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

[BuzzH]

I have no dog in this fight but I think zero is not absolutely true. From the time the client arrives and leaves doesn't the outfitter have to buy all of the supplies to keep them there therefore spending money in the local economy?

Yeah, like the WY outfitters do that are close to Billings, Montana...Costco for the win and profit margin.

Just exactly how much outfitters care about local economies...

I don't want to just pick on outfitters, local coffee shop owner here, past city council member as well. Whining and bitching about how bad chain stores are and how we need to support local businesses.

Went in to take a leak in the bathroom at the coffee shop in question...all paper products from, you guessed it, coscto. Nice to see such strong support of the local economy.

I'd drink out of a mud puddle before I ever buy another cup of coffee there.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

We can go back and forth until the end of time on who contributes more to the local economy, a DIY NR hunter or a guided NR hunter. I tend to agree that a DIY hunter contributes more across the board to local businesses while the guided hunter just contributes to the outfitters bottom line. However, no one here is saying you CANT use an outfitter, they are just saying you shouldn’t receive preference in the draw by using one. No one is saying going guided is bad or wrong. It’s a simple concept that any red-blooded American should understand, just allow NR hunters to decide on whether to use an outfitter or not based on their preference and the merits of both.

 

[Shangobango]

We can go back and forth until the end of time on who contributes more to the local economy, a DIY NR hunter or a guided NR hunter. I tend to agree that a DIY hunter contributes more across the board to local businesses while the guided hunter just contributes to the outfitters bottom line. However, no one here is saying you CANT use an outfitter, they are just saying you shouldn’t receive preference in the draw by using one. No one is saying going guided is bad or wrong. It’s a simple concept that any red-blooded American should understand, just allow NR hunters to decide on whether to use an outfitter or not based on their preference and the merits of both.

Don’t go muddying the waters with common sense man.

 

[Eric Albus]

I just can’t believe that is the case.

You must have found a group of tightwads to talk to

I had about 800 dollars worth of license in my pocket with a deer combo, a deer B, and a turkey tag. How in the heck could the average hunter stay somewhere for 7 to 14 days and not spend any more than 400 bucks on fuel, snacks, the odd restaurant meal, etc?

I guess I can see it if someone is doing a strict backcountry style hunt and only stopping on the way in and out.

I think I said it before but I really need to reassess my spending habits while traveling if I am spending that much more than average.

I’ve talked to about 60-80 different NR DIY guys over last 3-4 yrs to find out what their total expenditures are

 

[Eric Albus]

I have no dog in this fight but I think zero is not absolutely true. From the time the client arrives and leaves doesn't the outfitter have to buy all of the supplies to keep them there therefore spending money in the local economy?

BINGO!

 

[Wildabeest]

I’ve talked with dozens of DIY guys, they spend on average $1200-2000 on their hunt to Montana counting license.

You need to get out more.

 

[Wildabeest]

Static industry.

You don’t seriously believe that do you? The “industry” has undergone drastic change, especially as it relates to demand. The only thing that’s remained static is the number of NR tags issued. Except for this year where y’all got your extra beggars handout. Why shouldn’t you have to deal with the same supply and demand issues that DIY hunters do? What makes you so “special”?

 

[JLS]

Unfortunately, the small ball thinking that comes along with Eric’s analysis is the fact it doesn’t take into account other trips that DIY guys might make during the course of the year. Last time I had a license in Montana, I made about four trips out including archery, rifle, bird hunting, and a summer scouting/fishing trip. I guaran-damn-tee it was way more than $148-$800 I had into the trips total.

Heck, the repair bill for my Dodge when I had to get it fixed in Helena was about 750 bucks alone that went to the local economy.

If it’s all about the money, and what you can do for the states economy, maybe FWP should just have its own visa reward card and when you spend a certain number of dollars in the state of MT you get a guaranteed tag. None of this subsidy bullshit for one specific occupation.

 

[Gerald Martin]

All the back and forth about who spends more doesn’t satisfy my question about whether we believe access to a public trust resource should be on the basis of who contributes the most economically.

Personally, I think that for public trust resources giving preference to whoever contributes the most money is a slippery slope that has far reaching consequences.

I wondered if the outfitters making the argument for preference for their clients getting licenses are going to like it if another industry makes a more compelling financial argument than they can and end up taking priority over outfitters?

 

[Shangobango]

Personally, I think that for public trust resources giving preference to whoever contributes the most money is a slippery slope that has far reaching consequences.

I couldn’t agree more.

The slope gets even more slippery when the case being made for who is contributing more is questionable at best, at least it would seem so to me.

 

[mtmuley]

I wondered if the outfitters making the argument for preference for their clients getting licenses are going to like it if another industry makes a more compelling financial argument than they can and end up taking priority over outfitters?

What industry? mtmuley

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

These same tired arguments are as old today as they were 90-days ago and ten years ago when the Montana voters spoke:

First and foremost, I agree with Gerald that the question of "who spends more?" is completely irrelevant. If this were our standard, we would just auction the tags, but we don't because anyone who has spent 5 minutes studying the history of hunting in America realizes that the idea of the commercialization of the public resource leads to its destruction. I don't have to speculate, it actually happened. It is the reason that one of the key tenets of the North American Wildlife Recovery model is to avoid this.

That said, to unpack the recent attempts to justify the unjustifiable:

The argument that only outfitters depend on the current tag system is demonstrably false. Hotels, restaurants, vrbo owners, campgrounds, grocery stores, gas stations, convenience store owners all depend on out of state visitors, including hunters. These businesses are better off when the winner of the drawn tag does not hire a guide. To the question asked earlier - the money may end up in the local economy, but the government has now decided where in the local economy the consumer is permitted to spend their money, this seems wrong to me and antithetical to the ballot measure passed by the citizens of Montana. When the government overrules the will of the people, people should and are paying attention.

This bill is a government hand out that helps some small businesses at the expense of others, it is the government picking winners and losers which is the exact opposite of the promises made during the campaign and a free market system, even one operating within a system where supply is regulated by the govt (for those interested there are a lot of these, the best examples I know of is (a) taxi medallions in some large cities - people are still allowed to take the bus or trains in those places, they are not forced to hire taxi, or (b) liquor licenses don't require me to pay a person to pour my drink, I can also go the liquor store and buy a bottle and pour it myself). The idea that this is some unheard of or even mildly unique situation that requires government intervention is also demonstrably false. This is a kickback to political donors, nothing more.

The government is absolutely forcing people to hire a guide if they want a tag. In this case, the government has specifically said to the public, if you tried to hire a guide and failed in the draw, you and only you are now eligible for a tag, therefore, if one of those 3,000 people wants to hunt here, the government is forcing them to hire an outfitter. If you did not try to hire a guide, you are not eligible. No amount of fantasy math, or mental gymnastic changes this.

The attempt to now label those who oppose this as socialist is the most foul stench of desperation yet in this thread and speaks volumes about the lack of merits in the underlying argument. When all else fails, call the other side names, bonus points if the proper response is, "I know you are but what am I?".

 

[Gerald Martin]

What industry? mtmuley

Take your pick. I am opposed to preference by economic contribution but if we are going that route why shouldn’t my construction company get some of the cut?

NR tags would be a sweet cherry for wealthy clients wanting to build a vacation home.

 

[Big Shooter]

I have no dog in this fight but I think zero is not absolutely true. From the time the client arrives and leaves doesn't the outfitter have to buy all of the supplies to keep them there therefore spending money in the local economy?

Great point! That’s what these guys can’t get their minds wrapped around.

 

[Eric Albus]

Unfortunately, the small ball thinking that comes along with Eric’s analysis is the fact it doesn’t take into account other trips that DIY guys might make during the course of the year. Last time I had a license in Montana, I made about four trips out including archery, rifle, bird hunting, and a summer scouting/fishing trip. I guaran-damn-tee it was way more than $148-$800 I had into the trips total.

Heck, the repair bill for my Dodge when I had to get it fixed in Helena was about 750 bucks alone that went to the local economy.

If it’s all about the money, and what you can do for the states economy, maybe FWP should just have its own visa reward card and when you spend a certain number of dollars in the state of MT you get a guaranteed tag. None of this subsidy bullshit for one specific occupation.

There are always exceptions to every case. In yours I don’t doubt you spend more than the average.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think I can concede that in total the NR outfitted client spends more $ than the NR DIY. If you subtract the amount paid to the outfitter that advantage larger disappears, but there is some trickle down from the outfitter to local businesses (and national chains). The difference isn’t nearly as large as the study suggests but there is some positive benefit, especially in the rural areas.

I also concede that MT outfitters are competing with other states for NR, big spending clients. If clients can go to NM or WY then MT outfitter ends up “losing” that client and has replace them. That is the nature of a competitive business. An economic argument can be made here, but I doubt anyone in the legislature or MOGA could build it given they cry about the complexity of the point system. I argue that for every NR you lose there is a potential client to take their place but you have to find them. Consequently outfitters should argue that the NR DIY spends a lot of money with very low success rates. That makes the outfitter fee more palatable.

But the people of Montana already decided this. As @Gerald Martin and @Andrew Posewitz point out, it is an issue of selling a limited resource held for all citizens. We might as well auction the NR licenses and use the money for things that benefit R hunters rather than just benefitting the few in a single industry. I suspect Montana voters will have to make their voice heard again. It seems MOGAs view on R hunters is “let them eat cake”.

 

[Derek44]

There are always exceptions to every case. In yours I don’t doubt you spend more than the average.

So should we make an exception to the ruling for the “exceptions”?? Maybe if one showed on paper how much they spent in MT on the previous year they could get moved farther ahead in line for a tag. We could just use that model for everyone. A preference point system, but your preference points are the dollar amount spent. That would fix this filthy little problem of all those tight wad DIYers.

 

[WIbiggame]

Does my money count if I have a Stone Glacier pack (Made in Bozeman), Stone glacier clothing, Black Gold Site (Belgrade), Sitka clothes (bozeman headquarters), FHF binoharnes (Belgrade), Montana Bow Sling (Belgrade), Schnee boots (bozeman), Montana Canvas wall tent (Belgrade)??

Because I am sure the trickle down economics from those companies throughout the state are HUGE!!

 

[golfer]

Does my money count if I have a Stone Glacier pack (Made in Bozeman), Stone glacier clothing, Black Gold Site (Belgrade), Sitka clothes (bozeman headquarters), FHF binoharnes (Belgrade), Montana Bow Sling (Belgrade), Schnee boots (bozeman), Montana Canvas wall tent (Belgrade)??

Because I am sure the trickle down economics from those companies throughout the state are HUGE!!

So how does this get calculated if you hunt more than Montana? I get what your trying to prove, but most of those items will be used many times in many states so I’m curious how it should count? I’d say count it if you sell it after your hunt.

 

[Lyfter1013]

Does my money count if I have a Stone Glacier pack (Made in Bozeman), Stone glacier clothing, Black Gold Site (Belgrade), Sitka clothes (bozeman headquarters), FHF binoharnes (Belgrade), Montana Bow Sling (Belgrade), Schnee boots (bozeman), Montana Canvas wall tent (Belgrade)??

Because I am sure the trickle down economics from those companies throughout the state are HUGE!!

Not good enough for @Eric Albus none of those funded the struggling outfitters