Schaaf
Well-known member
Big difference between citizens of the state and the state government entity. Wildlife are not like State Trust lands where they’re required to be managed for revenue.
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Agreed.
If an artificial token we call money is the priority of how we measure value for water, air, wildlife, and natural resources then a huge wake up call is in order.
How much money do I need to pay to dump all the raw sewage from Big Sky Resort into the Gallatin River without treating it?
$5 per trout that dies? We could pack a bunch more folks on the ski hill and in the motels if we could lower the cost of operations. That’s good for all Montana, right?
T
tjones
Guest
I never said wildlife are like state trust lands. However, if we have to deal with NR I am of the opinion that guided hunters should have preferential treatment to SOME degree based on the fact they contribute more to the state economy.
FWIW the sneaky, back handed way the 3000 tags thing got passed I do not agree with at all. I also don't agree with the 3K being in addition to the 17K already sold. To be clear.
It seems to me that much of the dislike of the outfitting industry is pure class warfare and envy. Like people resent that others have the money to go on a guided hunt. This doesn't hold water to me at all given that a NR hunt is a luxury in the first place and if one can afford a DIY NR hunt they are not doing to bad income wise. Heck, people pay similar money to an outfitted hunt to sit on a beach and gorge on cheap food and booze in a third world country and no one views that through the class warfare lense.
Mtnhunter1
Well-known member
Got it.....Thanks
Schaaf
Well-known member
I’m not jealous of the 140” mule deer MT outfitters have posted on their website.
RobertD
Well-known member
What? That's like the prime example of something people view through a "class warfare lens." Lol
It's got nothing to do with money buying a hunt, the issue is "buying" preference in tag allocation. I don't care if someone wants to go guided, hell it beats someone deciding not to hunt at all. Just want fair allocation of tags: Residents come first, then non-residents, with no distinction or preference offered to separate groups within those two groups.
shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,577
128 pages and over 2500 comments. If we boil this down to the opposing views, has anyone changed their mind about this whole issue?
I do think it raised awareness to act on an issue that otherwise slid under the radar. I also have to think it opened a few eyes to the opposing declaration that their intent helps "Resident" hunters. Using their logic - it does.. to some small degree. To some in Montana fed up with outside MT plates... that's enough to support the Outfitter agenda.
This thread has exposed many adverse actions to our system by the Outfitter's intent. So in a sense, I would say it has changed or at least opened eyes.
As for the pissing match whether Outfitters deserve legislative mandated clients while they are the first to whine over government involvement in their business - and that flat out hypocritical thesis of their argument, well, mind my apparently hasn't changed.
T
tjones
Guest
Well it made you post.
You could pull out one of your fancy old rifles, go shoot a porcupine, take a photo and then post it up here?
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
We haven't seen that moose for about 30 minutes, that would work too.
shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,577
BuzzH
Well-known member
What about that "wild" cow? Seems shy to post that one again...
BuzzH
Well-known member
SAJ-99
Well-known member
But they aren't citizens of that state.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Credit for leaning into the caricature, that is for sure.
- Status
