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

[Mtnhunter1]

Ouch,,,,,,,, that puts me just on the wrong side of your line. Not to worry too much, I haven't hunted deer east of Billings in a long time.

Now I might like a line where anyone east of say Laurel is a non resident concerning elk tags.

In order to be 100% equitable, you must use Lewistown to center the dividing lines...

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

I don't hate outfitters. I applaud any small business person trying to make a living for their family. It's completely legal so no issues at all. I also respect Eric Albus for sticking it out on this forum. I don't think any private land will magically open up without outfitters like Eric. Their success is a big key to getting more land rolled in to the Block Program. Someone just needs to make a proposal that makes sense. $200 for a guaranteed NR combo tag ain't gonna have the impact required so it's a nonstarter, at least for me. It really needs to be about 10x that amount or more with a hard cap on availability not to exceed current tag quota. BUT there are others on here who do not want any sort of guarantee, period end of story, no matter the price. I respect that opinion just as I respect Eric's.

As sportsmen and women, residents and non residents alike, we must wake up to the fact that we must fix our own shit so as to prevent the knuckleheads in Helena from trying to do it for us. The biggest, mind blowingly dumb comment I heard out of this legislative session was with regard to HB505 "we can give it a try for a year and fix it later if it doesn't work" That's not legislation that's a kindergarten science experiment. That right there explains why this state is so messed up in so many ways.

was there a sunset clause in the bill? If not, can you get them to put one in as a compromise?

 

[timmy]

In order to be 100% equitable, you must use Lewistown to center the dividing lines...

View attachment 182496

I like this everyone stay on your side of the state! Haha

 

[sacountry]

Copy & Paste from the letter to our Gov:

View attachment 182495

If your looking for a Club, Group, Association or Foundation to support? This list might be a place to begin.....at least to get the signature process stated.

It certainly feels like momentum is building against the bill.

 

[sacountry]

was there a sunset clause in the bill? If not, can you get them to put one in as a compromise?

There wasn't a sunset clause. HB505 was a different beast but it didn't make it's way out of committee so it never made it's way to the the governors desk.

 

[mtmuley]

I like this everyone stay on your side of the state! Haha

Yeah, the West side is crowded and all the mule deer are gone. mtmuley

 

[sacountry]

In order to be 100% equitable, you must use Lewistown to center the dividing lines...

View attachment 182496

Is that the projected 2030 House Rep districting lines? And I thought our national debt calculator was out of control.

 

[Hem]

I like this everyone stay on your side of the state! Haha

Yep..but you East guys might be thinking snow country when this years drought really starts to kick your butt.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ben, come on. I can see your point, to a degree, of giving privilege to folks wishing to use the service of an outfitter over those who wish to DIY. Is this fair, probably not, but then I've always been told, "life ain't fair". Was it fair to myself and many other outfitters in the state who paid large sums of money to acquire their NCHU, only to have a ballot initiative take it away? (and I won't go into the signature gathering crap that happened to get it to ballot) That cost many of us 100's of thousands in value. Did we whine? Did we sue the state? No.

637, is this what I wanted? No. I can see problems with it. It needs some sideboards put on it, sooner than later. You stated in a thread somewhere not to long ago that it was not us who broke the trust. So maybe all concerned parties need to sit down, catch their breathe and come to an accord.

Look at some of the positive to come with this bill, like the money for access. The programs it will fund directly compete with outfitters for access. Some of the landowners have been offered huge money with the PAL program, far more than any outfitter could, would, or should pay for access. So both you, Ben and Rod have all lightly touched on one of the very largest (Contractual) breaks that MOGA committed. Yes there was millions of dollars raised do to the OSL, then the very entity that conned us into allowing 5500 more NR hunters to hunt Montana, fought tooth and nail to keep that money from being used to purchase lands outright.

Glad you finally brought this to light.

Thanks!

 

[Mtnhunter1]

It certainly feels like momentum is building against the bill.

It's always good to have hope but I believe that our Gov's signature is "Baked in the cake" on this one.

If you look through all the proposed bills, easements, replacing board members, landowner elk tags, commission picks, etc, etc.....you will see a trend of gaining control of our wildlife for $$$......and the middle finger to all the nonresident DIY hunters.

 

[Eric Albus]

If the Gov't provides you with the product necessary to do business while taking it away from someone else, that's crony capitalism at best, and plain old socialism for a supported class in reality. Embrace your socialist roots, Eric.

And MOGA did whine & did sue. Then MOGA set about turning licensing code into a mess of epic proportions through the experimentation with various points schemes to try and get to where you are today: guaranteed tags. MOGA also tried to set seasons in statute in order to get back to the stranglehold on access to elk in some of those 22 bundled districts. There were countless proposals to increase permits in those districts, asks for FWP to break the law and issue unlimited licenses.

You say 637 has problems that need to be rectified - totally agree. But it was you who pushed this through, not resident & DIY nonresidents. This is a pattern that's been repeated for 20 years: Write really shitty laws because you can, then complain about how messed up FWP is without ever recognizing your own culpability in the mess.

Money for access isn't a problem. There's plenty for it, and it's not that difficult to get more. This session alone, there is $4 million for new access on the lower yellowstone, $8 million more for Habitat MT through the weed money & an increase in allocation, more for maintenance & we've grown access programs in spite of a lack of effort from groups like yours. Dangling the carrot of access while we already have a bushel full in those programs is disingenuous.

But this is how MT works: Bad ideas come forward during the session, get passed into law, then the same people who got them passed immediately start to undermine those laws and demand more changes. HB 637 steals $1 million from landowners who engage in the Upland Game Bird Habitat program to stock pheasants on WMA's. It undermines the good work MOGA did on the lion handling issue in 2017 & 2019 because you saw the ability to line your own pockets. Now Lion outfitters in NW MT got screwed out of quality hunting in favor of killing more lions and opportunity for NR Landowners to run dogs & host hunting parties on their own land, and public land too.

But it's cool, because your gov't cheese was in there. Efff everyone else. So when the initiative comes to undo this all, remember that life isn't fair, and you shouldn't whine or sue.

Glad you finally brought this to light.

Thanks!

I don’t mind the money to purchase outright, as long as there is No Net Gain.

 

[Eric Albus]

Yep..but you East guys might be thinking snow country when this years drought really starts to kick your butt.

We’ve had it kicked by drought before, like most of my life.

 

[Hem]

We’ve had it kicked by drought before, like most of my life.

Going to be tough for the entire state if the next 6 -8 weeks are dry.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Copy & Paste from the letter to our Gov:

View attachment 182495

If your looking for a Club, Group, Association or Foundation to support? This list might be a place to begin.....at least to get the signature process stated.

That, vs. the governor being personal friends with a past president of MOGA. I can tell you with 110% certainty how this will end up.

 

[sacountry]

Copy & Paste from the letter to our Gov:

That, vs. the governor being personal friends with a past president of MOGA. I can tell you with 110% certainty how this will end up.

 

[shoots-straight]

I don’t mind the money to purchase outright, as long as there is No Net Gain.

That was never the deal. There you have it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If No Net Gain is added to this thread, we're going for another 100 pages.

 

[shoots-straight]

If No Net Gain is added to this thread, we're going for another 100 pages.

It's funny they dangled the carrot to increase lands available to hunt on, but OH BTW, you can't increase the amount of lands available? Come on man!!!!

 

[Gerald Martin]

The first rule of the game is that one constituency is allowed to change the rules if they don’t like the rules.
Second rule is other affected parties are unreasonable for not agreeing with rule #1.
Third rule is the “resource” is the businesses that exploit wildlife, not the wildlife.
Fourth rule is that some industries are more deserving of others for government support and protection. They work harder, provide more and their interests should be approved of and appreciated by everyone.
Failure to agree is proof you don’t love Mom, apple pie, guns, or ‘Merica.

 

[Big Shooter]

Oh

Going to be tough for the entire state if the next 6 -8 weeks are dry.

Oh boy!! I bet we get the moisture. I’m an optimist.