Outfitter's claim fraud in initiative signature collection...

[Sytes]

I take it, this is a last ditch effort to remove this from the ballot..
Regarding the Intent:

I see the positives in the additional fees and the potential to open up landowners interest to non outfitted settings, however, will this really do such to any measurable degree?
Does this in any way alleviate the concerns of landowners from abuse of thier land by public screwball hunters versus those they lease to outfitters? Taking this into account, do we really think landowners will say, "Well, shucks - since outfitters are not guarenteed 5500 tags - guess we will open it to the public to hunt?" IMO, in a minor potential measure of this, maybe a few landowners may go for block management... though - someone with better understanding of this, would you give your perspective?
To the unknown public, this appears more a lashing out at outfitters rather than a warranted need to assist the public.

I am looking to understand the detailed intent to BETTER support this ballot when discussing this with fellow hunters as well as others we will depend on to see this measure passed.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_a96b1f5e-b39c-11df-9527-001cc4c03286.html

Some hunters believe that the set-aside licenses guarantee outfitters their clients, enabling them to lease private land that might otherwise be available to public hunters. Some outfitters claim that even without the set-aside licenses, private lands would still be closed to the public, citing problems with poaching, littering and disregard for landowners. Recent Fish, Wildlife and Parks busts of landowners flouting game laws have heightened state hunters' ire.

 

[shoots-straight]

Looks like they have decided that it will hurt them worse than first thought. This pathetic.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I did see this first hand in the Gallatin County Courthouse when a guy, clueless to the language of I-161, was roping in signatures..

• Signature gatherers used inaccurate information on the initiative to obtain signatures.

I also don't see how this will help resident hunters, non-resident hunters, guided or unguided..

 

[mdunc8]

The only thing I really like about this whole thing is that the 5,500 (or whatever the number is) of guaranteed tags would go back into the pot for those looking to draw. I haven't looked at the tags currently available, so I'm not sure if this will actually significantly increase drawing odds for nonresidents.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The only thing I really like about this whole thing is that the 5,500 (or whatever the number is) of guaranteed tags would go back into the pot for those looking to draw.

It will most likely make that draw 100% for non-residents because some folks won't be able to cough up the increased license fees. The people bailing out because of the price increase won't be Guy Eastman and Chuck Adams, nor will where they hunt be open to the public anytime soon. And the odds of them drawing will still be 100%... now just half price compared to what they are used to paying.

 

[shoots-straight]

The increase will be roughly $336 bucks. That's 3 tanks of fuel. It might put pressure on FW&P's to put out a better product to make it a value. Right now I wouldn't pay the price to come to Montana to hunt, when there's other states that have a better product.

If it passes we'll see if your right. I wonder if all the outfitter camps will dot the Bob? Or if all the drop camps that exist will persist. Maybe more, I don't know. What I do know, is that giving Outfitters set asides is wrong.

 

[Sytes]

I would think this will hurt outfitter's ability to make "gauranteed" $$$ though not by much and as for landowners leaning towards opening up land to the public becuase the loss of outfitters with $$$ - I don't believe this would be accurate as well.

IMO - and the reason I asked earlier for another perspective more familiar with this measure we will be votinig on;

Landowners will still lease the land to the outfitters. The difference, there may be a deposit for the lease (as most do now anyways)... Outfitters will offer a refund to a hunter that does not draw...

For the prices popping up a bit, I really don't think it will effect non residents decision to apply. It is refunded if not successful anyhow and if it is successful, the gaurantee rate from outfitters is pretty darn good - though wolves are checking them a chunk.

So what IMO will this change? TBH, nothing really... aside from more money for FWP and it appears to be used to assist the block management process - That is a good thing

All this really does towards ooutfitters is modify the check and balance of pricing and lease fees between them and landowners - not really something either party will want to forfeit in profits.

edit added: Seems this simply resolves the issue of outfitter "preference" tags... Ok. Hopefully someone here can shed some legit light on what more this may present other than what appears to me as fluff to sell for the ballot to pass come voting time.

 

[BuzzH]

The one thing that should come from this...is a warning to other states to never offer any guarantees to outfitters to start with.

The way every state should work tags is to have one drawing for everyone...one price for all tags. Period.

The only things that happen from tiered permit fees and guaranteed tags are all bad.

 

[The Hedgehog]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is Sytes and Buzz both went to the same university.

 

[Sytes]

The only thing I've learned from this thread is Sytes and Buzz both went to the same university.

I missed the class on Big Game Hunting 101... Seems Buzz got a masters degree in that area of study.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, 2 out of 3 choosing the right college to attend in Montana isnt bad.

 

[TBass]

What will it do for hunters? How about this, copied from the MWF site:
The most recent fiscal note for I-161 recognizes that it would increase state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $10.8 million, more than $2.1 million in 2011, more than $2.5 million in 2012, more than $2.8 million in 2013, and more than $3.2 million in 2014. Revenue increases during the first four years would go toward the General License Account ($1.6 million), Habitat Montana ($6.2 million), and Hunting Access programs ($3.0 million).

The Habitat Montana increase is huge because it includes securing both habitat AND access.

100% draw? Numbers would have to drop drastically in order for that to happen. Numbers taken from the FWP site. In 2009, there were 19,097 applicants for the 11,500 big game and elk general combo licenses. There would have to be a 40% drop in applicants to make it 100% draw odds. That's assuming the 5,500 OSLs added in will also bring 5,500 applicants. For the same year, there were 11,582 applicants for the 2,300 deer general licenses. There would need to be 80% fewer applicants to equate to 100% drawing. Again assuming the 2,300 OSLs would result in 2,300 applicants in the general drawing.

The democracy of hunting is one of the founding principles of our model of wildlife conservation. As such, one's ability to pay whatever the market will bear should not guarantee a license. I also do not think Eastman, Adams, Bushman, Jordan, Lakosky, Waddell, etc., etc., etc. should get to hunt here every year just because they can afford to have an outfitter front them to get an OSL. They should have no more opportunity to get a license each year than the "Average Joe." Why should a non-resident get to hunt every year, just like a resident, in any state?

 

[The Hedgehog]

TBass, I agree with all you say, but where did MWF get those estimates?

 

[TBass]

Greenhorn- the fiscal note was prepared by FWP.

 

[Ben Lamb]

TBass, I agree with all you say, but where did MWF get those estimates?

As TBass said, FWP had to come up with those numbers as part of the initiative process. Any time a fiscal impact is perceived, an economic analysis is required.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I wonder how tight that economic analysis was, if Guy Eastman, Chuck Adams, and Bill Jordan drew in MT this year, how much money they saved, why the draw odds went up, who didn't apply and why. The guy gathering signatures in the courthouse last summer (Dan Hammond) was saying this initiative was going to "stop those outfitters from selling animals for $50000 that otherwise us regular guys could hunt."

 

[shoots-straight]

Maybe we should run an initiative to cap NR hunters at 12,000.

Lets take away 5,000 NR combo's, + 4600 NR Deer combo's + 2000 landowner sponsored.

120,000 resident's would have to come up with another $70 each. What do you think we should do?

Sure save a lot of game in a hurry.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'm all for paying $70 more to give residents more economic clout. Let me guess - this initiative will result in happiness and fairness for all, and even open private land access like I-161. FWP will do an economic analysis - which will probably require five committees and lengthy review process per SB255.

 

[TBass]

Greenhorn- if you liked it better the way it was before, then by all means send in your support for HB 387, which proposes to set up another system whereby people can buy their way around being in a drawing with the serfs.

Here's a link to a report that shows the history of OSL sales on the last page of the report. As you can see, 2010 was not a great year for generating revenue for Block Management. If the Initiative had failed, how confident are you that OSL sales would have rebounded in 2011? Doing some math, as it is right now funding for Block Management is a little more than what was shown as the five-year average in the fiscal note under the OSL system. And it is about $400K more than was generated by the OSLs in '10. And that's if no more licenses sell this year. I won't bore you with the $1.2 million more that has been generated for Habitat Montana this year already.
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=48054

And about the signature gatherer, how is his comment any worse than what's being spewed by lawmakers in Helena? It seems all's fair in love, war, and lawmaking.

 

[onpoint]

Greenhorn- if you liked it better the way it was before, then by all means send in your support for HB 387, which proposes to set up another system whereby people can buy their way around being in a drawing with the serfs.

Here's a link to a report that shows the history of OSL sales on the last page of the report. As you can see, 2010 was not a great year for generating revenue for Block Management. If the Initiative had failed, how confident are you that OSL sales would have rebounded in 2011? Doing some math, as it is right now funding for Block Management is a little more than what was shown as the five-year average in the fiscal note under the OSL system. And it is about $400K more than was generated by the OSLs in '10. And that's if no more licenses sell this year. I won't bore you with the $1.2 million more that has been generated for Habitat Montana this year already.
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=48054

And about the signature gatherer, how is his comment any worse than what's being spewed by lawmakers in Helena? It seems all's fair in love, war, and lawmaking.

Yup, what's bad for the goose is equally as bad for the gander....hilarious point. A case of Harry vs Lloyd.