Rain delay due to Medicaid expansion. Hearing is on now. Lots of outfitters in the room.
SB 380 Increase Non resident tags in Montana
- Thread starter shoots-straight
- Start date
Rain delay due to Medicaid expansion. Hearing is on now. Lots of outfitters in the room.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,716
This bill ain't the end of world....remember is has a sunset on it....i think that it will not hardly be used..
So why "not hardly" bring this bill forward? Sunsets don't make it more patible.
A sunset is the legislatures way of saying, " we think it's a bad idea but we also have been told by our overlords this should happen"
Sunsets don't mean squat.
As one Bozeman-based outfitter explained it to me this way.
The non-resident deer tag is now the only NR tag in Montana that is still oversubscribed - more applicants than licenses. Now that non-residents have the right to get a refund on the elk-deer combo tags and only keep the deer portion, many outfitters are advising their clients to apply for the deer-elk combo tag, then apply for a refund of the elk portion. They are then guaranteed a deer tag that they would not be guaranteed had they went into the deer only tag. A way to circumvent the deer drawing odds.
Not sure how widespread this idea is with non-residents or how many outfitters are telling their clients to do this as a way to get around the deer only tag, but I know at least one outfitter claims it is a common practice among outfitters and why outfitters do not want any changes to the refund policy. This exact point was an issue of worry that many hunters voiced when the refund bill, HB 607, was passed in 2011. We were assured that the refund would not be used that way.
We don't need any more tag programs or special licenses, as this one is. If anything, we need to get rid of all these reduced and entitlement licenses. We need to get back to the original number of tags. If you are a non-resident, you pay the going rate, regardless of whether you are a Montana native, related to someone who drove through Montana at one time, and all the other subsidy programs we now have.
It is hard for anyone to keep a straight face and say we need 1,500 more licenses, when we are not selling all we currently have. That flat out is a joke and everyone knows it.
There is nothing that is currently keeping the clients of public land outfitters from getting their tags. Nothing. They have a 100% draw rate.
When one looks at where deer and elk are down, many of the wilderness areas would be pointed to as areas where mule deer way down and elk down somewhat. And now we are going to add 1,500 more licenses for those areas.
That makes it hard to put much credibility in the MOGA and outfitter requests for FWP to focus more on game management. Not one person can argue this has a single thing to do with game management, and most anyone could make a compelling case that this bill and its supporters are focusing on financial management.
Carry on ......
The non-resident deer tag is now the only NR tag in Montana that is still oversubscribed - more applicants than licenses. Now that non-residents have the right to get a refund on the elk-deer combo tags and only keep the deer portion, many outfitters are advising their clients to apply for the deer-elk combo tag, then apply for a refund of the elk portion. They are then guaranteed a deer tag that they would not be guaranteed had they went into the deer only tag. A way to circumvent the deer drawing odds.
Not sure how widespread this idea is with non-residents or how many outfitters are telling their clients to do this as a way to get around the deer only tag, but I know at least one outfitter claims it is a common practice among outfitters and why outfitters do not want any changes to the refund policy. This exact point was an issue of worry that many hunters voiced when the refund bill, HB 607, was passed in 2011. We were assured that the refund would not be used that way.
We don't need any more tag programs or special licenses, as this one is. If anything, we need to get rid of all these reduced and entitlement licenses. We need to get back to the original number of tags. If you are a non-resident, you pay the going rate, regardless of whether you are a Montana native, related to someone who drove through Montana at one time, and all the other subsidy programs we now have.
It is hard for anyone to keep a straight face and say we need 1,500 more licenses, when we are not selling all we currently have. That flat out is a joke and everyone knows it.
There is nothing that is currently keeping the clients of public land outfitters from getting their tags. Nothing. They have a 100% draw rate.
When one looks at where deer and elk are down, many of the wilderness areas would be pointed to as areas where mule deer way down and elk down somewhat. And now we are going to add 1,500 more licenses for those areas.
That makes it hard to put much credibility in the MOGA and outfitter requests for FWP to focus more on game management. Not one person can argue this has a single thing to do with game management, and most anyone could make a compelling case that this bill and its supporters are focusing on financial management.
Carry on ......
The idea was not lost upon BOY and myself. Though a bit steep pricewise, it allows us to build points for a LE hunt for both and I'm planning a deer only hunt in the next few years. I like the setup, just wish I'd get more than 80% of the tag money back. Nearly $200 for points per year for LE hunts is a bit much. I can't think of any other state that gets that much for building points for deer and elk. But, that's the rules and I'm trying to play the game...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I love how Eric always say we need to manage by science based information, and do what's right for the resource, but then backs this type of BS. How is arbitrarily adding more non resident hunters to the mix, not going against that type of management? What science was involved in adding 1500 more? The science of greed?
You would think that outfitting was the most important industry this state has. In the Root we lost more contractors to the oil fields and poor economy than we did statewide on outfitters. I don't see the special legislation to give me shots at more homes being built. Should we pass a law that forces the banks to give out more loans, so I get a shot at one of those houses. Better yet, if they use a contractor, their loan is process sooner, and at a reduced rate than other loans. Maybe give out free building permits for home owners that use contractors.
We have allowed more non residents almost every session. I love how the President of the Wilderness outfitters claimed that there has been non new tags added sense 1972. The cap then was moved from 11,500 to 17,000. Talk about a forked tongue speaker. He also told one representative that the 28,800+ tags given out to NR were all the tags sold, antelope, deer B, bear etc. It's not, the only tag in that number that was a b tag was the cow elk one. Those sold 1158 tags to NR. Many of those people might or might not have had a regular Elk tag.
If we sell all the elk and deer tags available today, that number would be closer to 30,000. Maybe it's time for another citizens initiative to bring clarity to this situation.
How about we give out 10% of the total elk and deer tags sold to residents to non residents?
Or, we could link the non resident tags directly to the elk and deer populations.
These fools don't know how good they have it right now.
You would think that outfitting was the most important industry this state has. In the Root we lost more contractors to the oil fields and poor economy than we did statewide on outfitters. I don't see the special legislation to give me shots at more homes being built. Should we pass a law that forces the banks to give out more loans, so I get a shot at one of those houses. Better yet, if they use a contractor, their loan is process sooner, and at a reduced rate than other loans. Maybe give out free building permits for home owners that use contractors.
We have allowed more non residents almost every session. I love how the President of the Wilderness outfitters claimed that there has been non new tags added sense 1972. The cap then was moved from 11,500 to 17,000. Talk about a forked tongue speaker. He also told one representative that the 28,800+ tags given out to NR were all the tags sold, antelope, deer B, bear etc. It's not, the only tag in that number that was a b tag was the cow elk one. Those sold 1158 tags to NR. Many of those people might or might not have had a regular Elk tag.
If we sell all the elk and deer tags available today, that number would be closer to 30,000. Maybe it's time for another citizens initiative to bring clarity to this situation.
How about we give out 10% of the total elk and deer tags sold to residents to non residents?
Or, we could link the non resident tags directly to the elk and deer populations.
These fools don't know how good they have it right now.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
This is exactly the type of stuff that happens now that hunting is an "industry", rather than the sport most of us older guys grew up knowing!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Eric, you have previously posted some good information and perspectives, but not on this thread. Please proof-read and think about what you write before pressing the "post" button.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
A few corrections to yesterday’s testimony. Mr. Tabor misstated that antelope and deer b licenses were included in the 28,857 nonresident elk and deer tags sold in 2012. There were 1158 elk B tags included still leaving 27,699 NR bull elk and buck deer tags. NR tags have steadily increased over the years. See the sheets I submitted yesterday
This bill will not increase access as there are no takers for the $372,000 presently in the account to lease private land to access public lands. Landowners who have adjacent public property often want to keep it for their own private use. In actuality, by increasing NR tags you increase the incentive to lease private property by outfitters.
Prior to I-161, the outfitter set aside license price was $1250. It is $300 cheaper now and yet the wilderness outfitters cannot get enough clients. Price is not the issue. Unfortunately, in today’s world of hunting, quality of the animal is more important than the experience, just watch many of the outdoor shows or read hunting magazines. The wilderness “culture” is dying but not because of price and it is sad.
Since non-residents know that we are not selling out, there is no incentive to apply by the Mar. 15th deadline and instead they wait to see if they draw in another state.
We have a real chance of losing on SB 380. If you are concerned, please email the House FWP Committee at this link: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp
Make no mistake, whether this bill passes or not, MOGA will be back in the next session asking for more non-resident licenses and cheaper prices!!
I presented a handout to the committee yesterday which compares Montana's big game license fee with the other western states and we are very competitive. Also, we are the only state that gives the NR a 11 week season to hunt elk/deer. Most only give 5-10 days. Here is a copy of the fee comparison:
View attachment 2013 non-resident fees by state005258.pdf
This bill will not increase access as there are no takers for the $372,000 presently in the account to lease private land to access public lands. Landowners who have adjacent public property often want to keep it for their own private use. In actuality, by increasing NR tags you increase the incentive to lease private property by outfitters.
Prior to I-161, the outfitter set aside license price was $1250. It is $300 cheaper now and yet the wilderness outfitters cannot get enough clients. Price is not the issue. Unfortunately, in today’s world of hunting, quality of the animal is more important than the experience, just watch many of the outdoor shows or read hunting magazines. The wilderness “culture” is dying but not because of price and it is sad.
Since non-residents know that we are not selling out, there is no incentive to apply by the Mar. 15th deadline and instead they wait to see if they draw in another state.
We have a real chance of losing on SB 380. If you are concerned, please email the House FWP Committee at this link: http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp
Make no mistake, whether this bill passes or not, MOGA will be back in the next session asking for more non-resident licenses and cheaper prices!!
I presented a handout to the committee yesterday which compares Montana's big game license fee with the other western states and we are very competitive. Also, we are the only state that gives the NR a 11 week season to hunt elk/deer. Most only give 5-10 days. Here is a copy of the fee comparison:
View attachment 2013 non-resident fees by state005258.pdf
Sounds like a lot of negative vibe out there for non-resident hunters. I am one of these who helps pay for 90%of FTP budget. I agree that the answer is not to keep increasing the number of tags each year, set the quata and leave it. If it takes every other year to get a tag I'm fine with that, also non-residents are suppose to get 10%of the tags yet there is a top ceiling but no bottom so most of these trophy areas non-residents are getting a lot less than the 10%. If montana wants to only allow 10% of the general lic that are sold to residents that's fine but give us the full 10% of the special tags. Remember without us you can expect to be paying closer to the $1000 it costs us for big game combo. Can't we all just get along
We testified at the hearing in House FWP yesterday. Lots of misinformation as usual. I will tell an interesting story. MOGA lobbyist Jean Johnson sent a message to me through another lobbyist,
"tell Joe Perry that when
he participates in a blog (this is the only one I go to) under a fictitious
name, we have ways of tracing that to find out who it is".
I in turn went straight to Jean and told her I had signed my name so it was
no secret.
Joe Perry
"tell Joe Perry that when
he participates in a blog (this is the only one I go to) under a fictitious
name, we have ways of tracing that to find out who it is".
I in turn went straight to Jean and told her I had signed my name so it was
no secret.
Joe Perry
Sounds like a lot of negative vibe out there for non-resident hunters. I am one of these who helps pay for 90%of FTP budget. I agree that the answer is not to keep increasing the number of tags each year, set the quata and leave it. If it takes every other year to get a tag I'm fine with that, also non-residents are suppose to get 10%of the tags yet there is a top ceiling but no bottom so most of these trophy areas non-residents are getting a lot less than the 10%. If montana wants to only allow 10% of the general lic that are sold to residents that's fine but give us the full 10% of the special tags. Remember without us you can expect to be paying closer to the $1000 it costs us for big game combo. Can't we all just get along
Turbo - This is not directed at the non-resident hunter. Unfortunate if it comes across that way. Rest assured, it is a debate among resident hunters and the outfitting industry who uses the non-resident hunter as their shield and sword in most of these debates.
And yes, non-residents do pay a large amount of FWP funding, but not to the degree you mention. That being said, most of here are advocating for resident fee increases to balance that disparity between what residents and non-residents contribute to the funding of FWP.
There are a plenty of things that could change in Montana to help all of us, resident or non-resident, outfitted or self-guided. This bill is not one of those beneficial changes that could be made. Rather, it is a step backward in the effort to possibly work together.
Those pushing this bill have made it clear that they have no interest in working with resident hunters. It could be amended to be more palatable and not exacerbate the abuse currently happening with the refund rule and backdoor deer tag method I pointed out earlier. But, no input is ever sought from hunters when this group brings bills forward. So much for the lip service claims of "we want collaboration."
Those pushing this bill know that tag access is not an issue for non-residents, making this bill unnecessary and doing nothing to help wildlife or hunting. Yet, their industry organization continues to push for it and then wonders why relations with resident hunters and MOGA are at such a tough spot.
There is not one resident hunter-sponsored bill I can think of in the last two sessions that would have negatively impacted outfitters. Yet, I would need many more hands to count the bills introduced by MOGA that were industry plumbs and would be detrimental to resident hunters over those last two sessions. And in most instances, contrary to the false mantra of better "game management."
I know plenty of MOGA folks read this forum. My comments often get copied and pasted and passed around in their emails. They know damn well that what I posted is the truth. Feel free to copy and paste this one, also.
Some among them will call me anti-outfitter for pointing out the obvious damage these self-serving bills do to the interest of working together. Fine. Those MOGA members I communicate with regularly know that I am interested in finding the many possible solutions that can benefit all of us, not just solutions that benefit one group.
I keep waiting for the sane voices among them to stand up and start thinking about the long-term future of all hunting and wildlife, not just their own future. Given their positions, and in many instances, their absence/silence, over the last two sessions, I am starting to wonder if I am too idealistic in my belief that this industry, or at least their legislative lobby, actually cares about the future of wildlife and game management. Given their recent actions and convenient periods of silence, I am starting to wonder just what is the determining factor for their involvement.
Wish it were different, but the picture of recent history is pretty clear.
RobG
Well-known member
I don't want to get into the outfitter/NR thing, but can someone explain the Section 2 amendments? (quoted below). Those have caught my attention:
Smoke and mirrors. We already have an earmarked account for this exact purpose. It currently has over $370,000 in the account. No one is willing to sell their public land access to FWP, so it will do the same amount of good as if it were put in a coffee can out in front of the Capitol building.
And, now that we have HB 5 and its amendments to make it illegal for FWP to purchase land or hunting easements, not sure what good this account would do if the bill does pass.
Maybe I am missing something, but to me, that section is further indication of how little research goes into some of these bills. This is a duplication of a poorly received program and it is being paraded around to try make it sound more palatable to the uninformed legislators who have limited background on these issues.
I agree with you guys on blocking the bill to get more tags. I have done guided and oyo hunts and believe there is a need for both. What I can't understand is why can't the clients of the outfitters don't apply the same way everyone else does, like mentioned several times is that they have not sold out in the last couple of years. So why more tags and who is buying these tags, are they for outfitters only? Only if we could find a way to shrink government and put a little common sense into how Fwp,mndnr, and other wildlife authorities do business. Until then keep up the fight.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Folks, we need to get everyone to man the phone lines. SB 380 has turned ugly. It's now an assault on resident sportsman. Paul Ellis claimed this legislative session would be a blood bath for sportsman. Well not a blood bath, but certainly we have wounds, and they run deep.
I also found out that our Representatives think MSA members must be rich. Wow, is all I can say. I never knew that in order to join MSA you first needed your tax returns to prove wealth.
The sportsman of this state have been working on bringing back our wildlife populations by reducing our own opportunities in the field. We are working within the constraints of HB 42 that put our wildlife in a squeeze, and then MOGA sticks their hand out again and all is good right.
If you saw the testimony yesterday, you might have noticed that they will stop at nothing to commercialize our wildlife. I'm not sure a clearly true statement was made by those representing outfitters.
Everyone should call the numbers available and tell the House Fish and Game committee not to vote for SB 380.
Please don't give up on this, fight the fight.
I also found out that our Representatives think MSA members must be rich. Wow, is all I can say. I never knew that in order to join MSA you first needed your tax returns to prove wealth.
The sportsman of this state have been working on bringing back our wildlife populations by reducing our own opportunities in the field. We are working within the constraints of HB 42 that put our wildlife in a squeeze, and then MOGA sticks their hand out again and all is good right.
If you saw the testimony yesterday, you might have noticed that they will stop at nothing to commercialize our wildlife. I'm not sure a clearly true statement was made by those representing outfitters.
Everyone should call the numbers available and tell the House Fish and Game committee not to vote for SB 380.
Please don't give up on this, fight the fight.
howler
Active member
were on it,
Wapiti Warrior
New member
Gave them both barrels on why this is a BAD bill! Hope they listen.
John
John
Similar threads
