Sounds like they are using Idaho regs as a model.
Outfitter leased lands in Montana FYI
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
Sounds like they are using Idaho regs as a model.
WEB, good luck. MOGA doesn't respond well to public requests if at all.
Just returned from Helena and its getting ugly. Sportsmen are getting stomped on, mostly by the R's. They have been strongly infiltrated by MOGA and sister group SFW.
HB 511 has not gone down. It still has to go thru exec. action. We have a very small window of opportunity to win. The bill, by Rep. Bill McChesney on behalf of MSA, changes the board of Outfitters from 4 outfitters, 2 sportsmen, and 1 at large to 3 sportsmen, 3 outfitters, and 1 at large (be sure and thank McChesney for having the balls to stand up for sportsmen.)
They are valuable service providers but do not own the resource....the public does. Why shouldn't we have at least equal representation and what would it hurt. The board has been a joke for years. Outfitters breaking the law receive nothing but a slap on the hand, if that. They have not policed themselves. Is there no limits to nos. of outfitters on private lands? And then wanting more NR licenses? See above map, which we will no longer be able to get if Ed Greef's bill HB 274 passes. It removes nearly all reporting requirements for the Board of Outfitters (BOO). The Root should be embarrassed by Ed's bill.
There are also a couple bills increasing the % of Non-resident share of licenses and permits. One up to 35% and one up to 15%...once again thank you MOGA. Folks, are you going to weigh in?
A few of us in Helena can not turn the tide. It will take a massive number of sportsmen contacting legislators to do any good. If you don't like the idea of "Ranching for Wildlife", its long past time to get involved.
Just returned from Helena and its getting ugly. Sportsmen are getting stomped on, mostly by the R's. They have been strongly infiltrated by MOGA and sister group SFW.
HB 511 has not gone down. It still has to go thru exec. action. We have a very small window of opportunity to win. The bill, by Rep. Bill McChesney on behalf of MSA, changes the board of Outfitters from 4 outfitters, 2 sportsmen, and 1 at large to 3 sportsmen, 3 outfitters, and 1 at large (be sure and thank McChesney for having the balls to stand up for sportsmen.)
They are valuable service providers but do not own the resource....the public does. Why shouldn't we have at least equal representation and what would it hurt. The board has been a joke for years. Outfitters breaking the law receive nothing but a slap on the hand, if that. They have not policed themselves. Is there no limits to nos. of outfitters on private lands? And then wanting more NR licenses? See above map, which we will no longer be able to get if Ed Greef's bill HB 274 passes. It removes nearly all reporting requirements for the Board of Outfitters (BOO). The Root should be embarrassed by Ed's bill.
There are also a couple bills increasing the % of Non-resident share of licenses and permits. One up to 35% and one up to 15%...once again thank you MOGA. Folks, are you going to weigh in?
A few of us in Helena can not turn the tide. It will take a massive number of sportsmen contacting legislators to do any good. If you don't like the idea of "Ranching for Wildlife", its long past time to get involved.
chuckyd313
New member
Sorry to interupt but this is my 100th post. Ive never been to a site this great to hold my interest long enough to keep posting this long. Thanks Big Fin and all the rest of you guys for making this site the best there is.
webejmn
New member
She sent a map also!
Probably invading their airspace
That made me laugh.....nice.
I will see if the fellow who did the corner crossing mapping can do this overlay.
Also, it should be noted that there are three bills moving forward with MOGA support.
SB 260 which would give nonresidents up to 35% of the tags to hunt large predators. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/SB0260.htm
HB 418 which would give nonresidents 15% of the tags for big game species and make it unlimted if all residents are drawn. The sponsor is Bill Harris the outfitter. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0418.htm
LC 0943 which would add 1500 nonresident tags only valid in wilderness areas. Forget the fact we have not sold out the last two years, they still want more tags. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/lchtml/LC0943.htm
In 2012, Montana issued 17,675 nonresident elk tags and 24,215 non resident deer tags. These tags provide the opportunity to hunt for 11 weeks, not the 5-10 days most other western states offer. Only Colorado gives out more nonresident elk tags (5 day seasons) and only Wyoming gives out more non resident deer tags.
Seems like Montana offers nonresident hunters the best opportunites with the longest seasons and yet MOGA feels that it is not enough.
Also, it should be noted that there are three bills moving forward with MOGA support.
SB 260 which would give nonresidents up to 35% of the tags to hunt large predators. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/SB0260.htm
HB 418 which would give nonresidents 15% of the tags for big game species and make it unlimted if all residents are drawn. The sponsor is Bill Harris the outfitter. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0418.htm
LC 0943 which would add 1500 nonresident tags only valid in wilderness areas. Forget the fact we have not sold out the last two years, they still want more tags. http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/lchtml/LC0943.htm
In 2012, Montana issued 17,675 nonresident elk tags and 24,215 non resident deer tags. These tags provide the opportunity to hunt for 11 weeks, not the 5-10 days most other western states offer. Only Colorado gives out more nonresident elk tags (5 day seasons) and only Wyoming gives out more non resident deer tags.
Seems like Montana offers nonresident hunters the best opportunites with the longest seasons and yet MOGA feels that it is not enough.
And MOGA wonders why they get painted the way they do. Bills like those are prime examples. If that is not enough proof to resident hunters that their opportunities are being attacked, then I am not sure what more is needed.
They claim they want to sit at the table with resident hunters and work together. I wonder what hunters they sat at the table with when they came up with these bills, all of which, by any standard, are to their benefit and to the detriment of resident hunters.
Again, I am sure my pro-resident hunter position is going to be painted as anti-outfitter.
webejmn
New member
Oh god. I can see I'll be spending my time sending emails and such to tell these people to STOP THE INSANITY!!! K
Randy, it seems that being a resident hunter of Montana and standing up for ones self appears increasingly anti-outfitter. All the while these bills being introduced are seemingly anti-resident. I'm personally finding it pretty difficult to not feel anti-outfitter. mtmuley
It makes it very hard to build a relationship when only one side wants the relationship. I think most f us oare not anti outfitter or anti landowner but are, as Randy says, pro resident sportsmen. The bills that have come out this session are by and large, anti FWP and anti sportsmen. I was amazed at the number of requests for the map of outfitted lands and have sent it to everyone that requested.
I agree Ingomar, most of us are not anti outfitter or landowner but more and more of us are anti MOGA. My local sportsmen group is all landowners who are avid sportsmen. We are definitely pro public land outfitters.
The bills coming out of this session are very telling. MOGA never shows up on issues of FWP financial health, science based mgmt, antlerless mgmt, or animal health issues. They show up only with their hand out, trying to take more opportunity away from resident hunters. The 10% rule has been very generous on the part of residents. I will be supporting any effort to reduce that 10% because MOGA and their stooge Mac can't leave a fair deal alone.....I personally like a figure less than 5%.
The bills coming out of this session are very telling. MOGA never shows up on issues of FWP financial health, science based mgmt, antlerless mgmt, or animal health issues. They show up only with their hand out, trying to take more opportunity away from resident hunters. The 10% rule has been very generous on the part of residents. I will be supporting any effort to reduce that 10% because MOGA and their stooge Mac can't leave a fair deal alone.....I personally like a figure less than 5%.
webejmn
New member
IT IS!! And you are certainly welcome chuckyd313! And Thank You!!
webejmn
New member
Pierre, Sorry just read your response, You are right, figured you could join their site and PAY to get it. Seems logical don't it. But alas i can't find it and I assume if you call for it it wont be available anyway, unless you're an outfitter. There is supposed to be a new version submitted to FWP this month and then they will have it. What the hell is wrong with their program. Eric, you seem like a stand up guy, and those like you need to figure out the organizations agenda. Sure it works for you now but whats it going to do for you in the future. Personnally I would be worried and try to change from the inside while you can. If you don't it will all get screwed up for your living, and our recreation, food gathering! To me and I am sure other folks on this site, hunting is recreation. But it is also meat in the freezer, Food to share at special times and to live on. Anyway I have, as usual over extendended. Sleep well all!
This is some notes from MSA on HB 274
• The authority of the Board of Outfitters is based on the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
• The public resources that outfitters utilize in the course of their business and the public’s stake in those resources is considered to be part of the “…public welfare”.
• Although touted as a paperwork reduction effort, this bill essentially eliminates a broad range of requirements and standards for Montana hunting and fishing outfitters. One would think that the industry would want to uphold the highest professional standards.
• Notable in this bill is the elimination of “professional” guides.
• Also of note is that outfitters would no longer have to demonstrate proficiency in the wide range of outdoor skills, equipment, and safety training demanded by their profession (37-47-305: outfitter’s examination) in order to become licensed.
• 37-47-402 provides limited liability protection to outfitters yet, this bill basically drops demonstrable operational standards while retaining the liability protection (“…health, safety and welfare.”).
• The Board of Outfitters no longer has investigators who function in field situations. Instead, enforcement of statutes and rules is left to FWP Game Wardens. Yet, there remains a concerted effort to eliminate the basic reporting requirements necessary for wardens to be able to practically and effectively enforce those rules and regs.
• It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished.
• If lands that are leased are not formally reported, there will be no means to accurately evaluate the total acreage of private lands closed to public opportunity.
• The bill deletes the requirement that an outfitter or guide hold a conservation license. By doing so, a critical component to track a person’s legal status to engage in hunting or fishing is lost. If a person has had their hunting, fishing, trapping privileges suspended he/she may not be legally fit to serve as an outfitter or guide.
• Outfitters earn their living through the utilization of Montana’s publicly-held fish and wildlife resources. They need to be accountable for that use, ensuring that they use those resources legitimately, fairly and not at the expense of the non-outfitted public. This bill is a quantum leap in minimizing that accountability.
It seems maybe we should all be telling NR friends and relatives that booking with outfitters in Montana carries some real risks because the oversight on protection of public health, safety, and welfare will be nearly non existent if this bill passes.
• The authority of the Board of Outfitters is based on the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
• The public resources that outfitters utilize in the course of their business and the public’s stake in those resources is considered to be part of the “…public welfare”.
• Although touted as a paperwork reduction effort, this bill essentially eliminates a broad range of requirements and standards for Montana hunting and fishing outfitters. One would think that the industry would want to uphold the highest professional standards.
• Notable in this bill is the elimination of “professional” guides.
• Also of note is that outfitters would no longer have to demonstrate proficiency in the wide range of outdoor skills, equipment, and safety training demanded by their profession (37-47-305: outfitter’s examination) in order to become licensed.
• 37-47-402 provides limited liability protection to outfitters yet, this bill basically drops demonstrable operational standards while retaining the liability protection (“…health, safety and welfare.”).
• The Board of Outfitters no longer has investigators who function in field situations. Instead, enforcement of statutes and rules is left to FWP Game Wardens. Yet, there remains a concerted effort to eliminate the basic reporting requirements necessary for wardens to be able to practically and effectively enforce those rules and regs.
• It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished.
• If lands that are leased are not formally reported, there will be no means to accurately evaluate the total acreage of private lands closed to public opportunity.
• The bill deletes the requirement that an outfitter or guide hold a conservation license. By doing so, a critical component to track a person’s legal status to engage in hunting or fishing is lost. If a person has had their hunting, fishing, trapping privileges suspended he/she may not be legally fit to serve as an outfitter or guide.
• Outfitters earn their living through the utilization of Montana’s publicly-held fish and wildlife resources. They need to be accountable for that use, ensuring that they use those resources legitimately, fairly and not at the expense of the non-outfitted public. This bill is a quantum leap in minimizing that accountability.
It seems maybe we should all be telling NR friends and relatives that booking with outfitters in Montana carries some real risks because the oversight on protection of public health, safety, and welfare will be nearly non existent if this bill passes.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,671
Do you know why all those rules are in place? Most of the regulations were put in as a condition of the priviledge of the OSL...which thankfully is now gone. If I had my way there would be no guide license requirement, and if I could take it a step further...I would do away w/ the outfitter license requirement, but not to worry, that ain't happening......I suggested doing this, and was nearly burned at the stake.
First off, I do not know of anyone (i am sure there were a few issued though) who used the "professional guide license".... I looked into it...there was no benefit to get "professional guide status" for a guide...
"It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished."
We would still have to file an L-1 for private acreage used to outfit on, which would account for activities and acreage used...it would do away w/ having to write down every single mouse taken by a client though(that part is correct)...but we would still have to provide a log to the state of each hunter and their ALS#...so if FWP needed to investigate something they could contact the hunter....so accountability is still there and still transparent...nothing has been diminished...
If we needed to keep count of the bucks/ducks/does/mosquitoes for a good biological reason I would say by all means we must keep track...but there ain't no biological use of the information...it is used for purely punative measures only.
Do you really think that this bill carries any risk to "health, safety, and welfare of the public".. I am going to give you the benefit here... If you really do, wipe the kool-aid mustache off so I can take you serious...
First off, I do not know of anyone (i am sure there were a few issued though) who used the "professional guide license".... I looked into it...there was no benefit to get "professional guide status" for a guide...
"It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished."
We would still have to file an L-1 for private acreage used to outfit on, which would account for activities and acreage used...it would do away w/ having to write down every single mouse taken by a client though(that part is correct)...but we would still have to provide a log to the state of each hunter and their ALS#...so if FWP needed to investigate something they could contact the hunter....so accountability is still there and still transparent...nothing has been diminished...
If we needed to keep count of the bucks/ducks/does/mosquitoes for a good biological reason I would say by all means we must keep track...but there ain't no biological use of the information...it is used for purely punative measures only.
Do you really think that this bill carries any risk to "health, safety, and welfare of the public".. I am going to give you the benefit here... If you really do, wipe the kool-aid mustache off so I can take you serious...
mtlion
Well-known member
spook12
New member
Eric a trophy mouse hunt has been on my ''Wish list'' for quite some time,what would that set me back?
Would it be possible for me to squeeze in a management grasshopper or mosquito hunt during the same time frame?How hard are these tags to draw as a NR? Drop camp or fully guided? Are these fall or spring hunts?Where can i get some info?
Man i'm stoked, this is gonna be fun!
Would it be possible for me to squeeze in a management grasshopper or mosquito hunt during the same time frame?How hard are these tags to draw as a NR? Drop camp or fully guided? Are these fall or spring hunts?Where can i get some info?
Man i'm stoked, this is gonna be fun!
Eric,
You guys just don't get it. If this is no big deal, why is it such a big deal. If your image is at stake, is it worth getting rid of? You need to get real and ask if your goon Mac has done you any favors?
The biological info is necessary and desirable. Ask Quentin?? You guys are requesting less transparency and sportsmen beg to differ. Is this really worth continuing knowing how sportsmen feel about it?
Rest assured, if this bill passes, I will be telling anyone who asks to go to a state where the industry respects their state's sportsmen and their clients. Smell the roses.
You guys just don't get it. If this is no big deal, why is it such a big deal. If your image is at stake, is it worth getting rid of? You need to get real and ask if your goon Mac has done you any favors?
The biological info is necessary and desirable. Ask Quentin?? You guys are requesting less transparency and sportsmen beg to differ. Is this really worth continuing knowing how sportsmen feel about it?
Rest assured, if this bill passes, I will be telling anyone who asks to go to a state where the industry respects their state's sportsmen and their clients. Smell the roses.
