Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage

I wish I had been feeling better when I testified on this, as I think my comments were as (in)coherent as you would expect from a guy dealing with a week of serious liver ailments. Seeing how I function on bad liver days, Mrs. Fin tried to keep me home and I think I should have listened. With some meds and sleep, I will post these thoughts below in hopes to provide a better explanation than what my testimony provided.

To the point I had hoped to make and did a crappy job, this bill assumes that everything under the purview of FWP is somehow related to private land hunting. FWP and the Commission oversee a lot more than hunting, especially that part of hunting that is private land hunting.

The 2018 survey MOGA loves to cite from the U of M shows that of the surveyed respondents, hunting comprised 2.3% of days outdoors among all things under the purview of the FWP Commission. Compared to fishing, boating, floating, hiking, wildlife watching, (insert other outdoor activity), hunting was 2.3% of days afield while the rest of FWP oversight activities were 97%+.

We know from the USFWS and NSSF studies that 70% of western hunters hunt primarily on public land. That means 30% is primarily on private land. So, 30% of 2.3% is less than 1% of the days afield are from private land hunting activities.

If we take the dollar amount, which slants things heavily toward private land hunting, that survey showed 24% to non-resident hunting. If 30% of that was on private lands, that is 7.2% of the surveyed revenues of non-residents was private land.

Does a group who is impacted, and often compensate for, less than 1% of the days afield deserve 57% (4/7) of the seats on the FWP Commission? Nope.

To give the benefit of the doubt and measure it by dollars, does a group that is responsible for less than 8% of the total revenue from outdoor activities deserve 57% of the seats on the FWP Commission? Not even close.

If one listened to the sponsor, MOGA, or some private land outfitters, one would be left to think the only activities that FWP and the Commission are responsible for revolves private land hunting. Hardly the case.

This is a complete bullshit bill, even though I like the idea of 7 Commissioners, one from each Region. That increase skews the per-capita benefit heavily to low-population Regions like Region 6 and 7. That dilutes the per-capita representation from other Regions with higher human population density. Even with that dilution, I'm good with adding two more Commissioners and giving one to each Region.

This is an other of the big land grabs that gives the middle finger to the rest of the state. If you are a fishing outfitter, a packtrip outfitter, a retailer that relies on the 97% of other daily activities, you and your business don't mean chit according the folks pushing this bill. I'd love to see FOAM bust MOGA's chops over this one.

It is rather arrogant to present a bill that implies that the major issue FWP deals with is hunting, when hunting is a small portion of what this Commission deals with, whether measured by days afield or dollars spent. And the portion of hunting that is private land is a lot smaller than the days/dollars on public land and surely not deserving of 57% representation on the Commission.

None of that discounts the good conservation work private landowners do in Montana. Yet, there is a lot more going on that the FWP Commission deals with than just public land hunting.
 
Randy I don’t have time to run your figures, but if only 1% of the days afield equate into 50-55m $ generated then use University multiple of 7 to come up with a $350m industry while only affecting 1% makes us off the chart effective for dollars generated vs. impact to environment and resource
 
Randy I don’t have time to run your figures, but if only 1% of the days afield equate into 50-55m $ generated then use University multiple of 7 to come up with a $350m industry while only affecting 1% makes us off the chart effective for dollars generated vs. impact to environment and resource
That implies all the $50-55M is generated on private lands and that there are no outfitters operating on public lands. The survey shows that to be the opposite of that implication. 61% of the activities that everyone likes to take credit for happens on public lands.

If we were to use that study and dissect hunting, hunting is less than 25% of the activity that was reported in that study. What percentage of that is on private lands? We don't know. I hope the new reformation of the Board of Outfitters can establish some reporting so we know that information.

The contribution of the self-guided person is not measured, either in terms of days afield fishing, hunting, rafting, or any other activity. Neither is the economic value measured. And the days afield and economic benefit is not measured for resident activity, something far greater than what is reported for non-residents in that outfitted survey.

If anything, that study everyone loves to claim supports their economic contribution, hardly supports giving 57% of FWP Commission seats to a select group based on the premise that it is the private land impacts that drive the engine.


Screen Shot 2021-02-28 at 4.27.48 PM.png

Curious how we give away a set number of non-resident hunting tags, yet 17,400 hunting clients were supposedly served by the outfitters responding in the survey. Maybe there is a huge number of small game, bird, or other hunting outfitting that I am not aware of.


Screen Shot 2021-02-28 at 4.42.17 PM.png


The rationale used for reducing SB 143 down to 39% is that 39% is based on historical use. Not sure where the number came from. If 39% is historic, I'm trying to figure out how 17,400 in the survey equates to 39%. (17,400 /.39 = 44,615 non-resident hunters). Something in those numbers of 39% or the survey responses of 17,400 outfitted clients, doesn't fit.

But if we assume 39% of non-resident hunting activity is outfitted, and hunting (public and private) is a small percentage of the total outdoor activities FWP is in charge of, that again doesn't lend much credence to why we should give 57% of the Commission powers to a small group.

I guess the answer is, "We have the votes and that is what we will do." Eff all the other folks, the other businesses, and other economic activity that is affected by FWP.
 
Randy I don’t have time to run your figures, but if only 1% of the days afield equate into 50-55m $ generated then use University multiple of 7 to come up with a $350m industry while only affecting 1% makes us off the chart effective for dollars generated vs. impact to environment and resource

I am sure I am wrong here and would love someone to explain this to me. But technically don't you have a $50-55m industry? Isn't the 7 multiplier just showing that the same 50-55m transfers hands 7 times?
 
Correct WI. The 7 multiply is how many times dollar exchanges hands. It factors in the economics of a revenue stream.

Randy, The 39% (roughly 8000-8500) is actual number of clients taken big game hunting, from board of outfitters numbers. I have no idea where the 17k comes from. I can not imagine there are 8-9k guided bird hunters in Montana. I guess it’s possible but I don’t know of anybody taking huge bird hunter numbers. If there are they do not belong to MOGA. Maybe if you count everything from spring turkey, upland, pheasant and waterfowl maybe? A lot of the waterfowl hunters I know of going with Yellowstone valley outfitters are resident hunters, as are a lot of pheasant hunters.
Into the 50-55m bird hunters are not counted into the equation, only big game primarily deer/elk.
 
Also if that is the case that the 7x multiplier is just how many times the money changes hands what is the NR DIY multiplier? I can look it up myself and read if someone would be willing to point me to that info.

I only ask bc outfitters are paying the same people I am as a NR DIY guy short of themselves and their guides. So would stand to reason the DIY multiplier should be 5x?

Edit: I should say is there a NR DIY multiplier and a Resident DIY? And also what are the 7 times they are figuring the $ is changing hands? I tried looking for the UM study but couldn't find it.
 
Into the 50-55m bird hunters are not counted into the equation, only big game primarily deer/elk.
If we go with that number and we assume the rationale is the economics and disregard the actual days of participation, what is the percentage of that hunting that is private land? 30%, 50%, 75%? If we are optimistic and give it 80%, that is $44M of private land hunting.

The total of outfitted revenues in the survey, from all activities of which FWP has purview, was $229M. That makes private land outfitted hunting 19.2% of that total.

If we add in the non-guided and resident economic value of the same activities, I don't think it is a stretch to say it is much greater than the guided amount, but let's just go with it being equal to the guided number and give the highest possible contribution to private land hunting. That would make private land hunting less than 10% of the economic activity that is generated from activities under FWP purview.

4 of 7 Commission seats is 57%. 57% is way greater than 9.6%, with 9.6% being the absolutely most optimistic measurement criteria by which to measure this.

If we do it on days afield, just hunting is 2.3% of the total. If we use the same 80% for private land versus public land, that is 1.8% of outfitted days being private land hunting.

What is the days for residents and non-guided non-residents? We have license sales numbers with residents being 5-12x, depending upon the licensed activity. That doesn't count for the unlicensed activities of boating, wildlife watching, camping, hiking, kayaking, etc.

It is likely much less than that, given the survey shows the average guided client spends 4.5 days hunting and 2.0 days fishing. I suspect residents, in addition to outnumbering non-residents by a factor of 5-12x, fish more than 2.0 days per year and hunt more than 4.5 days per year.

I think it would be optimistic to give outfitted clients 10% of the total days afield by all folks, residents and non-residents, guided and unguided, just in the hunting and fishing space, let alone all the other activities. If we use the generous number of 10% of the days afield to outfitted clients, that dilutes the 1.8% number of private land hunting shown above, down to .18% of all days afield by residents and non-residents, guided or non-guided.

4 of 7 Commission seats is 57%. 57% is way greater than .18%, if we measure by days afield and give the outfitted segment the benefit of how many days their clients spend afield.

Point being, no matter how we measure it, using the rationale that 57% of FWP Commission seats should be reserved for a select group because of the importance of private land hunting is not supported by any numbers; the best case made is economics at 9.6% and the most likely case being based on days afield at .18%

We can call it what we want, we can try to rationalize it how we want, fact is, this represents a complete giveaway and a kick in the crotch to everyone other than those who are involved in private land hunting. All the other participants, all the other businesses, all the others impacted by FWP decisions get relegated to left-overs.

I'm open to other rationale, but so far none have been provided, other than the very thin disguised reasoning of "We have the votes and we have some political debts to repay. We're repaying them with FWP Commission seats. Eff the rest of you folks."
 
Oh wait! Fin, you forgot the "landowners have best stewardship knowledge" assertion. Only a little less ridiculous than their having the greatest economic stake.

I get a kick out of this battle of the bean-counters. I'm only an amateur statistician but still find it very entertaining. MOGA is clearly trying to make a lot out of very little. Fin is way out of their league when it comes to playing the numbers game.

If I was a true native eastern Montana rancher/farmer I would find this proposal insulting and embarrassing ... and totally unAmerican. Some of these guys should pack their recently unpacked bags and relocate to Mexico where it's much easier to buy control of everything.
 
Also if that is the case that the 7x multiplier is just how many times the money changes hands what is the NR DIY multiplier? I can look it up myself and read if someone would be willing to point me to that info.

I only ask bc outfitters are paying the same people I am as a NR DIY guy short of themselves and their guides. So would stand to reason the DIY multiplier should be 5x?

Edit: I should say is there a NR DIY multiplier and a Resident DIY? And also what are the 7 times they are figuring the $ is changing hands? I tried looking for the UM study but couldn't find it.
Outfitters pay a few more folks than you do as a DIY NR, such as landowners, income tax, and possibly a few I‘m not thinking of. I’m guessing the multiplier is the same, but you may be thinking of the number 5 due to the fact that the economic ratio of DIY vs. Outfitted is 5:1 per the UM study. That just means that it takes roughly the money of 5 DIY hunters that gets spent in the state to equal the money that 1 outfitted client leaves in the state. One point that is being missed in all of this discussion that I have picked up on from a few, is that the money that outfitters make after all expenses are paid, stays in the state for 365 days a year. I’ve seen a few folks that have made the comment about the money that goes into the outfitters pocket and not into the business of Montana. So that leads me to believe that they think we just bury it in the back yard or we have Swiss bank accounts or something on those lines. Personally, aside from going out of state to buy ranch/rope horses.....ALL of it stays in Montana.
 
Outfitters pay a few more folks than you do as a DIY NR, such as landowners, income tax, and possibly a few I‘m not thinking of. I’m guessing the multiplier is the same, but you may be thinking of the number 5 due to the fact that the economic ratio of DIY vs. Outfitted is 5:1 per the UM study. That just means that it takes roughly the money of 5 DIY hunters that gets spent in the state to equal the money that 1 outfitted client leaves in the state. One point that is being missed in all of this discussion that I have picked up on from a few, is that the money that outfitters make after all expenses are paid, stays in the state for 365 days a year. I’ve seen a few folks that have made the comment about the money that goes into the outfitters pocket and not into the business of Montana. So that leads me to believe that they think we just bury it in the back yard or we have Swiss bank accounts or something on those lines. Personally, aside from going out of state to buy ranch/rope horses.....ALL of it stays in Montana.
I can refute this as the outfitter I worked for did everything he could to spend a little money in the community as possible and once the season was over he left for the east coast until next year. The only people that got any money was him, the landowners, and the gas station. We were the lowest paid guides in the valley.

He operated like that for 20 years

The other thing I saw was as the price of hunts increased from during my time $5k to $8k I saw clients stop using those ancillary services like butcher shops and taxidermist. Guys would cut meat themselves and drive it back east with the cape and horns. Basically they resembled more like DIY hunters than outfitted clients so again money concentrated in the landowners and the out-of-state owners.

I will say that the economic activity of hunters was hugely important for that community, but to say that all outfitters keep all their money in the community is not true.
 
I can refute this as the outfitter I worked for did everything he could to spend a little money in the community as possible and once the season was over he left for the east coast until next year. The only people that got any money was him, the landowners, and the gas station. We were the lowest paid guides in the valley.

He operated like that for 20 years

The other thing I saw was as the price of hunts increased from during my time $5k to $8k I saw clients stop using those ancillary services like butcher shops and taxidermist. Guys would cut meat themselves and drive it back east with the cape and horns. Basically they resembled more like DIY hunters than outfitted clients so again money concentrated in the landowners and the out-of-state owners.

I will say that the economic activity of hunters was hugely important for that community, but to say that all outfitters keep all their money in the community is not true.
I don‘t doubt that at all, but if you look back at my post you will notice that I said that my money stays in Montana....not just one community. If I had a say...the nonresident outfitters would be required to pay a tax per client to operate.....but that’s just my opinion.
 
Generally farmers, ranchers, outfitters, plumbers, mechanics, furniture makers, doctors, nurses, car dealers, etal all pay taxes and all have similar and distinctly different problems and financial challenges. All of those groups spend money in their communities and across the state. Farmers, ranchers, and outfitters are not relatively different nor more important to the economy. The point is that plumbers, mechanics, furniture makers, doctors, nurses, car dealers, etal are not lobbying through their friendly legislators for state handouts and special compensation(s)!
 
Called and left a message with my senator(Sen. Cary Smith). I've sent emails before but never called. Hopefully he actually listens...
 
I am not inclined to give much sympathy to ranchers whining about paying property taxes if they post up their property and deprive the public of its resources. I know one large ranch near Havre that the owners claim block management money pays their taxes every year. Sharing the resource can be profitable. And they don't have to stop ranching to mess with outfitting.
 
Generally farmers, ranchers, outfitters, plumbers, mechanics, furniture makers, doctors, nurses, car dealers, etal all pay taxes and all have similar and distinctly different problems and financial challenges. All of those groups spend money in their communities and across the state. Farmers, ranchers, and outfitters are not relatively different nor more important to the economy. The point is that plumbers, mechanics, furniture makers, doctors, nurses, car dealers, etal are not lobbying through their friendly legislators for state handouts and special compensation(s)!
And generally a NR DIY hunter doesn’t pay said income tax here in MT.....hence why I used that point a few posts ago when WIbiggame said that he pays about the same people an outfitter does except himself or his guides.
 
And generally a NR DIY hunter doesn’t pay said income tax here in MT.
Nor does the tourist whitewater rafter or fishing outfitter client. The difference is that the whitewater rafting business and the fishing outfitter aren't lobbying the state to guarantee clients or to give outfitters or large landowners Smith River permits.
 
The idea that it's okay to monetize/privatize tags/wildlife because some outfitters pay income tax and DIY non-resident hunters don't is a terrible argument. If we keep looking at hunting this way then it is only a matter of time before we're just like Europe where only the wealthy can afford to participate.

This bill essentially ensures that 4 out of 7 commissioners will be there to prioritize money and private interests (AKA MONEY) over managing a public resource for public use and the "greatest good for the greatest number", including the hunting heritage and legacy of the frontier spirit that our country was founded on.

The same with 143...these are detrimental moves to hunting traditions and the sport of hunting itself. These laws might not do it all in one fell swoop. But they bring us closer to that exclusive European model than they do further away. It get's kind of sickening after a while to see all these discussions go to economics. Like all that matters is who makes the money and who doesn't. We ave to make that argument to those outside the hunting community sure, but to have to do that as a part of an inward conflict within the community....What an awful waste of brain power for sportsmen.
 
Last edited:
WIbiggame said that he pays about the same people an outfitter does except himself or his guides.

That is why I put the edit in there about the resident dyi multiplier bc they would be paying exactly the say as you short of yourself and the guides you have working.

Thanks for explaining this to me tho I appreciate the economic explanation as I was having a hard time wrapping my head around it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,409
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top