Initiative to Eliminate MT Outfitter Sponsored Licenses

[mtmiller]

Don't worry Kurt, I put your name down when I signed.

 

[Big Fin]

Greenhorn- what flaws were pointed out?

I provide these points with the reservation that I completely agree with the intent to get rid of the outfitter sponsored licenses. But, I will probably not for vote it, for the following ten reasons.

1-5. By raising the price on all non-residents, it will probably drop enough people out of the pool of applicants to make the non-resident combo tag close to a "guaranteed tag." That seems to be what people are wanting to get away from.

I fear the tags become almost a guaranteed tag, outfitters can then say, "You got what you wanted and you still aren't happy." And in the process, we have wasted pretty all the political capital on this issue and have yeilded nothing in terms of change.

In effect, we have raised the price on non-guided non-residents and lowered the price on guided non-residents. Is that what we really want to do? Do we really want to make the combo almost a guaranteed tag, at a much lower price to guided non-resident hunters?

6. Does not give landowners any additional options to be creative in how they manage their lands. Not that such matters, but if it is an issue of access, not sure we have done anything that is considered to be an improvement to landowners, and given their recent alliances with the outfiitting industry over the last 20 years, probably have swung them even further into the arms of the outfitting industry.

7. The fact that it is an initiative. We might like the results of initiatives now, as the topic and political climate result in an outcome we like, but initiatives are probably not the best process for fish and game issues. Initiatives give you a take or leave it option, with nothing in between. Guess I just hate initiatives, whether the outcome is one I like, or dislike.

8. Further dependency (subsidy) on non-reisdent funding for both our operating budgets of FWP and our Block Management Program. Sooner or later, resident hunters need to step up to the plate and pay for their own funding. Not completely, but the current level of reliance on non-residents makes it hard for resident hunters to demand much from the equation.

9. Other options exist to "level the playing field" and would increase funding for Block Management. Those options require legislative change, and given how poorly the resident hunter is represented in the legislature, I might be smoking something to even entertain that change can happen legislatively.

10. Though I agree that it makes a point of the power of resident hunters and the fact they are upset with the current situation, many efforts spent toward making a point end up making no difference. I would prefer to make a difference, rather than make a point.

By making a point, we probably do rid ourselves of the bottom feeding outfitters. But, the successful outfitters with loyal repeat customers will step in and take over the leases and the territories. Many of the good outfitters have three or four year waiting lists. If someone doesn't draw this year, they get moved to the following year and the outfitter will move someone up the list. After all we have invested to "make our point" we may have just as much leasing, may have eliminated more of the non-guided non-residents due to the large fee increase, and now have no bullets left in the chamber.

I hope I am completely wrong about all of this. If it gets on the ballot, I will shed no tears. If it passes, I will shed no tears, but will worry that some of that problems pointed our, may come to fruition and we are no better off, and maybe worse off, than when we started.

 

[shoots-straight]

If resident hunters had the option to purchase a Block Management Lands access licence, that would go a long way to pay for those lands. That would take some of the pressure off the NR tags. I do believe that the market should control the price of the NR licence. I also believe that the rich shouldn't have a guarantee to hunt on virtue of their bankroll.

If it wasn't for the Initiative process we would still have the hunting of game farms in Montana. They can definitely bite the sportsman in the butt. We have an anti trapping initiative to deal with this year as proof. I feel the Montana Legislature is so anti sportsman that we wont get anything done unless we do it. I agree that the use of the Initiative process to manage wildlife is wrong. This isn't an attempt to do that. It's an attempt to do away with a mistake the legislature forced upon us 15 years ago. It's attempting to manage the hunters, not the animals. The anti's will still use the process whether we refuse to partake or not.

The number of NR tags sold are all controlled by the legislature, so it would take an legislated law to reduce their numbers. It would make more sense to raise more animals and open more lands to hunt than go that route. That's a whole other topic.

I know you can never go backwards in time. Things keep changing and nothing stays the same, BUT. In terms of access, and hunter opportunity, were Montana hunters better off, pre OST, than they are now? How much can be blamed on the OST tags? I don't know. What I do know, the OST are wrong. The NR tags should be offered in a lottery, to everyone that can fork over the dough. I feel sorry for the NR that can't afford to come here and hunt, but if he's that poor, he might as well move here, become a resident and live the same way we do.

I'm a general contractor, of the 600 homes that get permits in Ravalli county, there's no law( nor should there be) that says 200 have to be built by a GC. Wouldn't that be great, for each county in the state, 1 out of every 3 applicants for a septic permit can get it through immediately, and get going, with a licenced GC, the other 2 have to wait a year to get approved.

The difference I think we can make, is forcing the Legislature to take the sportsman of Montana seriously. Rather than being reactive, we need to be proactive. The best defence is a great offence.

 

[Big Fin]

Shoots:

I know we are on the same page about wanting to rid ourselves of the outfitter sponsored licenses. And all the other headaches that have come with it. And I suspect all resident hunters wish things were like it was back in pre-1995, but that is probably a pipe dream on my part to think we will ever get to a situation that is remotely close to that.

Guess it comes down to what we think are the best ways to accomplish the goal.

 

[Nemont]

Why has this subject died? .

Just isn't as much fun to argue about it without Big Shooter making up imaginary cattle killings and his fake female alter ego (Cowboymama) on here wishing me to have a "dreadful day".

I am not going to sign it because I don't like how it is worded nor do I think it will do anything except drive a bigger wedge between landowners and resident hunters.

I also think the intiative would have very bad unintended consquences and lead to more leasing not less.

Nemont

 

[Dinkshooter]

Just isn't as much fun to argue about it without Big Shooter making up imaginary cattle killings and his fake female alter ego (Cowboymama) on here wishing me to have a "dreadful day".

Nemont

I too miss BS and his alter ego. Do you think he dressed in drag when typed through that channel?

 

[Point Creep]

The difference I think we can make, is forcing the Legislature to take the sportsman of Montana seriously. Rather than being reactive, we need to be proactive. The best defence is a great offence.

The only problem is that it's really not a great offence.

By raising the prices of the NR deer and big game combos, a portion of the NR applicants will certainly drop out, but it won't be any of the outfitted clients who'd now be getting their big game combo licenses for half-price. Those dropping out will be the few guys scratching by, or those wanting to take their kids to MT for a public land deer/elk hunt. What if the odds of drawing becomes approximately 100% under the new price stucture, only because the lower income bracket of applicants drop out? How does it then have any bearing on the amount of private property land that's going to be leased? As a result there will be a higher percentage of wealthy hunters in MT, and more influence by those who support the model that quality Montana hunting can only be bought.

I bet there's a lot of outfitters that sign the petition.

 

[shoots-straight]

No Greenhorn there's no outfitters signing the petition. I think that speaks volumes. In fact their hitting almost all the media outlets with their propaganda.

I would like to see a poll of perspective NR hunters that want to hunt Montana. Would you put up with an increase of $369 for the combo tag, and $199 for the deer tag for a better odds each year, or would you rather take your chance in the lottery for existing tags, at this years prices? It might make it a 100% draw, but that would take away the cons to the initiative, where the outfitters couldn't count on clients, and the excuse that people can't plan for vacation time.
Maybe we should have a sliding scale for the tags so we average out for the whole 17,000 tags, all would be guaranteed, just price increases to average out at the 17,000 for combo's. Same as now, just for the whole lot. With no guarantee to the outfitters for clients.

 

[Point Creep]

It might make it a 100% draw, but that would take away the cons to the initiative, where the outfitters couldn't count on clients, and the excuse that people can't plan for vacation time.

If it's 100% draw, guess who's not hunting in MT and who is? You can bet your ass the guided hunters will all be hunting, just as they are today, except they're paying the FWP half what they used to. As is, I-161 isn't good. If there was a way to modify it, maybe. Wyoming's split tier licenses would be a good starting point.

 

[BuzzH]

Keep the same prices and just eliminate the OSL's....make the outfitters earn their clients from successful applicants through ONE drawing.

This shit aint hard...people just make it that way.

 

[Point Creep]

Buzz, that is a really simple way to come up way short in BMA funding. I think FWP needs to start better managing wildlife, charging more for the resident licenses AND yanking the OSLs to do a spit-tiered non-resident license draw, with deer and elk being separate.. like every other state. Who loses there?

 

[mtmiller]

Step 1.....

 

[Big Fin]

Keep the same prices and just eliminate the OSL's....make the outfitters earn their clients from successful applicants through ONE drawing.

This shit aint hard...people just make it that way.

I agree that would be better, but that is not an option by voting for I-161 and it is not what will happen with the current status quo.

And as Greenhorn said, the resident hunters are ones who will scream the loudest when the Block Management funding goes away.

It ain't hard until .................

Shoots:

I think a survery of that information would be helpful. At this point, without a good survey, we don't really know what will happen. But, if economic theory has any validity to hunting tags, a price increase will cause some people to say no thanks, with the highest proportion of those who drop out due to prince increases being those with lower disposable income for out of state hunting trips, and most think that group would mostly be non-guided non-residents.

Again, I don't have data to support it exactly, but if the current elk/deer comb increased to the level projected in I-161, what do you think the draw odds of the regular combo tag would rise to? It is currently 60%+/- and will probably increase this year, just due to the state of the economy.

If it rises to 75%, and the OSL are already 100%, we can project a blended 81.6% success rate. If the current 11,500 non-resident combos would rise to 85% as a result of this price increase, we would end up with a 89.3% blended success rate.

At what price do we get close enough to it being guaranteed such that it has no affect on outfitters, as they have enough clients on waiting lists that 90%+/- is enough to mitigate their leasing risks and now they have enough clients to keep their business models intact.

One would have to ask, "What has been accomplished at that point?" Probably nothing, other than resident hunters wasting their political capital, and we are now in a position that is worse off than if nothing was passed. I don't have the data or ability to predict what will happen with this price increase and could be completely wrong, but we do have some economic theory to help us project where it might go.

Again, with initiatives, it is an up or down vote on what is proposed and does not offer any alternatives, such as Buzz is talking about, or as others may want to see.

 

[BuzzH]

Greenhorn,

I like your ideas...and again, that simply isnt difficult...except for the politics of making that happen.

Another thing, Montana is not real creative with how they go about funding their BMP. Wyoming gathers a lot of money by asking hunters to donate at point of sale locations to access yes. Some hunters, like my wife and I, make significant donations to accessyes. They also get contributions from corporate sponsors as well as from different sportsmans groups to help fund accessyes.

Whoever is in charge of the BMP should be immediately fired unless they've seriously looked into those two options for receiving additional funding, which I seriously doubt they have.

Hmmm??? Montana over-looks something so simple...I'll pretend to be shocked about that.

I hate the "cant do" attitude of hunters in general...how about THINK outside the Frickin' box for about 2 seconds.

I've never implied that I have all the answers, but my God, if Montana cant come up with a way to compensate for the lost revenue of the OSL license...how do ever expect them to correctly manage your game?

 

[Point Creep]

Buzz, I almost always opted for the "regular" Wyoming license. I realize you've drawn about every year you've applied in MT, but if the MT combo license was practically guarenteed by increasing it $379, would you pick that option? What would Chuck and Guy do? Think of all the money they'd be saving.

 

[Big Fin]

Greenhorn,

Another thing, Montana is not real creative with how they go about funding their BMP. Wyoming gathers a lot of money by asking hunters to donate at point of sale locations to access yes. Some hunters, like my wife and I, make significant donations to accessyes. They also get contributions from corporate sponsors as well as from different sportsmans groups to help fund accessyes.

Whoever is in charge of the BMP should be immediately fired unless they've seriously looked into those two options for receiving additional funding, which I seriously doubt they have.

Buzz, unfortunately that notion, along with many other proposals to increase Block Management funding went to the legislature in 2005. Voluntary donations, as user stamp, and a host of other things. An actual committee was formed to provide recommendations, held the statewide meetings, and gathered the support of hunters,

The legislature shot down almost everyone of them, and the governor agreed with all the defeats.

We have two sides of the aisle making life difficult for even the most simple improvements to go forward - a legislature who makes no bones about their hatred for FWP, and a governor who talks a big story, but is a complete bail out when it comes to funding FWP and our hunting programs.

Leaves the administrators in a pretty tight spot as to what ideas would work.

Almost every rod and gun club and hunting group went to the 2005 and 2007 legislature asking for resident increases in BMP funding. We may as well spent our time and effort building models of artificial intelligence, as we quickly discovered that Helena could use some.

They gave us a litttle token earmark from the conservation license called access management, which put enough into BMP to print the booklets for the Ismay office. Embarrassing and a disgrace.

Your comment about "except for the politics of making that happen" is the missing link in MT. Get us over that one, and we might have a chance.

Obviously the WY legislature cares what resident hunters have to say, or at least more so than the MT legislature. Your comments would require our legislature and governor to represent the people, which to date in Montana our elected leaders seem to be suffering from a power outage in the firing brain cell category.

 

[BuzzH]

Thats just plain sad that the sportsmen of Montana do not even have enough organization and clout to get the legislature to pass regulations to help (voluntarily) fund the BMP...

The more I look at this issue, the more I realize that the only hope Montana hunters may have is the initiative process.

Montana residents seem unable to handle their legislature and representatives...let alone hold them accountable.

What a joke.

 

[tjones]

The biggest problem is the rancher/outfitter/land owner loving, resident hating legislatures like Debbie Barrett, and she is not the only one,,,,,but then thats just my opinion!

For some strange reason, they keep getting elected, dumb I know.

 

[Meatatarian]

The more I look at this issue, the more I realize that the only hope Montana hunters may have is the initiative process.

The reason the commercial interests want everything to go through the Legislature or PL/PW is that they know nothing detrimental to them ever comes out of those bodies. All the brilliant ideas in the world can be hatched but as long as the outfitter-sponsored licenses are in effect nothing's going to change. They are not going to voluntarily give them up; nor is the Legislature or PL/PW going to take them away.

 

[BuzzH]

If nothing happens at the legislative level...then what choice do you have but to use the initiative process?

Maybe a better written intiative would be good...

Montana residents need to re-take control of their public resources in a big way.