I-161 in MT would remove license set-aside for outfitters

[jore07]

Hey just wanted to see what everyone thinks of this? Kinda seems like it should be right up this hunting forums views.

As written, I-161 would remove the 5,500 nonresident big game and deer licenses set aside for outfitters’ clients and instead include them in a lottery system used to award licenses to nonresidents who don’t hire an outfitter.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_f3fa325c-c914-11df-ad52-001cc4c03286.html

 

[The Hedgehog]

The pro is that it gives those who are happy to pay several hundred dollars more for their non-resident combo a slightly better chance of drawing and makes it fair across the board for non-resident applicants regardless if they are going with an outfitter or not.

The cons are that it gives the "rich guys" who already hunt with outfitters more than a $500 savings on their licenses and allows them to hunt without their outfitter. Although the tag won't be "guarenteed", it'll have high odds of drawing. It will make things tough for some outfitters. It will not open up any private access to hunting, contrary to delusions that some have.

In my opinion the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[Sytes]

I-161 (Hunter Access Funding)
Result Votes Percentage
a Yes 179,911 54.1%
No 152,912 45.9%
Total votes 332,823 100.00%

We will see how this pans out.

 

[Horn Seeker]

Well, it has passed and I agree with Greenhorn.....

But, its passed now... so we'll see how it goes.

 

[schmalts]

Is Blue Yummies going to go buy himself a rope?? Is it the end of the world for him?

 

[Blue Yummies]

I was going to use a razor, my luck the tree would break.

You guys got it to pass congrats, good luck to the NR on drawing and enjoy hunting Block. Unless you have big money to lease private ground.

Thanks to all Montanans for killing small towns.

 

[shoots-straight]

Cry me a river, Yummies. No small towns going tits up because of this. Many people in these small Montana towns voted for it. I guess their sick of seeing outfitters and guides thumbing their noses at the them as they drive through the locked gates.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Cry me a river, Yummies. No small towns going tits up because of this. Many people in these small Montana towns voted for it. I guess their sick of seeing outfitters and guides thumbing their noses at the them as they drive through the locked gates.

Thats right it's a straight attack on outfitting. Fine you won.

I am thinking of the reprocussions this is going to cause.

As Greenie says the Cons outweigh the pros on this issue

 

[The Hedgehog]

Yummies, just how is this going to be so bad for outfitters? Seriously, I don't see it. If your clients are looking at 60-90% draw odds, what does that result in? Bump the price of the guided hunt up to compensate for your headache and make it, overall, the same as your clients are used to paying for previously, license + hunt.

It isn't going to affect the resident hunter or landowner at all, and it's going to make it a few hundred dollars more expensive to draw, but better odds for the non-resident hunters.

 

[mdunc8]

I've got family that comes out here to hunt every couple years. Unfortunately they like driving around in trucks and "hunting" so I haven't been able to get them to go the nonguided route. While they're out here, they stay on the ranch they hunt, so not much, if any, of their money is spent in town. I'm fairly confident their guides are out-of-staters too. I'm dealing with a relatively small sample size, so this may not apply to most guided hunters. I'm not trying to gang up on you. I don't have a problem with people hiring guides. Just not sure that your argument is a very strong one.

 

[Drake4]

Thanks to all Montanans for killing small towns.

That's funny...

 

[Sytes]

I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.

Not sure how this will play out beyond the lingo - though it appears there will be some benefit to the resident hunters as well...

 

[belly-deep]

Guess what Blue Yummies?

These are the counties that turned in a majority vote in favor of 161...I see a lot of east side/rural counties in there...so you're telling me they don't know that 161 will slit their own throats? Or do they know that outfitting doesn't bring in squat to the communities and only lines the outfitter's pockets? Or are they tired of the outfitter's b.s.?

Glacier
Toole
Liberty
Hill
Blaine
Valley
Roosevelt
Sheridan
Missoula
Lewis and Clark
Cascade
Choteau
Fergus
Dawson
Richland
Fallon
Custer
Rosebud
Bighorn
Yellowstone
Musselshell
Golden Valley
Stillwater
Carbon
Wheatland
Gallatin
Broadwater
Jefferson
Deerlodge
Silverbow

I have to hand it to you though, for still showing up on here with all of the $hit you get from everyone. I have to say, your daddy taught you well about not giving up.

 

[Breaks Runner]

I agree with Kurt. It wont change much if anything. A lot of private land will still be leased and locked up. Rich guys? Maybe not as often, but when they do draw a license they will be able to hunt anywhere they want,(state,blm, cmr,forest service,etc..) instead of only L1 approved properties as it is now.

I suspect there will be a lot more "rogue guiding" going on. There will be no more when and where as it is now.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Chuck Adams has to actually "draw" MT elk now.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, how many non-residents drop out and what the odds will be. I bet resident license increases are soon coming.

 

[MattK]

Greenhorn- I thought you liked the idea of increasing the price of resident hunting licenses in MT. So this shouldn't be a problem either. The economy/ expendable income is a much more determining factor than the price of a license. As far as a hunt goes, the tag isn't the most expensive part for the NR or the resident. MT will still be one of the least expensive in both categories.

I don't know if it will reduce the amount of leased land or not. I do believe it is a wake up call for outfitters as well as the FWP. Maybe if outfitters get a "deal" from the state, they will follow through with their side of the obligations. If outfitters would have done all they were supposed to, I don't think this would have become an issue.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Matt, I agree. It's a joke what residents are currently paying for licenses. Big chunk of those whining about outfitters/leasing will be crying big tears about a $5 license increase.

 

[Grady]

I suspect there will be a lot more "rogue guiding" going on. There will be no more when and where as it is now.

Pat,

What do you mean by " rogue guiding" if they (NR's) can hunt anywhere?

Not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand....

Thanks,

 

[belly-deep]

Under the old system, the state would allot BG tags to licensed outfitters, who would sell them to clients. That way, the licenses were funneling through legitimate outfitters who had an interest in giving the tags to people who were going to book hunts through them. If you wanted a tag but didn't want to draw, you had to buy your tags from a licensed outfitter who would then be your guide for the hunt.

Under the new system, the middleman (a.k.a. the outfitter) is essentially cut out, and the tags will go right from the state into the hands of hunters, who will then in turn have to find a guide if they want to hunt with one...and at that point, the state has no control over who finds who. Rogue guides--who previously could not get licenses and thus clients--will have a whole pool of willing participants with licenses in their hands.

I still say the outfitters have no one to thank but themselves...they pissed the public off...

 

[Grady]

I get it...Thanks BD