Ballot initiative to repeal HB637

[Big Shooter]

I am hoping for the same vigor and enthusiasm when Wyoming tries to limit DIY non-residents to just 10 percent of the licenses. What I have learned that its all about the DIY guy's and protecting their ability to get a tag? I learned a long time ago in Eastern Montana that the ranchers look at the first few numbers on a resident hunter's license plate and make an assumption about them based upon where they live. It appears that some of you are doing the same thing and throwing out all the bad outfitter stories to get everyone's lather up.

The tragedy of all of this is that folks don't see the benefit of having small to medium family ranches throughout Montana. The margins are thin and leasing their property to hunters or outfitters for some extra income can be the difference between losing and keeping a ranch. Once the families sell out, they will be bought by corporations and the very, very rich. I am not against capitalism at all, but once all the family ranches are gone, it won't matter who has the tags, and the DIY guy will suffer greater than losing a few tags to outfitters. The ranches will become so big, that the wildlife will never leave, even with pressure. It doesn't matter if the wildlife belongs to the people of the State if they all live on private land.

If I came back to this board in 30 years, would we all be arguing on who gets to shoot the last mule deer. We have more in common than most of you realize.


Rich

Spot on.

 

[Big Shooter]

So Rod and Eric, it seems the main rationale for needing a “solution” for outfitters was “uncertainty” of the draw. A compromise was put forth via amendment to 143 that put the draw earlier to mitigate some of that uncertainty. However, it appears that compromise was soundly rejected by MOGA and the amended bill suffered a quick death. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that, and whether you’re open to something similar in a new compromise or whether OSL’s are hard liners requirement for you / MOGA.

Obviously, that by itself doesn’t fix all the other issue regarding the resource, but I think it will be central to any compromise solution.

The Bill in its original form was earlier and was also just for outfitted clients. The amendment made it even earlier, open to everyone. This (in our opinion) opened the doors to hunt clubs and wealthy nonresident landowners and their crowd. We had a few of the larger hunting consultant businesses tell us that they would have had those tags gobbled up in a matter of hours leaving very few behind. Not sure any of us would have liked much of the above. This approach would have also played into the hand of the illegal outfitters as well which is a bigger problem than most of you realize. There are other ideas that would keep our industry in check and possibly even downsize it that I’ve been kicked around amongst us.

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

Eric could elaborate on that better than I could as it was done before my time.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric could elaborate on that better than I could as it was done before my time.

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?? 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 kept) 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.

 

[sacountry]

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?? 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 kept) 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.

Eric, is there data on number of outfitters in Montana over time, say year over year for the last 10 years? Also, does anyone track the number of guided hunts that are conducted, say on a year over year basis?

 

[Sytes]

...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.

Agree with this portion. Don't know enough to express support or opposition for the interesting take from the outfitter side.

It was a good read and good to view from the other side how and where we are now. Thanks for sharing. I'm sure the other side will counter certain aspects.

A bit of a pisser, while we have mutual interests, the fight will continue so long as the blame game continues.
Same as politics. Both want to correct the others f-ups, furthering the crap we deal with vs bi partisan development.
Righteous blame in some aspects though human arrogance has to be one of our most gimped traits for our species.

Hope we, outfitters and R /NR hunters don't follow the same as today's politics... the further our extremes lead us, the worse off for everyone.

 

[BuzzH]

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?? 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 kept) 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.

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, as you know we have felt backed into a corner since 161. This was not the fix(637) I envisioned. I personally am tired of watching us beat on each other and dead horses. A ballot initiative is costly and time consuming, and has little chance of success again. The money wasted to fight will be useless, only benefitting the media and lawyers. I'd rather pool the $$ and spend it on access. Myself, Rod, and the MOGA brass agrees, we need to sit down and figure out a compromise.

I(we) want stability for our industry. I realize the angst with this, no need to bore everyone with details, over and over.

I am sick of seeing the resource(elk/deer) being put last on the priority list(both sides culpable). If we(R, NR DIY) put the resource first all falls into place. I hope most of you noticed I did not put the NR outfitted client's opinion out there, the outfitter/landowner they hunt on is responsible for their actions.



I hope you are correct in this. Only thing worse than politics is politicians. After going to the capitol I feel the need for a shower in gasoline to cut through the slime.

Eric,

That's funny, because sportsmen feel the exact same way. They're not the ones bringing bill after bill to try and eliminate current laws that have benefited the actual conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat, or pass new ones. They're simply defending the system from really bad legislation that would steal their access funding, rob them of their voice in managing wildlife, hand wildlife over to the patrons of the majority, eliminate habitat security on public lands by increasing motorized use during hunting seasons, limiting how FWP can manage wildlife based on the political outrage of the day, set seasons in statute, make it exponentially harder to delist grizzly bears, make it exponentially easier for anti-hunters to petition to get wolves relisted, hand wildlife management over to counties, eliminate FWP's ability to purchase easements or fee title land to increase access to landlocked public land, eliminate FWP's ability to decide if certain areas should require non-toxic shot, set up wolf management to fail, make it easier to list Bison as an endangered species, wage war on elk through the suggestion of party hunting and flock shooting, coddle poachers with weak fines, keep fines ridiculously low on illegally locked county roads, force sportsmen to shoulder almost the entire burden(until 2019) of AIS containment when it's ag, power and everyone else that benefits from clean water, etc. So in the goal to ensure we understand each other's perspectives, what is going on in MT isn't just that Outfitters are having a tougher time getting their clients than previous years (which I'm still not sure if you're overbooked or underbooked or just want the kind of surety of customers no other small business in the world has other than undertakers & tax collectors - You guys are like Schrodinger's Industry - both robust & declining at the same time).

There's lots of room to compromise on season structure, permit #'s, etc that can be done at the commission level to rebuild trust. If PLPW is looking at elk allocation & management, then that's the best venue to work on issues for the next legislative session. There's also the EMP rewrite that's underway which will help guide elk management in MT.

But again, the deeper divide here is between people who view wildlife as a condition of the land, held in trust for all, and those who wish to profit from it and keep it as their own. A big part of that divide is the reckless approach to legislating that MT has taken since the early 2000's. Nothing can change until sanity is restored to MT's statutory framework, and we eliminate the political machinations that got MT where it is today.

If MOGA can support something like that, while recognizing it may mean giving up on the dream of OSL's and Ranching for Wildlife, then I think you'll see a lot more support for your industry. If not, then I think the prognostication that a ballot initiative won't work is simply trying to dissuade people from trying it, because you do know it will pass and your organization isn't likely to raise the capital to defeat it due to how politically toxic the issue of wildlife privatization is in MT.

I'm all for finding compromise where we can, but I don't think it means compromising the core values and tenets of the North American Model in favor of a kumbaya moment. If there's a shared vision of eliminating the political influence of wildlife management by limiting what the Legislature can and cannot do, then only a ballot initiative will work, as the Legislature will not eliminate their own authority. As we saw this last session, they went to great lengths to strengthen their grip on power by removing local control throughout the MCA. If politicians shouldn't manage wildlife, then maybe MOGA should be a partner in an initiative rather than simply continue the government relations model of looking out only for your industry.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The Bill in its original form was earlier and was also just for outfitted clients. The amendment made it even earlier, open to everyone. This (in our opinion) opened the doors to hunt clubs and wealthy nonresident landowners and their crowd. We had a few of the larger hunting consultant businesses tell us that they would have had those tags gobbled up in a matter of hours leaving very few behind. Not sure any of us would have liked much of the above. This approach would have also played into the hand of the illegal outfitters as well which is a bigger problem than most of you realize. There are other ideas that would keep our industry in check and possibly even downsize it that I’ve been kicked around amongst us.

The amendment from 143 came from a MOGA bill from 2013 that was supposedly going to be the answer to I-161. FYI

 

[Straight Arrow]

The past two decades of legislative power plays and shenanigans have illustrated the intent to usurp the authority of FWP and the Fish and Game Commission to manage wildlife and establish appropriate hunting and fishing seasons, regulations, and structure most conducive to healthy protection and preservation of wildlife, fisheries, and the highly valued hunting legacy. It seems the best, and perhaps only, effective solution to the political manipulations is a ballot initiative. An initiative gives the public the opportunity to express concurrence in establishing what is best and most supported by considering specific language and intent which is not subject to manipulations and shenanigans that change the meaning and intent through underhanded power plays. IMO, straight forward clearly worded proposals with public opportunity to say, "Yes, I concur." or "No, I disagree." are viable to counter the kind of 2021 legislative craziness exhibited recently.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric, is there data on number of outfitters in Montana over time, say year over year for the last 10 years? Also, does anyone track the number of guided hunts that are conducted, say on a year over year basis?

Yes. Latest number of hunting outfitters is approx 380. Down from an all time high of 550(if memory serves correct). Number of hunting guides is hard to track. But take an average of 3-5 per outfitter and I’d bet it’s close.
Average number of clients/hunters will be around 20-24 per outfitter.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The past two decades of legislative power plays and shenanigans have illustrated the intent to usurp the authority of FWP and the Fish and Game Commission to manage wildlife and establish appropriate hunting and fishing seasons, regulations, and structure most conducive to healthy protection and preservation of wildlife, fisheries, and the highly valued hunting legacy. It seems the best, and perhaps only, effective solution to the political manipulations is a ballot initiative. An initiative gives the public the opportunity to express concurrence in establishing what is best and most supported by considering specific language and intent which is not subject to manipulations and shenanigans that change the meaning and intent through underhanded power plays. IMO, straight forward clearly worded proposals with public opportunity to say, "Yes, I concur." or "No, I disagree." are viable to counter the kind of 2021 legislative craziness exhibited recently.

2011 was a far worse legislative session than 2021.There were something like 110 - 120 bills introduced, many of which were retreaded in 2021. The issue of political management of wildlife isn't new, it's just that the back stop of the Governor's office no longer exists to stop them. Wildlife management shouldn't be held hostage by politicians like that, regardless of who is in the Gov's office, or in power at the legislature.

 

[sacountry]

Yes. Latest number of hunting outfitters is approx 380. Down from an all time high of 550(if memory serves correct). Number of hunting guides is hard to track. But take an average of 3-5 per outfitter and I’d bet it’s close.
Average number of clients/hunters will be around 20-24 per outfitter.

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

2011 was a far worse legislative session than 2021.There were something like 110 - 120 bills introduced, many of which were retreaded in 2021. The issue of political management of wildlife isn't new, it's just that the back stop of the Governor's office no longer exists to stop them. Wildlife management shouldn't be held hostage by politicians like that, regardless of who is in the Gov's office, or in power at the legislature.

Understood. Yes, 2011 was when my lifelong Republican leanings tilted sharply Independent, with strong opposition to various Republican platform agenda items.
Today the Republican party has seemingly abandoned all of the values and principles with which I concurred for so many years.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Understood. Yes, 2011 was when my lifelong Republican leanings tilted sharply Independent, with strong opposition to various Republican platform agenda items.
Today the Republican party has seemingly abandoned all of the values and principles with which I concurred for so many years.

We both still have scars from that one, pal.

It goes back farther than that as well. HB 42 was the big one in 2003 when Senator Barrett made it the law of the land that FWP manage at or below objectives. That set up the lion's share of elk controversy because politicians wanted to make a statement rather than actually examine the issue.

 

[Straight Arrow]

We both still have scars from that one, pal.

It goes back farther than that as well. HB 42 was the big one in 2003 when Senator Barrett made it the law of the land that FWP manage at or below objectives. That set up the lion's share of elk controversy because politicians wanted to make a statement rather than actually examine the issue.

Oh yeah, 'forgot about that one. It was actually the catalyst which initiated my political transformation ... and began a recurring nightmare of Back to the Brink for wildlife.

 

[Irrelevant]

Eric,

That's funny, because sportsmen feel the exact same way. They're not the ones bringing bill after bill to try and eliminate current laws that have benefited the actual conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat, or pass new ones. They're simply defending the system from really bad legislation that would steal their access funding, rob them of their voice in managing wildlife, hand wildlife over to the patrons of the majority, eliminate habitat security on public lands by increasing motorized use during hunting seasons, limiting how FWP can manage wildlife based on the political outrage of the day, set seasons in statute, make it exponentially harder to delist grizzly bears, make it exponentially easier for anti-hunters to petition to get wolves relisted, hand wildlife management over to counties, eliminate FWP's ability to purchase easements or fee title land to increase access to landlocked public land, eliminate FWP's ability to decide if certain areas should require non-toxic shot, set up wolf management to fail, make it easier to list Bison as an endangered species, wage war on elk through the suggestion of party hunting and flock shooting, coddle poachers with weak fines, keep fines ridiculously low on illegally locked county roads, force sportsmen to shoulder almost the entire burden(until 2019) of AIS containment when it's ag, power and everyone else that benefits from clean water, etc. So in the goal to ensure we understand each other's perspectives, what is going on in MT isn't just that Outfitters are having a tougher time getting their clients than previous years (which I'm still not sure if you're overbooked or underbooked or just want the kind of surety of customers no other small business in the world has other than undertakers & tax collectors - You guys are like Schrodinger's Industry - both robust & declining at the same time).

There's lots of room to compromise on season structure, permit #'s, etc that can be done at the commission level to rebuild trust. If PLPW is looking at elk allocation & management, then that's the best venue to work on issues for the next legislative session. There's also the EMP rewrite that's underway which will help guide elk management in MT.

But again, the deeper divide here is between people who view wildlife as a condition of the land, held in trust for all, and those who wish to profit from it and keep it as their own. A big part of that divide is the reckless approach to legislating that MT has taken since the early 2000's. Nothing can change until sanity is restored to MT's statutory framework, and we eliminate the political machinations that got MT where it is today.

If MOGA can support something like that, while recognizing it may mean giving up on the dream of OSL's and Ranching for Wildlife, then I think you'll see a lot more support for your industry. If not, then I think the prognostication that a ballot initiative won't work is simply trying to dissuade people from trying it, because you do know it will pass and your organization isn't likely to raise the capital to defeat it due to how politically toxic the issue of wildlife privatization is in MT.

I'm all for finding compromise where we can, but I don't think it means compromising the core values and tenets of the North American Model in favor of a kumbaya moment. If there's a shared vision of eliminating the political influence of wildlife management by limiting what the Legislature can and cannot do, then only a ballot initiative will work, as the Legislature will not eliminate their own authority. As we saw this last session, they went to great lengths to strengthen their grip on power by removing local control throughout the MCA. If politicians shouldn't manage wildlife, then maybe MOGA should be a partner in an initiative rather than simply continue the government relations model of looking out only for your industry.

Another excellent post without a meaningful rebuttal.

 

[sacountry]

I am hoping for the same vigor and enthusiasm when Wyoming tries to limit DIY non-residents to just 10 percent of the licenses. What I have learned that its all about the DIY guy's and protecting their ability to get a tag? I learned a long time ago in Eastern Montana that the ranchers look at the first few numbers on a resident hunter's license plate and make an assumption about them based upon where they live. It appears that some of you are doing the same thing and throwing out all the bad outfitter stories to get everyone's lather up.

The tragedy of all of this is that folks don't see the benefit of having small to medium family ranches throughout Montana. The margins are thin and leasing their property to hunters or outfitters for some extra income can be the difference between losing and keeping a ranch. Once the families sell out, they will be bought by corporations and the very, very rich. I am not against capitalism at all, but once all the family ranches are gone, it won't matter who has the tags, and the DIY guy will suffer greater than losing a few tags to outfitters. The ranches will become so big, that the wildlife will never leave, even with pressure. It doesn't matter if the wildlife belongs to the people of the State if they all live on private land.

If I came back to this board in 30 years, would we all be arguing on who gets to shoot the last mule deer. We have more in common than most of you realize.


Rich

I agree with you Rich. We will significantly help future generations of sportsmen and women if we can help the small and medium sized ranches keep their properties in their family. I would think most them would like to hand down their way of life to their kids vs selling out. Leases can be a part of the solution, but not the only solution. We really do need to get more funding for the Block Mgmt Program to help give these ranchers a couple of financial options.

 

[brockel]

I agree with you Rich. We will significantly help future generations of sportsmen and women if we can help the small and medium sized ranches keep their properties in their family. I would think most them would like to hand down their way of life to their kids vs selling out. Leases can be a part of the solution, but not the only solution. We really do need to get more funding for the Block Mgmt Program to help give these ranchers a couple of financial options.

Speaking from my area keeping the ranches in the family is getting tougher and tougher because there either isn’t someone to hand it down to or their kids want nothing to do with the place. Getting more and more common

 

[Eric Albus]

Another excellent post without a meaningful rebuttal.

I haven’t had time to read the novel length post