Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

SAJ-99 said:
They will certainly want more than that, but where is the compromise? Not sure what the benefit is for us. Probably better to just give the 1400 tags to MOGA and let them determine the allocation. It will be fun to see them eat their own.
Click to expand...
I was thinking part of that compromise would be to get rid of tags aside from the standard NR Combo, Come Home to Hunt, etc. Just a NR Combo and NR Guided Combo. None of these other nonsense tags that clog up the overall allocation (and create more of that bureaucracy everyone loathes).

MOGA would almost certainly want more, but those 1400 are the bone they’re being thrown, it’d be something like that or nothing at all. Make em compete against one another and be held accountable for providing a quality service to the NR hunter paying for their services.

Letting MOGA have to play favorites with the allocation would be funny though.

Nevertheless, I’m maybe getting too far off track of the thread’s original intent. Would love to see anything anything on the ballot that stops the legislature from “managing” wildlife or allocating tags.

I believe @wllm1313 said something along the lines of “everyone is arguing about who gets to kill the last buffalo instead of figuring out how we could have a million of them” in another thread, and that kinda stuck in my mind for how Montana has been running things.
 
An initiative needs to move forward, and needs to include keeping legislation out of wildlife management. Needs to also address controlling funding to the dept and limiting the power of the governors office over the management of fwp. It's time to let biologists do their jobs and get big time politics out of wildlife management.

Oh and also add in some stuff protecting access, easements and so on. And make it so this law can't be undone by other out of line politicians down the road.
 
Beignet said:
I was thinking part of that compromise would be to get rid of tags aside from the standard NR Combo, Come Home to Hunt, etc. Just a NR Combo and NR Guided Combo.
Click to expand...
I agree. A NR tag is a NR tag. Just because you used to enjoy residency or were born here and want to hunt with your resident family every year shouldn’t give you priority.

Those tags are not outfitters fault. That’s on the resident hunters wanting to have cake and eat it too. And on the legislators carrying and supporting the bills that created those licenses.

All those extra licenses are an end run around the intentions of why NR combo licenses were capped at 17,500. That was to ensure quality was preserved for the residents of the state whom are the owners of the wildlife.

Unfortunately, there aren’t enough people with the understanding of what a resource can handle and the restraint to avoid taking more than it can.
 
Last edited:
Gerald Martin said:
I agree. A NR tag is a NR tag. Just because you used to enjoy residency or were born here and want to hunt with your resident family every year shouldn’t give you priority.

Those tags are not outfitters fault. That’s on the resident hunters wanting to have cake and eat it too. And on the legislators carrying and supporting the bills that created those licenses.
Click to expand...
I agree also a NR tag is a NR tag.

As for NR combo and an O(outfitted)NR combo I am all for it, but not limiting to 1400 for an industry that has historically taken 8-8500 NR license. Part of my reason is for business, the other part pure selfish Resident Public Land hunter. As a hunter I don't want to compete with 7100 NR hunters for accessible lands. I'd rather they go with an outfitter so I don't have to see or compete with them for a place to hunt.

None really matters though until we get the commission to manage wildlife biologically. The R hunter is going to have to ask for a change. I have already started on the commission about this. It will hurt by business in the short run yes. I won't be taking as many NR or R hunters if the things I suggest happen.
 
Eric Albus said:
I agree also a NR tag is a NR tag.

As for NR combo and an O(outfitted)NR combo I am all for it, but not limiting to 1400 for an industry that has historically taken 8-8500 NR license. Part of my reason is for business, the other part pure selfish Resident Public Land hunter. As a hunter I don't want to compete with 7100 NR hunters for accessible lands. I'd rather they go with an outfitter so I don't have to see or compete with them for a place to hunt.

None really matters though until we get the commission to manage wildlife biologically. The R hunter is going to have to ask for a change. I have already started on the commission about this. It will hurt by business in the short run yes. I won't be taking as many NR or R hunters if the things I suggest happen.
Click to expand...
Just curious, what are some of those things you suggest regarding the commission managing wildlife?
 
RobertD said:
Just curious, what are some of those things you suggest regarding the commission managing wildlife?
Click to expand...
shorten up the gen. season, for mule deer in particular. split seasons, archery hunting the rut, making NR license good for only 5-8 days. Making R and NR hunters pick Region hunted, eventually winding up at permits for mule deer, especially during the rut. Montana is over 1M R people now, a finite resource can't withstand infinite pressure. I don't have the exact answer and want to sit down with a panel of concerned sportsmen to hammer a consensus out.
 
Eric Albus said:
As for NR combo and an O(outfitted)NR combo I am all for it, but not limiting to 1400 for an industry that has historically taken 8-8500 NR license. Part of my reason is for business, the other part pure selfish Resident Public Land hunter. As a hunter I don't want to compete with 7100 NR hunters for accessible lands. I'd rather they go with an outfitter so I don't have to see or compete with them for a place to hunt.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the basic premise that sets aside outfitter tags just because historically 30-40% have utilized outfitters. Your industry has proven that your services are desired by a segment of tag holders.
I am happy that businesses have been successful in providing those services.
Currently, the market in the form of those who apply for tags is showing there is going to be an adjustment to that percentage because there is a growing segment of tag holders who don’t wish to utilize an outfitter’s services. Adapt to that market change and remain successful like every other unsubsidized business does or go out of business. I hope you can adapt and remain profitable. Just like I want to see other small businesses succeed.
Eric Albus said:
None really matters though until we get the commission to manage wildlife biologically. The R hunter is going to have to ask for a change. I have already started on the commission about this. It will hurt by business in the short run yes. I won't be taking as many NR or R hunters if the things I suggest happen.
Click to expand...
Pushing for biological management of wildlife is something every sportsman should want.
But, how do we prioritize biological possibilities when they conflict political goals? How does FWP and people in Unit 700 biologically justify an elk objective of 200-300 on 1.7 million acres? They can’t because social (political) tolerance doesn’t value the elk.

Sometimes political realities have to be satisfied before there is a willingness to allow biological possibilities to be given time to become reality.
I see the current administration’s drastic rightward swing to cater to the Agricultural Lobby, wealthy out of state landowners and entitlement minded outfitters who refuse to adapt their business models to changing markets, as the precursor for some major change in the management policies that will be implemented when the balance of power shifts.

I don’t hate outfitters. I don’t desire to see them go out of business. Their financial success isn’t really relevant to me personally. As such, when their industry made a themselves odious in their attempts to prioritize themselves over every other shareholder I am not really concerned about their struggles to stay solvent. In fact, as their efforts to prioritize themselves does directly affect me in negative ways and contributes to harming the wildlife resources I cherish, my ambivalence turns more to wanting to see the outfitting industry diminish instead of thrive.

Outfitters complain about the “hate” and willfully ignore what they have done to contribute to people’s negative opinion of their industry.
 
Last edited:
Eric Albus said:
shorten up the gen. season, for mule deer in particular. split seasons, archery hunting the rut, making NR license good for only 5-8 days. Making R and NR hunters pick Region hunted, eventually winding up at permits for mule deer, especially during the rut. Montana is over 1M R people now, a finite resource can't withstand infinite pressure. I don't have the exact answer and want to sit down with a panel of concerned sportsmen to hammer a consensus out.
Click to expand...
Thanks Eric, all that sounds like a good start to me
 
Gerald Martin said:
I disagree with the basic premise that sets aside outfitter tags just because historically 30-40% have utilized outfitters. Your industry has proven that your services are desired by a segment of tag holders.
I am happy that businesses have been successful in providing those services.
Currently, the market in the form of those who apply for tags is showing there is going to be an adjustment to that percentage because there is a growing segment of tag holders who don’t wish to utilize an outfitter’s services. Adapt to that market change and remain successful like every other unsubsidized business does or go out of business. I hope you can adapt and remain profitable. Just like I want to see other small businesses succeed.

Pushing for biological management of wildlife is something every sportsman should want.
But, how do we prioritize biological possibilities when they conflict political goals. How does FWP and people in Unit 700 biologically justify an elk objective of 200-300 on 1.7 million acres? They can’t because social (political) tolerance doesn’t value the elk.

Sometimes political realities have to be satisfied before there is a willingness to allow biological possibilities to be given time to become reality.
I see the current administration’s drastic rightward swing to cater to the Agricultural Lobby, wealthy out of state landowners and entitlement minded outfitters who refuse to adapt their business models to changing markets, as the precursor for some major change in the management policies that will be implemented when the balance of power shifts.

I don’t hate outfitters. I don’t desire to see them go out of business. Their financial success isn’t really relevant to me personally. As such, when their industry made a themselves odious in their attempts to prioritize themselves over ever other shareholder I am not really concerned about their struggles to stay solvent. In fact, as their efforts to prioritize themselves does directly affect me in negative ways and contributes to harming the wildlife resources I cherish, my ambivalence turns more to wanting to see the outfitting industry diminish instead of thrive.

Outfitters complain about the “hate” and willfully ignore what they have done to contribute to people’s negative opinion of their industry.
Click to expand...
Outfitters have done plenty to shoot themselves in the foot, sometimes in the head. A lot of what we are blamed for though is simply not for a fact, I won't bore with redundancy.

I as a public land hunter would rather see those 8K NR hunters going with an outfitter, placing less pressure on accessible lands. As an R hunter I still think that the drawing for breaks elk permits should be held in Glasgow at the court house, must be present to win. I think Residents of Valley and Phillip county ought to have a better chance, cause we live here year round. It used to be this way, but it's not going back to that, and I would not lobby for it to, but I still think it's the way it should be. If I want a moose permit and the draw was in Dillon and I had to be present to win, I'd go. But this is just to show my mindset on the subject.

Unless you have a business that benefits directly from outfitting I can understand the relevancy of the finances. Those business' that benefit directly from outfitted tourism do care. From our local mechanic to local bar to grocery store to meat processor to taxidermist and on and on, all benefit from the NR dollar I bring into our local economy. The local bar owner, and many others, have thanked me many times for bringing in "new money" to our community. It all helps support small community business'.

In what way/ways has outfitting affected you in negative ways? I'm curious to know.
 
Gerald Martin said:
Summary of the minutes from the meeting.
“It’s the Democrats fault. None of this would be happening if wolves hadn’t been reintroduced. We deserve more tags.”
Click to expand...
Or the reverse shared here by many Democrat Hunt Talk members.

Until both parties are able to look in the mirror, then sit at the table for bipartisan NA Conservation Model discussions, it will continue to be a D v R, bi-polar extreme with each party prepared to, "Fix the wrongs of that party"...
 
Outfitters have leased land/ranches that once were open to the public through block management or some just allowed access. That has displaced alot of hunters over the years. U can say all u want they got tired of joe public but it was the $$$ that caused private to lock up there lands. I know 1 land owner that shut her property down based on the public theory, not treating the private land well or doing stupid things. And it was mainly because it was in the last couple yrs. She was one of the only large private land owners that allowed public access so alot of hunters hunted up there. Orange army. With that u get some assholes but alot of good people. Say what u want but most ranches that shut off the public was a financial decision.
 
Walkalot said:
Outfitters have leased land/ranches that once were open to the public through block management or some just allowed access. That has displaced alot of hunters over the years. U can say all u want they got tired of joe public but it was the $$$ that caused private to lock up there lands. I know 1 land owner that shut her property down based on the public theory, not treating the private land well or doing stupid things. And it was mainly because it was in the last couple yrs. She was one of the only large private land owners that allowed public access so alot of hunters hunted up there. Orange army. With that u get some assholes but alot of good people. Say what u want but most ranches that shut off the public was a financial decision.
Click to expand...
Can't fault the ranch owner. They can deal with one person who pays them $15,000 and escorts hunters onto the ranch or get paid $15,000 by FWP for block management and have dozens (Type II) or hundreds (type I) of hunters on the property. Seems like an easy decision to me. I agree it only takes a few assholes to ruin it for the rest, but the number of the assholes seem to be growing from what I see. Blaming the Outfitters is an easy-out, but the solution to fixing that is more complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Kenetrek Boots

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,702
Messages
2,235,374
Members
38,987
Latest member
CRH1833!

Share this page

Back
Top