MOGA legislative record 2013

[Gevock]

In light of the recent controversy over Randy’s appointment to the RMEF board, I thought it would be good to look at MOGA’s record this during the 2013 Montana Legislature:

Supported HB 274, which would among many other things strip the requirement that outfitters in Montana report the number of leased acres for hunting. The measure would give the state Board of Outfitters the ability to do it through rule making, but this would never happen.

Supported SB 151, which sets into state law that certain hunting districts are granted unlimited elk archery permits in an area where they’ve been limited for several years. These rules were meant to create equity between rifle and archery hunters in the Missouri River Breaks and other parts of eastern Montana. The bill died, but this is the second time they’ve tried this.

Supported SB 260, which would bump the number of large predator (mountain lion, bear) licenses allotted for non-resident hunters from 10 percent to 35 percent.

Opposed HB 511, which would have added one more sportsperson to the state Board of Outfitters. This is a common sense measure that would give a little more oversight of outfitters. They make their living off a public resource by providing a service and the sportsmen and women of Montana should have a say in how outfitters are regulated and managed in this state. Can anyone name an instance in which an outfitter in Montana was reprimanded or had his or her license pulled for actions that violated game laws?

Take it all together and outfitters want lax oversight, minimal reporting requirements and control over the public’s wildlife to sell. This from a group that calls resident sportsmen groups in Montana “fringe” groups.

We respect outfitters, but they need to see themselves as service providers, not product sellers.

Nick Gevock
MWF

 

[Topgun 30-06]

"We respect outfitters, but they need to see themselves as service providers, not product sellers."


Good luck with that in today's world where hunting is now a big industry and money/greed are the main words involved!!

 

[Eric Albus]

Nick,

HB 274 does not do away w/ the requirement to file an L-1 form (needed to operate on private lands)w/ the Board of Outfitters. It is primarily a bill to do away w/ the requirement that we write down every single grasshopper and mouse that a client takes whilst hunting w/ us. I have had game wardens voice their support on this. However, IF the information was used to BIOLOGICALLY to manage wildlife none would have a problem w/ it....keeping track of every single bird/buck/duck/doe for no reason is a waste of office time for both the outfitter and the Board of Outfitters.

HB 151, archery permits in the breaks and 21 other areas. There are a few who would like to see the permits go back to unlimited...and there are a few who want to see the permits limited even further(like me)....the arguement of "making it equitable between archery/rifle hunters"......makes me sick, and I am a rifle hunter. I have a choice, I can pick up a bow...but you don't hear me whinning about it.

HB 511....did you know that in most instances when an outfitter goes before the board for punative measures that the public members are usually far more lienient than the outfitter members are? If you do not believe me call the hunting outfitter member of the board. I know of several instances where the outfitter member(specfically the hunting outfitter) asked the rest of the board to pull the license of an outfitter who was before the board for disiplinary reasons...the public members would vote for censure, but not removal of license....

We do not want "lax oversight", or to sell the public's wildlife. We would like to see an office (Montana Board of Outfitters) that could be run efficiently...and not have useless paperwork bog them down, financially and staff wise.

 

[RockyDog]

oh boy, i see that our republican legislator who is a guy from connecticut or somewhere back east turned montana cowboy outfitter has sponsored the bill to raise NR permits to 35%.

Wonder if that will pave the way for future raises of NR elk and deer tags.

how do i write in against SB260?

 

[Pierre]

HB 274 is a bad bill. Visit with Jim Kropp about it. The board of outfitters has been a joke as long as I can remember. The staff is uncooperative and combative. Getting info is like pulling teeth. Outfitters are valuable service providers with public trust resources. That info on who killed what, where, and when is needed info and should be available to our biologists. Yes, there is no requirement that outfitters provide the info to our biologists. They have to go to Helena and battle to get it. The map of outfitted private lands would not be possible if this bill passes.
With the reputation of the BOO, why wouldn't you want to encourage transparency and sportsmen participation unless there is much to hide. Do you want to work together or is it another Minard deal?

 

[Eric Albus]

Kropp is not the guy to visit w/ about the bill. Talk w/ someone (like me) who is affected by it.

The industry, including me, has no problem w/ fililng L-1's w/ the board. I have no problem w/ the industry being accountable for clients served...but keeping track of every bumblebee we take for NO BIOLOGICAL reason is ludicrous. If you think that the BoO has been a basket of sunshine and roses for us to work w/, think again...it ain't much fun somedays.

The biologists to the best of my knowledge do not care about the info we have to provide...why would they? All they have to do is ask a game warden for the info, as we are to keep a "yellow sheet" w/ numbers of game animals and birds harvested. The record keeping is purely for punative measures. If an outfitter misses writting down one mourning dove taken by a client they are in violation....this is assinine.

 

[webejmn]

Kropp is not the guy to visit w/ about the bill. Talk w/ someone (like me) who is affected by it.

Sounds to me like you aren't the only one affected by it. It is a law that affects all outfitters So why not visit Kropp? Further more Sir. The bill doesn't just do away with reporting requirements of game or non-game species taken, It DOES do away with land reporting requirements, which I think is wrong. Someone in this position should have to report what private lands they have tied up for their private monetery gain. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUTFITTERS OR GUIDES, but you make your living off public game and in that course even on private land you have the responsibilty to report as such. As far as not whining, well we all know better now, don't we. I don't know a lot but I know what I see, hear, and experience. I know you're proud of what you do, and you should be! Your organization has you brainwashed to a point. You definetly have a place here in one of the greatest places to hunt but your organizations agenda aren't amicable to the resident hunter that doesn't have the funds or the will to sell his experience to gain success. As far as the other two bills mentioned, I will have to get my chit together for an answer to those but believe me they are coming! Be proud of what you do but really, be realistic. Joe Eckersley. Great Fall MT.

 

[Eric Albus]

It does not do away w/ L-1 requirements...it does away w/ the board of outfitters having to process and map acres leased....but the accounting of the acres would still be there...the BoO is not run very efficiently and spends a disproportionate amount of time and $$ keeping track of records that have no bearing whatsoever on an operation.... as I stated before, I would have no problem accounting for each bumblebee and grasshopper taken, were it used biologically...instead of punatively. I also have no problem accounting for each and every acre that is operated on....this is what the L-1 form is for. It would simplify life for the outfitters, wardens and the BoO if 274 were to pass...be much easier to write down the name, ALS, and guide of each client served....instead having to account for each mouse slain, for no biological reason....but this is just the shape of one man's opinion.

 

[shoots-straight]

Eric,

It is usually the case that government regulations are often duplicated, and ass backwards.

If this sponsors of this bill had come to sportsman (people who have a stake) instead of just showing up with this at the legislature, the kinks could have been fixed in what could have been a workable solution.

As is, it's business as usual with MOGA.

The divide between sportsman, and Outfitters grows, and I really don't think the Outfitters are looking to improve relations at all.

 

[webejmn]

I have to agree with SS as he seems to be much wiser than I. That said I still think that land leases or otherwise should be mapped for public info. Non residents will want to know what is available to them, I would in that case. The association just needs to realize that we can work together and make things more amicable and even do more together than seperate. God my spelling sucks! Anyway Eric don't take offense but sometimes (mostly) I get going on such things. Your organization needs to put aside the anti, or should I say, Fringe Group That Call Themselves Sportsmen, as the web site proclaims and understand we can really do something together. Divided we will not get a damn thing accomplished. Next time you're in GF look me up and I'll buy one at least. Thanks. And no you shouldn't have to hire someone to track every ant you step on! Ha.

 

[Eric Albus]

Thanks Joe for signing your name, and I agree, as does most of the MOGA membership. Work on things collectively, guess what, we all want the same thing...healthy, viable elk, deer, and antelope herds here in Montana. I personally want predators treated as such.
This will only take place if we can sit down and HEAR(not just listen) to the other sides concerns....as both sides have legit gripes.

shoots, we have tried to work w/ some of the groups...last time we attempted to work w/ one we were told...and I quote "you are not wanted here", and "we are not ready to talk w/ the outfitters".

If we were short-sighted on not getting w/ some of the sportsmens groups w/ 274, I guess it was on account of us not thinking about needing support on an issue that really does not affect anyone outside the industry. Apparently we were wrong....it now looks to us that anything and everthing brought forth by MOGA will be opposed by one group or another.

I am willing to extend the courtesy and try to work w/ the sportsmen's groups, as is the MOGA leadership.
I consider myself first a landowner, then a sportsman, and finally an outfitter.

 

[mtlion]

If we were short-sighted on not getting w/ some of the sportsmens groups w/ 274, I guess it was on account of us not thinking about needing support on an issue that really does not affect anyone outside the industry.

I must respectfully call BS. All biological data aside I feel it is the public's right to know just how many bumblebees, grasshoppers, does and birds outfitted hunters are taking in this state just as it is our right to know how much property is tied up by outfitters. It seems like the only ones who don't want this information out there is the outfitters.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, we have tried to work w/ some of the groups...last time we attempted to work w/ one we were told...and I quote "you are not wanted here", and "we are not ready to talk w/ the outfitters".

I was in the room when those comments were made.

That was our very first meeting to form MSA. That meeting came about from the constant attacks on the FWP department, and resident sportsman. Many of those attacks came for MOGA.

Mac Minard showed up as arrogant as ever. He should have shown some respect to this group of people that just weathered 210 bad bills. He knew why we were forming, and came anyway. He's lucky he didn't get tarred and feathered.

Why would he show up at that meeting. This is another example of the complete disregard for respect shown to resident sportsman from MOGA.

He was also told when we are, we'll invite you back!

Seriously Eric?

 

[ingomar]

Eric
you stated "last time we attempted to work w/ one we were told...and I quote "you are not wanted here", and "we are not ready to talk w/ the outfitters". Since I am the one Mac was referring to at least get it right. That was a private meeting and Mac had not been invited. He was allowed to stay for the whole meeting. It was the first meeting MSA ever held and we were just deciding who we were and what our role was going to be. Mac was told that we were not ready to open the meeting up to everyone and that, at perhaps a later date, we could sit down with the outfitters groups. In Mac's article after the meeting he made inaccurate statements about who we were and what are vision was. Mac's reputation for truth and accuracy is already well known.

Do you allow the general public to come to MOGA's Board Meetings? You talk about wanting to work with sportsmen but the actions of MOGA do not support those words.

 

[Pierre]

I too was in the room. Mac was treated courteously, allowed to stay. He then almost immediately started putting out false and misleading info on MSA. So did Paul Ellis. So, Mac as your representative, burns another bridge. When do you stop and smell the roses.
The biological info is important and should be available but BOO won't provide it. Quentin had to drive to Helena and go thru the files himself to get it. Just checked and that is till the case. But you want to reduce transparency and deny sportsmen seats on the BOO?? What are we afraid of.
If you think we are all complaining about Mac because he is effective, wrong. So he gets a few bills thru and alienates thousands of sportsmen with lies and deceit (ask Randy). If you call that a gain, I beg to differ. If you are represented by a slime ball, you become known as such.

 

[Pierre]

Some notes from MSA position statement on HB 274:


• The authority of the Board of Outfitters is based on the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
• The public resources that outfitters utilize in the course of their business and the public’s stake in those resources is considered to be part of the “…public welfare”.
• Although touted as a paperwork reduction effort, this bill essentially eliminates a broad range of requirements and standards for Montana hunting and fishing outfitters. One would think that the industry would want to uphold the highest professional standards.
• Notable in this bill is the elimination of “professional” guides.
• Also of note is that outfitters would no longer have to demonstrate proficiency in the wide range of outdoor skills, equipment, and safety training demanded by their profession (37-47-305: outfitter’s examination) in order to become licensed.
• 37-47-402 provides limited liability protection to outfitters yet, this bill basically drops demonstrable operational standards while retaining the liability protection (“…health, safety and welfare.”).
• The Board of Outfitters no longer has investigators who function in field situations. Instead, enforcement of statutes and rules is left to FWP Game Wardens. Yet, there remains a concerted effort to eliminate the basic reporting requirements necessary for wardens to be able to practically and effectively enforce those rules and regs.
• It is absolutely necessary that outfitters annually report their activities to the Board including the lands they are utilizing, who they outfit, what activity(ies) they engaged in as well as game harvested. By making this reporting necessary only by Board of Outfitters Administrative rule rather than statutory in Title 37, outfitter accountability along with public trust is substantially and significantly diminished.
• If lands that are leased are not formally reported, there will be no means to accurately evaluate the total acreage of private lands closed to public opportunity.
• The bill deletes the requirement that an outfitter or guide hold a conservation license. By doing so, a critical component to track a person’s legal status to engage in hunting or fishing is lost. If a person has had their hunting, fishing, trapping privileges suspended he/she may not be legally fit to serve as an outfitter or guide.
• Outfitters earn their living through the utilization of Montana’s publicly-held fish and wildlife resources. They need to be accountable for that use, ensuring that they use those resources legitimately, fairly and not at the expense of the non-outfitted public. This bill is a quantum leap in minimizing that accountability.

Are they going to force us to tell our friends and relatives not to book with an outfitter in Montana because they are trying to remove basic knowledge and safety concerns from statute?