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

[LostinOregon1]

I know Buzz's history, hunting successes and what he does for wildlife. I'm not disputing that at all. What I was referring to is on other sites he has said that the non residents should not have a opinion on how the state is running their wildlife, that is up to the citizens of the state.

I also agree with Buzz that this might be viewed as a end around by the outfitters to change what was voted by the citizens. What I am trying to point out is that if elk have no value to the private landowners, there will be less elk for everyone to hunt. Elk get hammered on the public with the MT tag allocations. If there are no sanctuary's for elk to go to, there won't be any left. I am not advocating for outfitters, I am advocating for private land owners to have tags for their land so elk have value, and in turn, are a resource and not a liability.

Rich

 

[BuzzH]

I know Buzz's history, hunting successes and what he does for wildlife. I'm not disputing that at all. What I was referring to is on other sites he has said that the non residents should not have a opinion on how the state is running their wildlife, that is up to the citizens of the state.

I also agree with Buzz that this might be viewed as a end around by the outfitters to change what was voted by the citizens. What I am trying to point out is that if elk have no value to the private landowners, there will be less elk for everyone to hunt. Elk get hammered on the public with the MT tag allocations. If there are no sanctuary's for elk to go to, there won't be any left. I am not advocating for outfitters, I am advocating for private land owners to have tags for their land so elk have value, and in turn, are a resource and not a liability.

Rich

Nothing inconsistent no matter how you want to slice it Rich. I know you're constantly trying to bust my balls, that's fine. I've never said that NR's shouldn't have an opinion, but the decision on how a State runs it wildlife should be up to the Citizens of the State. I don't tell Oregon Residents how to run wildlife there.

It is up to Montana Residents how they want to handle wildlife issues within their State. If they have no problem with outfitter set asides, they'll be the ones to decide that. Their State their elected officials that they will lobby, their legislative sessions, etc.

In this specific case the citizens spoke and passed 161 and now the outfitters, still stinging from 2010 are attempting to undue the ballot initiative. Further, some have rather short memories and are distorting the facts and in some cases outright lying about the why.

You don't need to point out the value that elk have, that's intuitively obvious. I think we can all read what guided hunts go for, you likely have a better understanding of that than me. We also know what a lease is worth, what landowners get for compensation from access programs. I think you're sort of pointing out the obvious.

Its my opinion that landowners in every State, in particular Montana, have enough ways to maximize profits on elk if that's their goal. They can lease to an individual, they can enroll in access programs, they can charge day rates, they can lease to outfitters,
they can allow free access, they can get an outfitters license themselves. I see absolutely no reason to create a set aside when Montana has 17K+ NR licenses.

There is no reason to allow transferable landowner tags or outfitter set asides...none. That's exactly what the citizens of Montana think and why they passed 161.

 

[LostinOregon1]

Buzz,

Actually not trying to bust your balls. I wish you would tell Oregon how to run their wildlife, because you would do a better job. I was trying to point out that everyone cares about wildlife, no matter where they hang their hat. You made a fair point on the amount of NR tags available in Montana for the deer/elk combo. I do still think when they passed 161, folks thought that they would run the outfitters out and return to the good old days of knocking on doors. What's happening in MT is no different than politics in any other state right now. The people pass a bill/law and the legislature changes it with backdoor deals for special interest groups. I just don't think set asides for outfitters on private land would be the end of MT hunting.

Rich

 

[tjones]

I do still think when they passed 161, folks thought that they would run the outfitters out and return to the good old days of knocking on doors.

This simply is not true.

I have never heard one person say anything close to this as a reason for voting for 161. They only folks that keep beating this dead horse are outfitters.

 

[MNElkNut]

I would wholeheartedly agree with Eric’s response to you on this, if I said something that would make you believe that then I owe you a huge apology. ZREO PERCENT of 143 was intentionally designed to hurt the resident or nonresident DIY hunter, it is a bill to offer sustainability to an industry, nothing more..nothing less. Do some DIY hunters need babysat.......I think we would all agree, that yes they do and we have all witnessed that. I‘m still very curious on this video though because I know that neither Eric or I are tech savvy enough to put one on here!! Just saying.....(sorry Albus)!

When I read the bolded part above, I wonder why the proponents of this bill haven't responded to the quote below. Seems to me, it was absolutely designed to help outfitted clients get licenses every year and hurt DIYers as their odds get worse and worse:

"The point that concerns me and is often overlooked is what the trend is for the future. I have seen many times the proponents of this bill say the 39% is only what the outfitters currently get, so it has no effect. But that is disingenuous. When one looks a the trend of NR applications, it will be harder and harder to get a license. So the outfitters want the DIYers to shoulder all of that point creep with their clients being immune to any sharing whatsoever. The guided clients always get their licenses and the DIYers get to fight over the scraps. As time goes on, the DIY odds get worse and worse (assuming increasing demand), but the outfitted clients always get theirs. Just plain not fair and against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. If the current trend continues, it won't be long before it takes 3, 4 or even 5 years to draw a license as a DIYer if this bill passes. Ask yourself if it is fair that a DIYer gets to go every 4 years but the guided client gets to go every year."

 

[huntin24/7]

Maybe their are some people that thought passing 161 would open up more private land. I did not. No one I know thought that would happen. No one with a fully functional brain thought that would happen. It’s simple. Citizens of MT voted for it because they didn’t feel outfitters deserved a certain guaranteed % of tags. That’s it. Of course there’s some fall out. There’s some degree of fall out anytime a new bill passes. Such is life.

 

[Straight Arrow]

ZREO PERCENT of 143 was intentionally designed to hurt ...

"intentionally designed" is a key phrase in that this bill, like others, was hastily and greedily written without consideration of the ramifications. It is proposed to benefit one segment of hunting groups, a segment which benefits commercially from hunting and wildlife, to the detriment of other hunting groups with a bill which fails to recognize those detriments.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

What doesn't seem to be accounted for in the original bill is change. Markets and economics are constantly evolving which is why the free market is supposed to operate with minimal government intervention. If tomorrow scientists discovered some compound in deer and elk antlers that caused cancer, wouldn't the demand for outfitted hunts decrease exponentially or the cost drop dramatically (in a free market that is)? The original bill would have codified in law a requirement for a certain percentage of hunters to hunt with those outfitters and allow the outfitters to artificially manipulate the value of those hunts. Proponents of the original bill loved to fall back on historic use and percentages but only went back 20 years. If hunter behavior moves away from leasing and outfitted hunts over the next decade, would we suddenly no support for outfitter guaranteed licenses. Unlikely.

 

[Drake4]

This simply is not true.

I have never heard one person say anything close to this as a reason for voting for 161. They only folks that keep beating this dead horse are outfitters.

This x1,000,000.
I'm so sick of hearing this line of BS.

 

[Big Shooter]

This x1,000,000.
I'm so sick of hearing this line of BS.

That is 1000% BS!! That was one.....if not the main driver behind I-161!! Wether that was the main reason that the folks on here were behind it, or not.....it was a driver!!! I’m not painting all of you on here with a broad brush........but you need to come to terms with the fact that it was one of the main reasons for the initiative.

 

[huntin24/7]

Is there really anything that would make landowners grant more access at this stage? I totally get guys not wanting to allow access and never expect it. I’ve worked hard to get a good reputation in my area as someone who is very respectful to private land and that gets me on some private. From what I’ve seen though, some guys will give you permission because they trust you and others won’t give permission no matter what. I don’t feel like anything really changes landowners minds much either way.

 

[huntin24/7]

I guess to further explain my comment above, I think an individual hunter can do things to gain more private access, but I don’t feel like any policy is going to change landowners minds much in regards to access.

 

[Nemont]

Is there really anything that would make landowners grant more access at this stage? I totally get guys not wanting to allow access and never expect it. I’ve worked hard to get a good reputation in my area as someone who is very respectful to private land and that gets me on some private. From what I’ve seen though, some guys will give you permission because they trust you and others won’t give permission no matter what. I don’t feel like anything really changes landowners minds much either way.

It isn't a one size fits all solution.

there are several things that could be done IMO.

-Increase the reimbursement from the Block Management program.
-put in more enforcement on the ground to actually be able to police BMA's effectively.
-develop or buy into on of the access apps to keep people from disturbing land owners for access.
-Police our own ranks better in regards to stuff like driving on wet roads, littering, opening or closing gates, calling at 5 am to ask for access etc etc.

there are many more.

The challenge is that like it or not, many access issues will boil down to money and needing more of it. IMO we need to look to ourselves, especially resident hunters and anglers, as being some low hanging fruit who could kick in more of our own money to help begin to solve some of our own access problems.

Nemont

 

[mtmiller]

IMO we need to look to ourselves, especially resident hunters and anglers, as being some low hanging fruit who could kick in more of our own money to help begin to solve some of our own access problems.

^^^^^^^^

 

[tjones]

This simply is not true.

I have never heard one person say anything close to this as a reason for voting for 161. They only folks that keep beating this dead horse are outfitters.

That is 1000% BS!! That was one.....if not the main driver behind I-161!! Wether that was the main reason that the folks on here were behind it, or not.....it was a driver!!! I’m not painting all of you on here with a broad brush........but you need to come to terms with the fact that it was one of the main reasons for the initiative.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[huntin24/7]

I totally agree. MT resident tags and licenses are dirt cheap. And @Nemont, you make a valid point about making better incentives for access such as BMA’s. I’d personally like to see stiffer penalties for trespassers and poachers in general.

 

[Drake4]

That is 1000% BS!! That was one.....if not the main driver behind I-161!! Wether that was the main reason that the folks on here were behind it, or not.....it was a driver!!! I’m not painting all of you on here with a broad brush........but you need to come to terms with the fact that it was one of the main reasons for the initiative.

Whatever you guys need to tell yourself. Outfitters are the only ones' that I have ever heard say this. And they continue to do so....over.....and over...and...it makes you look silly.

 

[Big Shooter]

I guess to further explain my comment above, I think an individual hunter can do things to gain more private access, but I don’t feel like any policy is going to change landowners minds much in regards to access.

Again....one of the best posts on this thread!

 

[Big Shooter]

It isn't a one size fits all solution.

there are several things that could be done IMO.

-Increase the reimbursement from the Block Management program.
-put in more enforcement on the ground to actually be able to police BMA's effectively.
-develop or buy into on of the access apps to keep people from disturbing land owners for access.
-Police our own ranks better in regards to stuff like driving on wet roads, littering, opening or closing gates, calling at 5 am to ask for access etc etc.

there are many more.

The challenge is that like it or not, many access issues will boil down to money and needing more of it. IMO we need to look to ourselves, especially resident hunters and anglers, as being some low hanging fruit who could kick in more of our own money to help begin to solve some of our own access problems.

Nemont

You are very correct on so many topics here, but you need to remember that the folks on here are the minority....and educating and changing the majority is going to be a challenge. BM is a very failed system due to the fact that there is no “Management”, and that blame doesn’t fall on the DIY hunter, it falls on the current regulations. So, where I live, I don‘t take clients, even though we own some phenomenal habitat for deer and antelope (thank God no elk...yet), and I’ll save some of you guys the effort that you would spend looking it up on OnX, it’s a family place and not in our name currently. But the reason I don’t hunt here is the fact that we have BM on 2 sides, a guy that lets WAY too many people hunt on another side...and multiple illegal outfitters working the other edges. With this being said, it’s nearly impossible to grow deer/antelope up to the age class that they need to be. Do I think BM has it‘s place? 100%!! But currently I think it’s a terrible system that needs fixed.

 

[Big Shooter]

Whatever you guys need to tell yourself. Outfitters are the only ones' that I have ever heard say this. And they continue to do so....over.....and over...and...it makes you look silly.

It’s a goddamn fact! Plain and simple!