Outfitter leased lands in Montana FYI

[shoots-straight]

“Here is a map that shows the private lands in Montana that outfitters leased for the 2011 hunting season. This map does not show those private lands that are being outfitted by the landowners themselves as no outfitters licensed is required in that circumstance. Also, most likely it will not include lands where there is no formal lease agreement between the landowner and outfitter even though the outfitter may be taking clients onto the property.”

 

[Big Fin]

Shoots:

I was reading HB 274 the other day and it seems that if that passes, outfitter will no longer be required to report leased acreage and a map such as this would not be possible.

Am I reading that bill correctly?


Bill link provided here - http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0274.htm


Section 2, Paragraph (4)(d) - rules establishing outfitter reporting requirements.

deleted section -

The reports must be filed annually and report actual leased acreage actively used by clients during that year and actual leased acres unused by clients during that year, plus any other information designated by the board and developed in collaboration with the department of fish, wildlife, and parks or the review committee established in 87-1-269 that is considered necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the hunter management and hunting access enhancement programs.;.

Replacement section -

THE REPORTS MUST BE FILED ANNUALLY AND REPORT CLIENT NAMES, OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES PROVIDING CLIENT SERVICES AND THE LICENSE NUMBERS OF THOSE OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES, DATES OF CLIENT SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE BOARD BY RULE.

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots:

I was reading HB 274 the other day and it seems that if that passes, outfitter will no longer be required to report leased acreage and a map such as this would not be possible.

Am I reading that bill correctly?


Bill link provided here - http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/HB0274.htm


Section 2, Paragraph (4)(d) - rules establishing outfitter reporting requirements.

deleted section -


Replacement section -

You are reading it correctly, but, right now there are other agencies that have the same regulations that the outfitters are regulated by.. Those agencies are set up in structure similar to our Fish and Game commission, and so all it takes is action of a group, or board to remove those regulations. Does that make sense?

I think the statutory regulations should have been kept, and the duplicate agency regulations removed.

Representative Ed Greef was the sponsor, with MOGA being the driving force. He thought it had wide range of support from sportsman, landowners, and outfitters. He was handed a wad of river slime.

This is a bad bill. It might take Bullock at this point.

 

[ingomar]

Fin-that's the way I understand it as well. No sense in keeping records, now if I could only get the State Agency that regulates my business to do away with all those cumbersome things they require to protect the public.

Also, I understand that HB 511 went down in flames today. It would have changed the membership of the Board of Outfitters from four outfitters, 2 sportsmen and one member of the general public to 3 outfitters, 3 sportsmen and 1 member of the general public. The outfitters opposed the bill. When you have a 4-3 margin why make it fair and equal??

 

[shoots-straight]

Fin-that's the way I understand it as well. No sense in keeping records, now if I could only get the State Agency that regulates my business to do away with all those cumbersome things they require to protect the public.

Also, I understand that HB 511 went down in flames today. It would have changed the membership of the Board of Outfitters from four outfitters, 2 sportsmen and one member of the general public to 3 outfitters, 3 sportsmen and 1 member of the general public. The outfitters opposed the bill. When you have a 4-3 margin why make it fair and equal??

They obviously aren't getting the message. I would say that another citizens initiative to drive home the point is up for consideration.

 

[----]

Shoots you don't have a link to a blown up version of that do you? I'm not finding it on fwp.mt.gov...

 

[mtmiller]

yes please...and shapefile if possible.

 

[Lawnboy]

Would be interesting to see how much accessible checker board land is mixed throughout the leases. I still think that issue and Randy's vocal stance on it is what has caused the big uproar. I can think of several awesome places over here that are checkerboard and an outfitter is leasing the private. I think they might have more land than we think that would be opened up and ultimately be in competition with them. Just a thought

 

[JCS]

If we all had helicopters or ultralights..........

 

[webejmn]

Just called my gal at region 4 fwp and she is going to find me a updated version and how to find it tomorrow.

 

[ingomar]

JCS
Our friend, Rep. Bill Harris, the outfitter has a bill moving forward LC 1939 that would effectively eliminate the ability to use a helicopter to access federal land!!

If anyone wants the map in pdf format or larger version that would not fit on this blog, email me at [email protected]

 

[JCS]

JCS
Our friend, Rep. Bill Harris, the outfitter has a bill moving forward LC 1939 that would effectively eliminate the ability to use a helicopter to access federal land!!

If anyone wants the map in pdf format or larger version that would not fit on this blog, email me at [email protected]

Apparently some of the landowners and outfitters dont like anyone using OUR land. Only a select few can.

 

[mixedbag]

The map is kind of like I figured it would be.i would also like to see a map like Lawnboy was stating with the mixed in public that we can't access

 

[shoots-straight]

yes please...and shapefile if possible.

I love the interest. You might be asking a lot.

Vito, might be able to link you up. That was humor, and realism all in one.

 

[jryoung]

JCS
Our friend, Rep. Bill Harris, the outfitter has a bill moving forward LC 1939 that would effectively eliminate the ability to use a helicopter to access federal land!!

If anyone wants the map in pdf format or larger version that would not fit on this blog, email me at [email protected]

Do I read section 2 right in that it's basically stating you can't put down anywhere on public land aside from designated airstrips and such?

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots you don't have a link to a blown up version of that do you? I'm not finding it on fwp.mt.gov...

If you sign up for MSA's website, you'll get that file.

 

[ingomar]

That is the way I read it but it does say "unless permitted by the department", whatever that means.

 

[Lawnboy]

Probably invading their airspace

 

[jryoung]

Probably invading their airspace

If I ever get to ride in a bird to public land I'm going to pay extra to hang my arse out the door and take a dump from that invaded airspace.

 

[webejmn]

Well just heard back from her and you can obtain a electronic version of this map by contacting MOGA. Go figure.