Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

When was the high? Has the number of hunting outfitters stabilized? If not, what are the factors causing the reduction? I know you point to 161, but clearly 380 outfitters are surviving so 161 wasn't a death blow which leads to ask what else is contributing to the decline? It would be interesting to talk to the 170 outfitters that left the business. Personally, I think the increase wealthy landowners not wanting anyone on their land is a larger factor than OSLs. I honestly want to understand this more. Willing to take it to personal messages if needed.

There's a lot of data to collect. Surveys of outfitters, outfitter clientele, DIY NR hunters, resident hunters. I can see commissioning a broad study through an independent organization like the college business at Montana State.
161 actually helped the outfitters.

The reasons you list of lands selling is probably why many went out of business in the east. High predator populations and declining elk/deer populations in the west are a factor in the western half of Montana.
 
When was the high? Has the number of hunting outfitters stabilized? If not, what are the factors causing the reduction? I know you point to 161, but clearly 380 outfitters are surviving so 161 wasn't a death blow which leads to ask what else is contributing to the decline? It would be interesting to talk to the 170 outfitters that left the business. Personally, I think the increase wealthy landowners not wanting anyone on their land is a larger factor than OSLs. I honestly want to understand this more. Willing to take it to personal messages if needed.

There's a lot of data to collect. Surveys of outfitters, outfitter clientele, DIY NR hunters, resident hunters. I can see commissioning a broad study through an independent organization like the college business at Montana State.
I can think of several outfitters near me that have dramatically down sized or gone out of business because hunt clubs or absentee owners moving in. I-161 is partly to blame for the increase in hunt clubs and absentee owners.
 
Absentee owners (primarily from CA, east coast, and TX) that don't care about hunting traditions are a big issue all over the west. I've heard from lots of locals in multiple states tell me that they lost access privileges on neighboring ranches that they'd had for generations when absentee owners purchased the properties.
 
Absentee owners (primarily from CA, east coast, and TX) that don't care about hunting traditions are a big issue all over the west. I've heard from lots of locals in multiple states tell me that they lost access privileges on neighboring ranches that they'd had for generations when absentee owners purchased the properties.
Absentee owners seem to be a large common denominator that's effecting all MT stakeholders. The only solution I can see to that problem is to raise property taxes across the board, then offer production tax credits to those who work the land or to those owners that volunteer up to 50% of their land to the Block Mgmt Program. There are probably other ways, but the only disincentive I can see is to hit these people in their pocket books. Such a plan would require legislation which means working with politicians.....I'm looking for a sharp stick to poke in my eye as I speak.
 
Absentee owners (primarily from CA, east coast, and TX) that don't care about hunting traditions are a big issue all over the west. I've heard from lots of locals in multiple states tell me that they lost access privileges on neighboring ranches that they'd had for generations when absentee owners purchased the properties.
I'm not sure these new owners don't care about hunting traditions. I think they like hunting very much. So much so that they bought the place for friends and family to hunt. and to @sacountry plan, these owners do "work the land". Not themselves of course. They hire ranch managers to do the work and then take advantage of the wonderful tax advantages afforded to farms and ranches.
 
Absentee landowners is a fact of life that isn’t going to change.
Their neighbors are going to have to learn to deal with respecting the reality they might have different goals and ideas for how they want to use their private land compared to prior owners who had similar interests to their neighbors.
Case in point is the disaster that is elk shoulder seasons.
Legislators tried to fix a political problem without understanding the biological consequences and how it would affect all shareholders and the resource. No one is happy with the outcome.
 
I'm not sure these new owners don't care about hunting traditions. I think they like hunting very much. So much so that they bought the place for friends and family to hunt. and to @sacountry plan, these owners do "work the land". Not themselves of course. They hire ranch managers to do the work and then take advantage of the wonderful tax advantages afforded to farms and ranches.
Some out of staters do, but not all. Most hunt clubs that I've seen don't work the land, it pure recreation for them. Could it become a loophole? Sure, but this problem doesn't have a clean answer.
 
Iowa can show you how to deal with NR landowners. It's simple. ALL NR must get tag through the draw. It's a constant battle and one I fear we'll eventually lose but it's worth it.

Of course, that's a hard sell when you already have gone down the road of turning hunting into business. We were able to kill guarenteed outfitter tags this year but it will be back again too.
 
You've had 10 years or more to get people at the table and think of good ideas...yet you didn't.

Instead, you stewed about I-161 for that same amount of time, took your shot the first opportunity you got in an attempt to take your pound of flesh.

What you're realizing now is that your actions had dire consequences, now you want to sit down and talk.

If that happens I hope the first thing OFF the table is set aside outfitter licenses...if not, ballot initiative to take them away. The instability in your industry is self induced...there's boatloads of clients available. Wyoming and Arizona have no set asides, and very successful outfitting industries in both states...and they operate with wayyyyyyy less NR tags.
IMO, set aside licenses for anyone is the slippery slope that is causing all the wrestling for position over who gets first dibs.
Outfitters say they deserve set asides. If outfitters deserve set asides, landowners both resident and absentee have a valid argument that they deserve set asides.
Anyone with an interest can probably make a somewhat convincing case they deserve set asides.
Everyone making the argument that THEY DESERVE set asides is ignoring the reality that wildlife is a public trust resource like air and water.

The surplus may be legitimately harvested, but only with consideration for other shareholders.

If it takes an Initiative to reinforce that reality then the cost of the Initiative is an investment for the future of Montana’s wildlife, not wasted money.

I am willing to sacrifice some of my opportunity to harvest the surplus for the benefit of the resource and for fair and equitable allocation of licenses. I am not willing to compromise the principles that @Ben Lamb eloquently articulated simply because outfitters make the claim they are deserving, have overplayed their hand politically and now want the bickering to stop so public backlash doesn’t cost them what they refused to negotiate for.
 
IMO, set aside licenses for anyone is the slippery slope that is causing all the wrestling for position over who gets first dibs.
Outfitters say they deserve set asides. If outfitters deserve set asides, landowners both resident and absentee have a valid argument that they deserve set asides.
Anyone with an interest can probably make a somewhat convincing case they deserve set asides.
Everyone making the argument that THEY DESERVE set asides is ignoring the reality that wildlife is a public trust resource like air and water.

The surplus may be legitimately harvested, but only with consideration for other shareholders.

If it takes an Initiative to reinforce that reality then the cost of the Initiative is an investment for the future of Montana’s wildlife, not wasted money.

I am willing to sacrifice some of my opportunity to harvest the surplus for the benefit of the resource and for fair and equitable allocation of licenses. I am not willing to compromise the principles that @Ben Lamb eloquently articulated simply because outfitters make the claim they are deserving, have overplayed their hand politically and now want the bickering to stop so public backlash doesn’t cost them what they refused to negotiate for.
Totally agree, the set asides are dangerous.

Exhibit A: Wyoming used to have only 80 Pronghorn tags set aside for a special interest group, now its 160 and 2 groups. Mark my words, before I take the dirt-nap, there will be another group lobbying for more set asides.

You assessment is also correct, in that when you distill set asides down, really anyone can make a very compelling case why they must have a set aside. No kidding, there was an Airstream RV club that lobbied Wyoming for a set aside of tags for their club. Pretty hard argument to make that they aren't entitled to be treated exactly the same as the One shot hunt and the women's only hunt and get their tags. What's the difference?

Same with the outfitter set asides, if they get tags, then why can't a meat processor? Why cant a hotel? Why cant a mechanic/tire shop? Why cant a NR hunt club? Why not the RV club?

Pretty quick when all the entitled groups/clubs/businesses take "their" allocation...there's nothing left for anyone else.

Like I said, I don't think its a bad idea to sit at the table and try to work up solutions to the other issues, but IMO/E any set aside allocation of tags has got to be off the table.

Don't compromise on set asides...ever.
 
So, as this soap opera continues, it seems to stop in a time frame of only going back to I161 of 2010.

When did the original 5,000 allotted outfitter tags start and what was the rationale? There must be something missing that no one has yet drug into this dogpile.
So it was mid 1990's and the Outfitters came to the Hook and Bullet Org I'm associated with here in the Root, they promised that if we supported the 5500 tag increase from 11500 that they would support the use of money set aside from the sale of those tags to be used in a special account to purchase lands accessible to all sportsmen, state owned. They promised that their numbers would not increase either.

So they fought us on the purchase of lands for hunting and habitat, they went around the increase of Outfitters by adding people as guides, under their license, that actually guided their own lands. The number of guides increased sharply.
 
The OSL originated as a compromise worked through the PLPW. The OSL was limited in numbers of around 5600 elk/deer combo license and 2200 deer only license. The license was unlimited and market driven, meaning if it oversold the target numbers the price went up. Highest I can remember the deer only selling for was around 11 or 1200$. This is why so many outfitters went out of business during the OSL's tenure. The price was so high that most outfitters could not market it and their clients put in for the draw, and odds at that time were really poor.
The R and NR DIY guys got Block Management, which was funded by the sale of the OSL(talk about subsidized hunting?? :unsure: The public was happy with this at first, but as time went on, Montana gained more and more population(hunters) BM was over hunted and not working. The public looked across the fence and saw the quality on the inaccessible acres and cried FOUL, outfitters are leasing all the good stuff, we get crumbs. I can go into great depth and bore everyone to tears with some of the great success stories of properties managed by outfitters and the access they allowed the public but won't.
Then along came the great answer to the public's perception, a ballot initiative I-161. This took away the OSL (but BM was kepto_O) The great opening of gates did not happen, and outfitters had a free run to a license that the state could not sell for the first 8 years. We experienced huge undersells and outfitter clients were able to buy license all through the hunting season. 161 failed to do what the detractors had hoped. The thing they fail to mention is that all the while outfitters had basically unlimited license through this, we did not grow, nor was their any real big growth during the tenure of the OSL. When the audit was completed we were leasing far less acres than the opposition thought. We just get the blame because we are a soft target.

With what we have now, 637, I can see a lot of headaches and abuses coming. There are no sideboards with what we have. A sitting down at the round table discussion is needed, a compromise worked out. Figuring out what is best for the resource, giving the outfitters some stability, and finding something the public will gain access with. Otherwise we will have another ill thought ballot initiative that will cost 100's of thousands, and further the friction between both factions, who have a lot of common ground if there was a little more thought and a lot less emotion something good can come of all this.
That was a pretty well thought out and fairly detailed response. Much appreciated. However, in light of the entire circumstances, I wouldn’t mind being bored to tears with the items you left out. EVERYTHING needs to be laid on the table as far as information in order for a lot of us to better understand both sides. Thanks for trying to inform us, and also sticking around and understanding that we also have legitimate concerns in the way things are headed.
 
Absentee owners seem to be a large common denominator that's effecting all MT stakeholders. The only solution I can see to that problem is to raise property taxes across the board, then offer production tax credits to those who work the land or to those owners that volunteer up to 50% of their land to the Block Mgmt Program. There are probably other ways, but the only disincentive I can see is to hit these people in their pocket books. Such a plan would require legislation which means working with politicians.....I'm looking for a sharp stick to poke in my eye as I speak.
You realize that if you can afford a section or two, you're not worried about property taxes. Raising property taxes would hurt residents more than those wicked absentee owners.
 
Absentee owners (primarily from CA, east coast, and TX) that don't care about hunting traditions are a big issue all over the west. I've heard from lots of locals in multiple states tell me that they lost access privileges on neighboring ranches that they'd had for generations when absentee owners purchased the properties.
Yeah, because residents always allow access. Red hearing much? Or is it straw man? Or just complete BS?
 
You realize that if you can afford a section or two, you're not worried about property taxes. Raising property taxes would hurt residents more than those wicked absentee owners.
I realize that I throw out some off the wall ideas on this forum. The more difficult the problem, the more off the wall. I do understand that those who can afford to buy sections of land probably aren't concerned with the taxes. But, I also live in state that's deprived of resources for wildlife management and infrastructure. If our private land is in demand then we ought to figure out how to capitalize on that demand for the betterment of the state. I get that this sounds socialistic but that's definitely not my intent. Just trying to find money to solve problems that aren't going away. If there is a non-monetary solution, I'm all ears.
 
Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,405
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top