email. You can't tell me Denley Loge in the House reads or writes emails daily...

Also... What is up with not everybody using a @mtleg.gov email address? Is that normal? Are they not required to use state emails?

They’re crazy not to with all the FOIA requests these days.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I don’t disagree with most of this, but wildly cheering this on as if it’s a great deal, as some are, is akin to thanking the arsonist for only burning half of your house instead of all of it.

Almost sounds like they just recommended a $300 Bonus Point fee. Not exactly the same but not exactly different either. Bit surprised that this is getting the love it is. I suppose compared to the prior version it is a smaller chit sandwich to eat.

 

[Dakotakid]

My cheering this is based solely on reading the political winds. This is a far better result than what was proposed. If you want to stand against the tide, then your welcome to be on your own.

 

[Schaaf]

Seems similar to the special draw in WY?

 

[JLS]

My cheering this is based solely on reading the political winds. This is a far better result than what was proposed. If you want to stand against the tide, then your welcome to be on your own.

I’m assuming your comment was directed at me. Reading the political winds, this isn’t done and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the outfitter welfare resurfaces.

I’m not standing against any tide. I’m simply speaking the truth. Take it for what you paid for it. We’re watching the evolution of the NA model as it morphs into an egalitarian bidding process. I can’t celebrate that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wow. Some of them truly feel that the DIY hunter is just an absolute low life POS.

That too harsh, more of a freeloader

 

[VikingsGuy]

If rejected, it goes to a conference committee, set by leadership of both Houses.

In my experience, this is the step where participatory democracy goes to die. If leaders in the House and Senate want something to pass but get too much heat from the public, they pass different versions and then "fix it" in conference committee. By this point the average citizen has lost track and things "just get done".

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not that this is relevant at all here:
View attachment 174198

Just think of the multiples for the MT economy if they all had to use an outfitter instead of spending $5,000 on an out of state trip to Vegas or San Diego

 

[VikingsGuy]

Greenhorns point is well taken as well. Sign me up for hauling more water.

In the meantime, a resident could always give $750 to RMEF or BHA in lieu of higher tag price and have a little more confidence in how that money would be spent to improve wildlife.

 

[Gevock]

I can just say there's a long, long way for this bill to go before it becomes law. Stay engaged, and voice your opinion respectfully. That's democracy in action.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm going to say this again and again until those sending emails will fully understand. It's been voiced 2 different times that the emails are annoying them...that's good but it's not going to move the needle.

I've been involved in dozens and dozens of these in Oregon in regards to fishing....Here's the short version: The only thing they care about are money and re-election. In your emails I would HIGHLY recommend that you state how those who vote for these bills, their names, will be remembered during the next election cycle. I161 told them how Montanans feel about this and a yes vote would not set very well with the voting public during the next elections....make that known in your emails. You need to start talking in a language that gets politicians attention.

I am not disagreeing with you, but if MT is anything like other states, 90% of these folks are in safe districts where just having the R or the D next to their name (depending on the district) gets them a win. The real threat (being used by AOC progressives and the Trumpist GOPers alike) is in people supporting a primary fight. Find a viable candidate from the same party as the incumbent, but who shares your view on an important topic and help them oppose the incumbent in the next primary - that is the only real leverage voters have against the heavily gerrymandered political landscape of 2021.