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

[Nemont]

Nemont, I agree with everything you wrote. If I was king this is exactly how things would operate.

My problem is that every time the outfitter unequal opportunity tag issue comes up the solution is to raise the nonresident license price. Effectively pricing many of the average joe's competing with the outfitter clients and hunt club members out of the market. This makes getting a tag more dependent on ones bank account than in the past. In other words, only equal opportunity if you have a thick wallet.
This is what happened with I-161 and for nearly 10 years the quantity of tags demanded in the draw at the price offered was fewer than the number of tags offered. Club members were able to get all the tags they wanted at a price of less than they were willing to pay. They no longer had to find an outfitter to provide a guaranteed license. A twisting of the intent of the outfitter sponsored licenses in my opinion. Hunt clubs were the big winners of I-161. Outfitters and their clients won in that they still had a guaranteed tag but also lost in that many of them now had to compete with hunt clubs for the best properties. The big loser was the average joe of modest means who was priced out of the market and stayed home or hunted Montana less frequently.
Now it seams that we are going down the same path with 143 that we did with I-161. I expect the hunt club members to come out the winners again and the loser will be the DYI nonresident that is unwilling to pay the extra 300 dollars.

Outfitters and hunting clubs bidding for leases sounds a lot like free market basics. If $300 is the difference between affording to hunt out of state or not I don’t think you should be in the game.

not to be a smart ass but why should the average Joe Montanan care what it costs if there are people willing to pony up the cash to play tag lottery?

I can’t understand why so many people want to pay what they do now for the quality of critters we manage for but it’s their money not mine.

nemont

 

[antlerradar]

Outfitters and hunting clubs bidding for leases sounds a lot like free market basics. If $300 is the difference between affording to hunt out of state or not I don’t think you should be in the game.

not to be a smart ass but why should the average Joe Montanan care what it costs if there are people willing to pony up the cash to play tag lottery?

I can’t understand why so many people want to pay what they do now for the quality of critters we manage for but it’s their money not mine.

nemont

Again I don't disagree.
I can not remember how much prices were raised with I-161 but I don't think it was much more than 300 dollars. With I-161 the nonresidents that were willing to pay were unencumbered by the inability to draw a limited number of tags for nearly ten years . Now that draw is again an issue we are again posed to raise the price again.
Nemont's last sentence is spot on. If we continue to raise tag prices and pound the quality of the critters on public land in time the only nonresidents that will be willing to pay for a tag will be the ones that are paying to hunt private land. This can only help the outfitters and club members. Again, back to my original conundrum. Why are people that are so against the outfitter tags willing to support polices that will get us to the outcome of tags for outfitters plus the hunt clubs.

 

[huntin24/7]

It was really disappointing to reopen this thread after 16 hours and see no new schaff vs. big shooter content. I’d like one those stickers for my reloading room by the way.

 

[SAJ-99]

Again I don't disagree.
I can not remember how much prices were raised with I-161 but I don't think it was much more than 300 dollars. With I-161 the nonresidents that were willing to pay were unencumbered by the inability to draw a limited number of tags for nearly ten years . Now that draw is again an issue we are again posed to raise the price again.
Nemont's last sentence is spot on. If we continue to raise tag prices and pound the quality of the critters on public land in time the only nonresidents that will be willing to pay for a tag will be the ones that are paying to hunt private land. This can only help the outfitters and club members. Again, back to my original conundrum. Why are people that are so against the outfitter tags willing to support polices that will get us to the outcome of tags for outfitters plus the hunt clubs.

Very good question. I'm not totally against outfitter tags. I am against the outfitter tag system handing FWP $300 and telling telling them where that money can and cannot be spent. I also don't like the way MOGA wields its power.

Not surprisingly, it seems people on this site are against leasing. Outfitters are just a part of that. A lot of leases are done by private individuals. I think the best thing that could happen this legislative session is to up the Block Managment max to $25k to make it more competitive.

 

[Big Shooter]

Very good question. I'm not totally against outfitter tags. I am against the outfitter tag system handing FWP $300 and telling telling them where that money can and cannot be spent. I also don't like the way MOGA wields its power.

Not surprisingly, it seems people on this site are against leasing. Outfitters are just a part of that. A lot of leases are done by private individuals. I think the best thing that could happen this legislative session is to up the Block Managment max to $25k to make it more competitive.

I have a hard time agreeing that the cap on BM should be raised for the fact that it’s not a “Management” program. I’m no saying it shouldn’t exist, but there needs to be management involved in “Block Management”. Just my opinion.

 

[SAJ-99]

I have a hard time agreeing that the cap on BM should be raised for the fact that it’s not a “Management” program. I’m no saying it shouldn’t exist, but there needs to be management involved in “Block Management”. Just my opinion.

I'm confused by the arguement that the cap shouldn't be raised because of that. Of course there is management. Managment of the system and of the program. Signing up landowners, putting up boxes, printing maps, putting all that on the internet. Are you talking about management of the wildlife or the reservation system? Interestingly, the technical definition in Block Management is that the payment is to compensate the landowner for the impact the hunters have on the land. It is NOT for access. (Too many lawyers must have been involved in writing that definition.). If you want to increase land to hunt, it has to worth it for the landowner. I don't think there should even be a cap.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I have a hard time agreeing that the cap on BM should be raised for the fact that it’s not a “Management” program. I’m no saying it shouldn’t exist, but there needs to be management involved in “Block Management”. Just my opinion.

The BM program and it’s implementation on a property is almost entirely controlled by the landowner. Except for payments which is controlled by the legislature which, when it comes to F&G, is controlled by MOGA. Muck FOGA for sure. MOGA doesn’t want to raise the BM cap. We’ve seen how they feel about competition. They’ll just legislate it out of existence.

 

[BuzzH]

I have a hard time agreeing that the cap on BM should be raised for the fact that it’s not a “Management” program. I’m no saying it shouldn’t exist, but there needs to be management involved in “Block Management”. Just my opinion.

Of course you don't like increasing the cap...you want your lease fees to stay low.

I think the market should be competitive and Block payments should be high enough to compete with outfitter leases.

It's hilarious watching MOGA do everything they can to keep hunting from being anything but a fair market and capitalistic in nature. Outfitter sponsored welfare all the way around...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Of course you don't like increasing the cap...you want your lease fees to stay low.

I think the market should be competitive and Block payments should be high enough to compete with outfitter leases.

It's hilarious watching MOGA do everything they can to keep hunting from being anything but a fair market and capitalistic in nature. Outfitter sponsored welfare all the way around...

Greg Gianforte & the Legislative majority are currently taking over 15 million dollars from FWP that could have helped free up the General License Account to make the bolded part of Buzz's insightful post happen.

So, MT has that going for it as well.

 

[Big Shooter]

I'm confused by the arguement that the cap shouldn't be raised because of that. Of course there is management. Managment of the system and of the program. Signing up landowners, putting up boxes, printing maps, putting all that on the internet. Are you talking about management of the wildlife or the reservation system? Interestingly, the technical definition in Block Management is that the payment is to compensate the landowner for the impact the hunters have on the land. It is NOT for access. (Too many lawyers must have been involved in writing that definition.). If you want to increase land to hunt, it has to worth it for the landowner. I don't think there should even be a cap.

I was referring to the management of the resource, I should have clarified that.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I am finding myself agreeing with Big Shooter on this one.



The public, average Joe/Jane hunter, has access to the open public lands and also has limited access to the privately held lands. Increasing the dollars may gain additional access to the private or across it via easement to inaccessible public, but until there is actual MANAGEMENT for the wildlife, the issue is moot!



I can not support raising the caps for the Block Management program unless it is coupled with some real WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.



Quote from our FWP’s website:



“Montana has some of the longest hunting seasons in the West, healthy herds of game and access to millions of acres of public and private land. Montana wildlife managers structure seasons to provide a wide variety of hunting experiences with a strong emphasis on sustainable opportunity.”



My issue with the first sentence is that the “healthy herds” are NOT located on the public lands of Montana throughout our “longest hunting seasons in the West”!



My issue with the second sentence is that there is NOTHING sustainable about our current “Wildlife Management” that is geared only toward hunting OPPORTUNITY.

 

[TheJason]

Part of the issue with Block Management is simply not enough of it for hunter dispersal. Part of the reason for not having more Block Management for dispersal is the low maximum cap.

 

[antlerradar]

Very good question. I'm not totally against outfitter tags. I am against the outfitter tag system handing FWP $300 and telling telling them where that money can and cannot be spent. I also don't like the way MOGA wields its power.

Not surprisingly, it seems people on this site are against leasing. Outfitters are just a part of that. A lot of leases are done by private individuals. I think the best thing that could happen this legislative session is to up the Block Managment max to $25k to make it more competitive.

I have a hard time agreeing that the cap on BM should be raised for the fact that it’s not a “Management” program. I’m no saying it shouldn’t exist, but there needs to be management involved in “Block Management”. Just my opinion.

I agree with both, The cap needs to be increased as this is needed for those landowners that are receiving max payment, but if the only way a landowner can increases his payment is to add a boat load of more hunter days we are going to have issues.

 

[SAJ-99]

I am finding myself agreeing with Big Shooter on this one.



The public, average Joe/Jane hunter, has access to the open public lands and also has limited access to the privately held lands. Increasing the dollars may gain additional access to the private or across it via easement to inaccessible public, but until there is actual MANAGEMENT for the wildlife, the issue is moot!



I can not support raising the caps for the Block Management program unless it is coupled with some real WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.



Quote from our FWP’s website:



“Montana has some of the longest hunting seasons in the West, healthy herds of game and access to millions of acres of public and private land. Montana wildlife managers structure seasons to provide a wide variety of hunting experiences with a strong emphasis on sustainable opportunity.”



My issue with the first sentence is that the “healthy herds” are NOT located on the public lands of Montana throughout our “longest hunting seasons in the West”!



My issue with the second sentence is that there is NOTHING sustainable about our current “Wildlife Management” that is geared only toward hunting OPPORTUNITY.

You are framing a choice that doesn’t exist. Block Management is a program under which landowners give the public hunter access and in return are compensated for the groups potential impact on the landowner’s property. Wildlife management is a different division of FWP. You either want access or your don’t. You can say you want access AND you want to be guaranteed that the species you are hunting is on that land the day you show up. Hire an outfitter for that.

 

[timmy]

Public and private lands that are accessible can’t handle the current season structure and hunter numbers. Only way to fix the problem is to change the way we are doing stuff. That won’t be popular with public hunters or outfitters, opportunity would have to be decreased or shifted with multiple shorter seasons. The likelihood of this happening is close to zero. Now let’s keep fighting over bills that do nothing to address the real issues.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You are framing a choice that doesn’t exist. Block Management is a program under which landowners give the public hunter access and in return are compensated for the groups potential impact on the landowner’s property. Wildlife management is a different division of FWP. You either want access or your don’t. You can say you want access AND you want to be guaranteed that the species you are hunting is on that land the day you show up. Hire an outfitter for that.

To build on this sentiment. Management on BMA’s is in harmony with the rest of FWP’s philosophy across the state. Opportunity. The quality of that opportunity is directly affected by the legislatively mandated requirements for wildlife (elk especially) to be kept at or under objective (set and defined by landowners’ tolerance not carrying capacity).
Trying to improve hunter’s experiences by playing a game where other interests define the rules and set the terms is expecting a rigged game to have a good outcome.

We are trying to play football with tennis racquets and hockey sticks. It’s no wonder we can only shoot three pointers.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree with both, The cap needs to be increased as this is needed for those landowners that are receiving max payment, but if the only way a landowner can increases his payment is to add a boat load of more hunter days we are going to have issues.

BM is a strange economic experiment. The payment isn’t made directly by hunters. The landowner controls the capacity. There is no way for the hunter to increase the payment or the landowner to charge more, so you never figure out the elasticity of supply or demand. I agree with your conclusions, but I don’t see an easy solution. I also wonder how many landowners hit the $15,000 cap. I know a few that probably did.

 

[SAJ-99]

Public and private lands that are accessible can’t handle the current season structure and hunter numbers. Only way to fix the problem is to change the way we are doing stuff. That won’t be popular with public hunters or outfitters, opportunity would have to be decreased or shifted with multiple shorter seasons. The likelihood of this happening is close to zero. Now let’s keep fighting over bills that do nothing to address the real issues.

Your solution is to ask hunters to change to a system where they don't get to hunt. I'd say the chances are less than zero.

 

[timmy]

Your solution is to ask hunters to change to a system where they don't get to hunt. I'd say the chances are less than zero.

If a hunter cared about the resource they would do it. It’s not realistic to expect to do what we do every single year. Name another state that allows this. Luckily for you this will never happen. In 10 years or so you may look back and say huh we didn’t go about this right. Montana does not need to be the toilet bowl for western hunting. We choose to keep it that way.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If a hunter cared about the resource they would do it. It’s not realistic to expect to do what we do every single year. Name another state that allows this. Luckily for you this will never happen. In 10 years or so you may look back and say huh we didn’t go about this right. Montana does not need to be the toilet bowl for western hunting. We choose to keep it that way.

Have you ever attended a FWP public meeting?
Good luck getting the status quo “gimme” mentality to change so good management policies are preferred rather than wanting it all without sacrificing anything.