HB 514 signed

[El Jason]

Not saying there aren't a few that do, but they aren't real common.

n=1, but I do.

 

[BuzzH]

n=1, but I do.

Wouldn't you be considered an "outlier", statistically speaking?

I didn't want to say, statistically irrelevant...

 

[elkduds]

Respectfully disagree here as well.

If you think more access would “just open up” particularly without a funding source to pay for it, then I wonder what’s in your coffee cup this morning.

Not every bajillionaire buys a ranch for hunting.

Excluding your disagreement with Treeshark, there is absolutely no way whatsoever hunting in Montana looks better for the average guy in 10 years without a block management program.

I-161 was going to solve a lot of issues as well…

When I read "I respectfully disagree," it makes me interested in the whole post, anticipating a well-reasoned opinion I may or may not endorse. As contrasted to, say, "you don't know jack."

 

[El Jason]

Wouldn't you be considered an "outlier", statistically speaking?

In more ways than statistically my friend.

 

[Hobbes]

Considering the number of archery hunters in the mountains in September, a handful of bird hunters aren't going to be a factor, but that's just my opinion. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[2ndAllin]

I'm one of those NR hunters who begins his bird season each year in MT chasing prairie grouse. I've seen the drastic changes in the last few years and I certainly understand the popularity of the legislation among residents. That said, beginning next year, when the MT bird hunting seasons open for NRs, many other states will also be open, or about to open for upland birds including my home state of WI. That means Montana will no longer be an appealing destination for me. North and South Dakota are much closer to my location, so I'll chase my pheasants, sharpies, Huns and chickens there.

I think MT will see a large decrease in NR upland licenses sold. Since that appears to be the intent of the legislation, I think many MT residents will be plenty happy, unless they are a small business in eastern Montana that caters to NRs, and that's probably a pretty small group.

 

[huntin24/7]

I don’t have the statistics to compare number of non res bird hunters from when I started hunting here as a resident about 17 years ago. We’ve always had a lot, but I think a large part of the issue(just speaking for the area I live in eastern MT) is that I’ve seen quite a bit of habitat loss for upland game birds, particularly crp, over the years but without a reduction in hunters. This makes the pressure and crowding issue much more noticeable. I used to sleep in opening weekend and hunt bma’s in the afternoon when most guys were done for the day or after I got off work and do well. Now there is much less good habitat and the birds are pressured so hard on the available habitat that they are chased off of it much sooner than in the past. There are bma’s that I had great luck all season in the past that have lost well over half of the good habitat and just don’t hold birds like they used to. I don’t have the solution, just observations.

 

[Eric Albus]

@El Jason , can you expand a bit on your I-161 comment? That happened at the very beginning of my awareness of competition between user groups in the conservation space and predates my active participation in the political process.

My earliest perception of I-161 was that it was a “white hat vs.black hat” battle between Joe Average hunters and the Outfitter Industry trying to carve out an unfair advantage for profit.

I suspect that if I were to approach that issue today with the experience and understanding I currently have, I would have a much more nuanced approach to the issue.

I can explain it very well, but you didn’t ask me to. It’s a long story

 

[El Jason]

I can explain it very well, but you didn’t ask me to. It’s a long story

Sorry, I forgot to circle back to this. It’s a long story as Eric said.

The TLDR I referenced was the underlying assumption public access to private land would open up if outfitters were squeezed by eliminating the outfitter sponsored licenses.

IMO, I161 was somewhat vindictive and punitive, and I’m not sure the world is any better for it.

My reference to it was the parallel that would likely exist; expend a ton of money, political capital, time, and burn relationships in the process, only to find it did little to benefit the resident hunter in the long run, or made things worse.

 

[Eric Albus]

161 was the biggest lie perpetrated on Montana voters in my life.
It did take our outfitter set aside license(OSL)or “guaranteed license”(had it not been misnomered by that connotation we’d probably still have it).
People were misled into believing we(outfitters) were “guaranteed a living” because of the OSL. It was really no different than having a couch to sell on a show room floor.
That aside, when it was taken(wish I’d have followed thru with a lawsuit for a “takings”) we(outfitters) were immediately better off. All the rules and confining regulations\constraints were gone. It also helped having Obama in office and a depressed economy. When license undersold every year the state put license sales on a first come first served basis. I can remember walking into Walmart, Cowtown USA, clients buying license OTC. What great deal. Then upon the day that DJT was elected we’ve been in a true draw since.
The outfitting businesses are taking pretty much the same number of clients as we did under the OSL, we haven’t grown.
Some of us would like to see us(outfitters) put on a quota, much like Alberta or BC. Tie the allocation to an “area of operation”, and be able to sit with biologists and adjust the quota according to game numbers. There are some of us who like this, and some who hate it. Will we ever get from here to there, doubtful in my opinion. We can’t even get mandatory harvest thru our legislature.