Montana's Outfitter Assistant Law: Fair to the Public?

[Pierre]

Eric, obviously there are some valid reasons for some of those dim views. Doesn't mean they are all wrong. It would be wrong (and sad) to dismiss folks' opinions. The invitation to work together is there for the better of both outfitters and public. You don't correct perceptions with stuff like this thread talks about.
Joe

 

[tafangman]

Went on a moose hunt up in Ontario a few years back. Our outfitter supplied us with two guides who turned out to be pals of his from Minnesota. After our fly in we also discovered they both had tags of there own. One of the guides fresh sign was old sign to the other. Needless to say no moose were killed or even seen. I think my guide showed up for the food anyway. Just one morning he downed 8 eggs, a pound of bacon, and half loaf of bread to soak up the grease. No more guided hunts for me. Got 2 mules and the rest is history!

 

[Eric Albus]

joe, there was a "professional guide" category, and it got scrapped on account of nobody using it....it cost more and held no distinction or advantage.

 

[Nunyacreek]

I think this is making a mountain out if a molehill. I just doubt it happens much and when it does it might be great. I was a professional guide for many years, mostly in Alaska, some in Montana, and a few times for Eric himself. I would suggest that there are logical differences between licensing of outfitters and guides. No one is suggesting that outfitters themselves should not be regulated, have stringent requirements, and should be in place years before a hunt takes place.
However, there is problem with hiring guides- you are essentially employing the marginally employable (I would have counted myself in this group) There are simply not that many people who are articulate, polite, savvy, safe, reliable employees who don't already have jobs that they have to maintain.
Guiding as a lifestyle requires a lot of creativity and a lot of sacrifice. Often it is worth it to be able to go do a thing you love, but as life and family and age catch up it becomes more difficult. The very best guides I have known were those who finagled their lives to enable them to keep working at something else for the off season and have kept at it. Many of these cut their guiding careers short by becoming outfitters in order to develop a reliable income and exercise more control of the operation. In doing so they invariably long for the days that they could just go guide.
Like any business owner an outfitter makes his or her living on repeat business and referrals. However, I wonder how many business owners sit down in April and call potential employees and have to say "can you commit to showing up in Great Falls in November and I'll promise you one month of work and five thousand dollars. No, you can't leave for your kids birthday or when your wife gets sick, and by the way don't wrench your knee, enroll in college, or get a great job offer in the next six months."
This is to say that things happen, and when they do this is a logical safety net for the profession. I've known guides who were natural born killers and dreadful entertainers. Let me tell you that on the eighth day of a nine day hunt when it has been blowing sideways rain and you've been tent-bound for the entire time a well-rounded guide can make the difference between abject misery and resigned cheerful suffering. Some are well credentialed and delightful and dilly dally around and never kill a thing because they are too busy hatching plans to do so. I personally would take the neighbor kid born and raised on a nearby ranch with a good dose of common sense, or the eager, intelligent guide school graduate from Illinois with a year of packing experience over either of the previous examples.
I do not doubt that lots of people have had terrible experiences, I do doubt that many have been tied to the use of this provision. The one thing to remember is that the stricter licensing of guides will invariably lead to the escalation of prices. Guides are far and away the major cost of outfitting, and the cost of maintaining extras on hand may make the entire thing unprofitable or the price completely out of reach for many of us. It is a tough business. On the one hand outfitters are profiting on a public resource in the public trust, and need to be vigilant of that responsibility. On the other, you are standing in sportsmans show booth in Pennsylvania in January selling a camping trip with the chance of maybe seeing an elk. In many respects the business does not fit the paradigms to which we are all accustomed. For those reasons I would support the existence of a legal avenue for outfitters to make do in a pinch. And if you're really worried about it just go on your own or do your homework and make a good educated guess that the outfitter will use good judgement if an emergency occurs.

 

[James Riley]

Hmmmm. Sounds like the voice of experience to me. Thanks.

 

[noharleyyet]

Yep, a post of fresh air right there nunya....much obliged.

 

[cowboy]

Always 2 sides to a controversial topic. Makes sense to me.

 

[windymtnman]

Just as there are all kinds of people, there's all kinds of outfitters too. 2 years ago, I was on horseback near an Outfitter's camp. I ran into the head employee of the Outfitter for this particular camp. He mentioned that the Outfitter was short handed, so his brother called him and asked if he'd come and help out? He did. He also mentioned he didn't know the country around this camp at all. He'd never been in it before, until they packed in with the clients. I couldn't believe it.

 

[bobbydean]

Noharley yet. , I totally respect your opinion.

But unqualified guides should not be put in the field. My opinion. I think over a number of years that I have ever disagreed with you.

 

[Nunyacreek]

Noharley yet. , I totally respect your opinion.

But unqualified guides should not be put in the field.

I think we have common ground right there. Enough said.

 

[noharleyyet]

Nunya's post is a welcome departure from the usual gnashing and rending diatribes bobby....he didn't endorse unsafe/unscrupulous hunt facilitation...nor did I. Buyer beware.

 

[Pierre]

Thank you for your opinion Nunya but with all due respect, I disagree. So do most of the thread but that doesn't matter to industry folks. It is not up to the outfitting industry to decide what they need to tell the client....it is the law. To what extent is the abuse? I've sat thru a pile of Boo meetings and watched some very shakey folks and lots of habitual offenders get outfitter and guide licenses. Do we trust in you folks to do the right thing, sorry, no way.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree.

There are 3 very big problems in regard to outfitters and the outfitters boards.

1. Is the fact that outfitters boards are the ones making decisions on how to deal with guides and outfitters that are habitual offenders. The BOO in both Wyoming and Montana don't very often take a harsh action against an outfitter or guide that breaks the law. Its really the fox guarding the hen house situation as well as an outfitter board conducting a full blown "kangaroo court" when offenders are put in front of the board. I know of some very serious crimes committed by outfitters in Wyoming and the BOO does nothing more than a wrist slap. Its gross.

2. Outfitters take from the wildlife resource and give essentially nothing back. Many outfitters and guides don't even purchase hunting and fishing licenses. I'm tired of the "we donate a hunt" crap...its a tax write-off and free advertising at the expense of the public trust (wildlife). Always has to be something in it for them...always.

3. The BOO do nothing to control the number of outfitters operating in their states either, at least not in MT and WY.

The past record of how the outfitters boards have conducted business do not give me any warm fuzzies for trusting them to do the right thing.

 

[Eric Albus]

been a while since I've had any time in front of a computer.... been profiteering from "our wildlife".

o.k. buzz... school time.

1. don't know about Wy., but in Montana the board is constructed of public members and outfitters. most often the outfitters recommend harsh action be taken against outfitters only to have the public members vote for less harsh action ("oh, we can't take away their living".)...(the public members are often bleeding heart liberals)... I know two former outfitters who were on the board, both told me that same story....they'd vote to harshly penalize or take the outfitters license away, only to be told "how will they make a living? we can't do that to them"

2. again, don't know about Wy. but in Montana you have to hold a conservation license in order to be licensed to outfit. All the outfitters with whom I associate with still hunt, so they probably have a license, there have been years that I have bought up to 6 doe whitetail tags and not shot a one, I'm not the only one in NE MT to do this, many of us did, just to save a few deer(this was after the EHD). I have not taken a buck deer since '03, but have bought a license every year with the exception of '10 and '11. I have donated many hunts to many different organizations, and have never used one as a tax write off, I am sure that others have used them for that though.

3. We(MOGA) have wanted a moratorium on the number of outfitters. Right now the number remains fairly static in Mt., and is somewhat controlled by NCHU as anyone wanting to take the hunting outfitter test must purchase NCHU from an existing outfitter prior to taking the test.

you are pretty much 0 for 3 here.

 

[TBass]

Below is the statute authorizing a Board of Outfitters. If "outfitters" wanted "harsh action" taken, it would happen because they have a majority of members.

2-15-1773. Board of outfitters. (1) There is a board of outfitters.
(2) The board consists of the following seven members to be appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate:
(a) one outfitter licensed to provide big game hunting services;
(b) one outfitter licensed to provide fishing services but not hunting services;
(c) two outfitters licensed to provide fishing and hunting services;
(d) two sportspersons; and
(e) one member of the general public.
(3) A favorable vote of at least a majority of all members of the board is required to adopt any resolution, motion, or other decision.

 

[BuzzH]

Eric,

I understand you are going to defend outfitters, but your defense of them in this case is lame.

There are a lot of really bad outfitters in MT and WY, its a fact. Your industry needs to do some soul searching in how they want to deal with that.

As has been pointed out by Tbass, outfitters constitute a majority of the BOO, yet, rarely, and I mean very rarely, are outfitters punished harshly by the board.

You can huff and puff all you want, blame the "liberals" all you want for this lack of action taken by the BOO. But, its more than apparent those from within outfitting ranks are allowing this to happen.

Congratulations to you, and the other outfitters in Montana, for "funding" the FWP with your $8 contribution to help manage Montana's wildlife that you all make a living from...very impressive.

I'll make a recommendation that the FWP not spend that $8 all in one place, just to spread the wealth around.

Take with both hands, whine about resident hunters, don't control outfitter numbers, slap the wrist of outfitter offenses, and give nothing back...good business plan.

 

[onpoint]

"gunbuffs...that may be the single dumbest thing anyone has ever typed".

doubtful

Just thought I'd run this one again.
Not for my ego, but because it seemed pertinent.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Originally quoted by Nunyacreek-

It is a tough business. On the one hand outfitters are profiting on a public resource in the public trust, and need to be vigilant of that responsibility. On the other, you are standing in sportsmans show booth in Pennsylvania in January selling a camping trip with the chance of maybe seeing an elk. In many respects the business does not fit the paradigms to which we are all accustomed

^^^^ True this. I view the dim view that many have of outfitters as a matter of fault on both sides between unscrupulous outfitters and clients unwilling to do due diligence in their research. I was standing at that very same sportsman's show booth you referred to talking to a local outfitter that I had worked part time with in construction. He had to take a phone call from a prospective client and I couldn't help but overhear his side of the conversation. "Yes sir. The average size of the bulls we take is a 300" 6x6." I couldn't believe my ears! This in an area that I've hunted hard for ten years with a 280" 5x6 as my biggest bull. I've only seen a couple dozen bull over 300" in that time and his average kill is 300"? This was the same outfitter that took over 100 clients hunting during rifle season and no one filled an elk tag. "We did really good on deer, but just couldn't make it work out on the elk," according to a former guide at the construction site I was working on. When asked if he was guiding for him again the next season, he said. "No, I like to get paid. The last check he wrote me bounced."

When I moved to Montana, I was sure I wanted to make a living guiding hunters and making that my profession. It didn't take long until the ethics and reputation of the majority of local outfitters made me realize that I wouldn't be able to put up with what constituted business as normal in the industry.

I do put some of the blame on clients who think they are buying an animal instead of a outdoor experience. Anyone with reasonable expectations and a partially functioning b.s meter should be able to wade through the guys who are pathological liars and ones who promise reasonable results.

It probably doesn't help my view of guides in general that I watched a professional guide snag fish at a kid's fishing derby, reported it, worked with the wardens and prosecutors at the expense of eight days of lost work to get a guilty conviction only to see him go right back to work as a guide the following year. I'm with BuzzH on the efficacy of Montana's BOO on policing their own. They do not. It is a "good ole boys" club with those responsible for holding everyone to a high ethical standard willing to make that "high standard" incredibly low for violaters.

 

[Pierre]

I agree that the board is purposely made up of an outfitter majority. They call it "their board", but never mention the first charge is health, safety, and welfare of the public. There are 2 sportsmen reps. and one public member, then 4 outfitters. We didn't do well last appointment time in that the public member is a booking agent and votes with the MOGA block. We'll be more vigilant next time.
Back to the beginning of the thread, I wanted to know about the use of outfitter asst. and the disclosure issue. Looking at the thread, it is clear to me, it is not viewed favorably. It will be interesting to see what MOGA comes with. MSA will be watching out for both the public and Non Res. hunters. Due diligence by the client in this case of OA's, would be impossible if you aren't told. That is the problem. We will show up at legislature with revamped rules. Do we have to put a warning that NR clients need to think twice about booking here?
The hunting industry could be much better but instead choose to label folks "bleeding heart liberals", etc instead of working toward any improvement. To improve, look first within your own ranks.
Joe

 

[Eric Albus]

I can't argue the fact that there are many outfitters who have no scruples, and are perfectly willing to sell armed horseback rides in the wilderness. Just as there are private land outfitters who pound the resource into the ground.

I guess when I speak of outfitters wanting to level harsh penalties on other outfitters for poor behavior/performance, I speak of the 2 who I know best and served on the BOO, both Eastern Montana ranchers who are also outfitters. Time and time again they would cite me crap that would happen, things that they voted for removal of license, only to be out voted and the outfitter in question receive a slap on the wrist.

So perhaps I speak with insight that needs be divulged prior to making a generalization.