FWP Commission to change Gardiner Elk hunting

[Deleted member 18333]

Really? There are some huge duck clubs that do a lot of corporate hunts, etc.

Worked at a coal mine in CO that owned and controlled 100,000+ acres of private/public land. We used to use a portion of our RFW tags to "thank" our current and future customers.

I've been on a couple of vendor provided pheasant shoots in Kansas. Going to Georgia in January on the clients dime to shoot quail and drink bourbon.

 

[El Jason]

Going to Georgia in January on the clients dime to shoot quail and drink bourbon.

Need a friend?

 

[sacountry]

It pains me that Pat Tabor is my representative on the commission. My one question has to due with the justification of "recovery from flooding".....can't these outfitters who apparently suffered substantial harm get access to flood $$$? I know GG filed a state of emergency, but I'm wondering where/who can get access to those federal dollars? Is it only for infrastructure or is also for financial / economic benefit of people and businesses? If yes to the latter, then that seems to be where the aid should come from, not Tabor's crappy ideas.

 

[Beignet]

It pains me that Pat Tabor is my representative on the commission. My one question has to due with the justification of "recovery from flooding".....can't these outfitters who apparently suffered substantial harm get access to flood $$$? I know GG filed a state of emergency, but I'm wondering where/who can get access to those federal dollars? Is it only for infrastructure or is also for financial / economic benefit of people and businesses? If yes to the latter, then that seems to be where the aid should come from, not Tabor's crappy ideas.

I thought that too. Then I also thought, it's not as though these guys are outfitting inside the park, or doing much business that people would skip going to Gardiner over because the road was closed. If folks were going to hunt north of the park with them then the road closure shouldn't have mattered much to their business. Sure, that access being closed undoubtedly affected a ton of businesses in Gardiner when the usual summer tourist traffic was diminished, but not seeing how it affected businesses who help other people shoot animals outside the park. Unless I'm missing something with that grasping at straws justification.

 

[antlerradar]

I thought that too. Then I also thought, it's not as though these guys are outfitting inside the park, or doing much business that people would skip going to Gardiner over because the road was closed. If folks were going to hunt north of the park with them then the road closure shouldn't have mattered much to their business. Sure, that access being closed undoubtedly affected a ton of businesses in Gardiner when the usual summer tourist traffic was diminished, but not seeing how it affected businesses who help other people shoot animals outside the park. Unless I'm missing something with that grasping at straws justification.

I could be wrong, but I think the backcounty outfitters access quite a bit of the backcountry thorough the park. Not that this is a reason to change the season.

 

[Dr. samuel_284Win]

In academia, we would call Tabor's idea on flooding impacting outfitters, etc etc... an extrapolation. Fun fact, extrapolation will get you a nasty peer review comment if you try that in a professional paper.

 

[Beignet]

I could be wrong, but I think the backcounty outfitters access quite a bit of the backcountry thorough the park. Not that this is a reason to change the season.

I thought that might’ve been the case. I don’t really know who all outfits out of Gardiner and which of those that outfit hunts also have permits to do tourism outfitting inside of the park. Guessing that would narrow the pool down significantly.

 

[sacountry]

Here's what I just submitted....thanks @Big Fin for making the cut n' paste of emails easy...

For the discussion at the 12/20 meeting pertaining to the opening of HD313 for harvest of bull elk via a general elk tag. There is an apparent justification for this change that states the Gardiner outfitters have suffered financially from the floods that ravaged the Paradise Yellowstone drainage earlier this year. I have not seen one tax record to quantify this claim but my guess is that the IRS hasn't either since 2022 taxes aren't due yet.

I'm also hard pressed to understand how a subset of businesses impacted by the summer floods deserves special treatment. Certainly if there was economic harm done to the businesses in Garnder then shouldn't all be provided the same aid? Why use a natural resource to only help a portion of those impacted?

Reality is that this is a bad idea from jumpstreet given the introduction of the extended general season via the muzzleloader heritage hunt. Imagine the sales of muzzleloaders and snowmobiles by those who don't punch their general tag by Thanksgiving? They'll all be running to Gardner to shoot fish in a barrel. Let's be smart. Let's use other avenues to solve for the suggested outfitter hardships in Gardner. Let's keep a healthy, age diverse elk herd, already under attack from increased tourism and predators, by keeping the quota system as it's been set since 2016 when this issue was last debated.

Speaking directly to Commissioner Tabor, you represent me in Region 1. My ask is that you only consider introducing concepts to the commission that will improve the health of our big game herds and then use those interested parties, like outfitters, hunters, private landowners, as needed to help in that goal. Anything short of that honestly appears as good ol' fashioned cronyism and pandering.

Thank you listening,

 

[Beignet]

Here's what I just submitted....thanks @Big Fin for making the cut n' paste of emails easy...

For the discussion at the 12/20 meeting pertaining to the opening of HD313 for harvest of bull elk via a general elk tag. There is an apparent justification for this change that states the Gardiner outfitters have suffered financially from the floods that ravaged the Paradise Yellowstone drainage earlier this year. I have not seen one tax record to quantify this claim but my guess is that the IRS hasn't either since 2022 taxes aren't due yet.

I'm also hard pressed to understand how a subset of businesses impacted by the summer floods deserves special treatment. Certainly if there was economic harm done to the businesses in Garnder then shouldn't all be provided the same aid? Why use a natural resource to only help a portion of those impacted?

Reality is that this is a bad idea from jumpstreet given the introduction of the extended general season via the muzzleloader heritage hunt. Imagine the sales of muzzleloaders and snowmobiles by those who don't punch their general tag by Thanksgiving? They'll all be running to Gardner to shoot fish in a barrel. Let's be smart. Let's use other avenues to solve for the suggested outfitter hardships in Gardner. Let's keep a healthy, age diverse elk herd, already under attack from increased tourism and predators, by keeping the quota system as it's been set since 2016 when this issue was last debated.

Speaking directly to Commissioner Tabor, you represent me in Region 1. My ask is that you only consider introducing concepts to the commission that will improve the health of our big game herds and then use those interested parties, like outfitters, hunters, private landowners, as needed to help in that goal. Anything short of that honestly appears as good ol' fashioned cronyism and pandering.

Thank you listening,

MEOW!

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Really? There are some huge duck clubs that do a lot of corporate hunts, etc.

Absolutely. They use it kind of like golf outings. Sales folks take clients on outfitted duck, deer, and elk hunts at nice lodges. Just expense it.

 

[antlerradar]

Pretty good living
View attachment 255613

They can have that living, I bet the expenses would scare most people. Any time you put a person on a horse the liability insurance goes through the roof. Probably more than most peoples annual income. Horses are expensive, he likely has at least 1/4 million tied up in horse flesh and that doesn't count feeding and housing them. Equipment, food, lodging and employees are expensive. All said and done I would bet he is working a nearly 24/7/365 job for less than 15 dollars an hour. You have got to love what you do to work that job.

 

[brockel]

They can have that living, I bet the expenses would scare most people. Any time you put a person on a horse the liability insurance goes through the roof. Probably more than most peoples annual income. Horses are expensive, he likely has at least 1/4 million tied up in horse flesh and that doesn't count feeding and housing them. Equipment, food, lodging and employees are expensive. All said and done I would bet he is working a nearly 24/7/365 job for less than 15 dollars an hour. You have got to love what you do to work that job.

Have family that did the dude ranch thing. No doubt the insurance is crazy but they still did quite alright

 

[antlerradar]

Have family that did the dude ranch thing. No doubt the insurance is crazy but they still did quite alright

Only if you can deal with dudes 24/7 and not end up in the funny farm.

 

[brockel]

Only if you can deal with dudes 24/7 and not end up in the funny farm.

The stories they have are quite comical but probably weren’t at the time

 

[Gerald Martin]

They can have that living, I bet the expenses would scare most people. Any time you put a person on a horse the liability insurance goes through the roof. Probably more than most peoples annual income. Horses are expensive, he likely has at least 1/4 million tied up in horse flesh and that doesn't count feeding and housing them. Equipment, food, lodging and employees are expensive. All said and done I would bet he is working a nearly 24/7/365 job for less than 15 dollars an hour. You have got to love what you do to work that job.

No doubt being an outfitter is strenuous work with high overhead costs and lower dollars per hour than many other industries.

However, whenever it comes to changing regulations or allocating tags the ability of commercial operators to make money should not be an influence on management decisions.

I have seen the “we deserve sympathy” argument used several times by the outfitter lobby to justify decisions that would disproportionately benefit them over other shareholders and at the expense of the resource.

 

[Big Fin]

No doubt being an outfitter is strenuous work with high overhead costs and lower dollars per hour than many other industries.

However, whenever it comes to changing regulations or allocating tags the ability of commercial operators to make money should not be an influence on management decisions.

I have seen the “we deserve sympathy” argument used several times by the outfitter lobby to justify decisions that would disproportionately benefit them over other shareholders and at the expense of the resource.

Yup. Just a few:

- MT Senate Bill 143 - Give 40% of non-resident tags to landowner clients.
- MT applicants using an outfitter get double the number of preference points for our general tag draw than self-guided non-residents.
- Wyoming creating a Special pool for non-residents.
- Huge Wyoming price increase likely coming for 2024 to that Special pool, pushed by WYOGA, hoping to increase the draw odds of outfitted clients.
- Idaho has a pool of outfitter-sponsored tags.
- Nevada has a special pool of tags for the mule deer draw and an earlier draw date.
- New Mexico gives 10% of the tags to those using an outfitter.

There are other programs based on the "tough way to make a living" plea. It might well be tough. I know I wouldn't want the job. But, it is a choice to be in that business, just like any other business owner who chooses to be in a certain industry.

What strikes me as peculiar is that I refer dozens of people to outfitters each year in every western state. I don't take a booking fee. I refer to these outfits because I know they run a great operation and that gives me comfort that the hunter will have a good experience. Everyone of these folks are booked 2-3 years out, depending on the species. Some who aren't in states that have OTC or other predictable options for advance bookings, book up within a day or two of the draw results.

And some of those good operators don't expect three months of work to pay for twelve months of living. They often have other businesses in farming, ranching, contracting, working their asses off.

So, is it like every industry where you have good operators with good business minds who do very well and you also have plenty of half-assed operators who couldn't make money running a casino with a bordello? I think that is the case. Outfitting is not immune from the good/bad operators we see in every other industry.

Does the public owe a huge favor to those half-assed operators? I don't think so. I often wonder if those outfitters who are dialed in and work at other businesses to make a good living, are keen on using their industry's political capital to try keep the half-assed folks afloat.

Let's call it for what it is; this change in 313-45 is about outfitter revenue and disregards what "influence" this will have on the resource.

 

[Straight Arrow]

For me, love for Montana's hunting legacy, special places, wildlife and resources goes back three generations and is embedded in my life. Advocacy for protecting, conserving, and valuing hunting and those resources is paramount. It is contrary to my philosophy to even consider exploiting those resources in any way to make a living or gain wealth. Greatest satisfaction to me is introducing the hunting legacy to a new hunter and sharing in their success and describing or showing others the special places of Montana.
It is difficult for me on a personal level to understand the drive, let alone the need, for commercialization of hunting.

However, I do respect and admire the professional outfitters who provide a positive service and advocacy for the wildlife resource, while engaging with clients in a personal and healthy relationship. I am disappointed in how the business has evolved in many areas into more of a "fee-for-access" service.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Outfitter welfare at its finest. What a joke.

 

[sacountry]

Yup. Just a few:

- MT Senate Bill 143 - Give 40% of non-resident tags to landowner clients.
- MT applicants using an outfitter get double the number of preference points for our general tag draw than self-guided non-residents.
- Wyoming creating a Special pool for non-residents.
- Huge Wyoming price increase likely coming for 2024 to that Special pool, pushed by WYOGA, hoping to increase the draw odds of outfitted clients.
- Idaho has a pool of outfitter-sponsored tags.
- Nevada has a special pool of tags for the mule deer draw and an earlier draw date.
- New Mexico gives 10% of the tags to those using an outfitter.

There are other programs based on the "tough way to make a living" plea. It might well be tough. I know I wouldn't want the job. But, it is a choice to be in that business, just like any other business owner who chooses to be in a certain industry.

What strikes me as peculiar is that I refer dozens of people to outfitters each year in every western state. I don't take a booking fee. I refer to these outfits because I know they run a great operation and that gives me comfort that the hunter will have a good experience. Everyone of these folks are booked 2-3 years out, depending on the species. Some who aren't in states that have OTC or other predictable options for advance bookings, book up within a day or two of the draw results.

And some of those good operators don't expect three months of work to pay for twelve months of living. They often have other businesses in farming, ranching, contracting, working their asses off.

So, is it like every industry where you have good operators with good business minds who do very well and you also have plenty of half-assed operators who couldn't make money running a casino with a bordello? I think that is the case. Outfitting is not immune from the good/bad operators we see in every other industry.

Does the public owe a huge favor to those half-assed operators? I don't think so. I often wonder if those outfitters who are dialed in and work at other businesses to make a good living, are keen on using their industry's political capital to try keep the half-assed folks afloat.

Let's call it for what it is; this change in 313-45 is about outfitter revenue and disregards what "influence" this will have on the resource.

Agreed. I also feel that any attempt to help this group EVER is well outside the bounds of what FWP is charged to do. All government handouts; ie welfare, COVID relief, medicare, etc, require proper documentation to support/justify the need. The FWP is not setup to perform this kind of accountability nor is it in their charged responsibility. I do think they could and should be held accountable in a court of law if they try to advance this bill based on outfitter harm.

 

[Big Fin]

If you plan to testify for the Zoom call tomorrow, you must sign up today. Link here - https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/mtg/decemberjointmeeting12202022

If you have not commented yet, I hope you will. We stand a very good chance of this backdoor "amendment to agenda with no public notice" trick sliding in for approval.

Not sure how a Region 1 Commissioner can make an unvetted proposal for the most contested/controversial/debated hunt code of the last 20 years, Hunt Code 313-45, and do so in a Region that he is a complete stranger to.

Thanks for any comments folks are inclined to send. Links in Post #1.