My last Attempt

[Blue Yummies]

This is my last attempt for everyone to understand the:

Montana Ballot Initiative I-161: Bad for the economy, sportsmen and landowners

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhLVKNtlx9Q

 

[shoots-straight]

Actually, not bad for the economy, outfitters will still have clients. NR hunters spend more in the communities when non guided. Landowners will get higher prices for good leases. Should stop the growth of the industry at a time when the resource has been pressured to the max.

 

[Dinkshooter]

This is my last attempt for everyone to understand the:

Promise? I bet not.

 

[Blue Yummies]

You didnt watch the video

 

[Oak]

The guy in the video doesn't understand what the initiative is about. It's about eliminating outfitter-sponsored tags, not access for public hunters.

Yummies, how long ago were outfitter-sponsored tags created?

 

[tjones]

Don't drink the kool aid! I sure don't need a slanted video to tell me which way to vote.

 

[belly-deep]

I watched the video...I think the guy could have made a stronger argument, not much substance.

The fact of the matter is, the public may be pissed off enough to pass this thing, and if they are it is 100% the fault of the ranchers and outfitters...nobody else is to blame.

I read through the thing pretty closely and didn't end up voting for it because I don't like the way it shifts the financial burden to the DIY guys. I have friends who come from out of state and I don't want them to cough up 1K for a combo license.

If it doesn't pass, it will be because of that issue right there, so don't go patting yourself on the back thinking that the public is on the outfitter's side because they aren't...it just wasn't a perfectly crafted piece of legislation.

But I would bet the thing will pass...your average hunter doesn't give a crap about NR hunters or outfitters and they all have a story about being shoved out of a hunting spot by them to remember when they go into the voting both.

 

[Blue Yummies]

The guy in the video doesn't understand what the initiative is about. It's about eliminating outfitter-sponsored tags, not access for public hunters.

Yummies, how long ago were outfitter-sponsored tags created?

Are you serious, I think you have no clue about the inititiative. You hear the word
outfitter tags and you think great idea. I put the video up to educate you about 161.
Most landowners dont want every tom, dick and harry out there hunting without some supervision. So this just seems that it is going to drive a wedge between the landowners and
hunters. I dont have the money to lease ground like you might, being from COLORADO. So Keep your opinions and Dinks, for your own state.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Man thats funny.

 

[tjones]

Actually kinda sad.

 

[Dinkshooter]

What tjones, are you jealous I am so rich??

Look at me I live in Colorado, I am so rich

Wasn't Blue Yummies from Lower Alabama?

LA

MT does a great job of fighting the powers that be, I hope they don't stop.

 

[tjones]

Sad that yummies actually believes this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Most landowners dont want every tom, dick and harry out there hunting without some supervision"


Supervision? by an outfitter? I don't think so.

 

[Oak]

I put the video up to educate you about 161.
Most landowners dont want every tom, dick and harry out there hunting without some supervision. So this just seems that it is going to drive a wedge between the landowners and
hunters. I dont have the money to lease ground like you might, being from COLORADO. So Keep your opinions and Dinks, for your own state.

Yep, I just don't know what to do with all my money.

The video is about as weak as it gets. If a person didn't know what the whole I-161 battle was about, they wouldn't know what the dude was talking about. Where's the education? The guy talks about public access, not outfitter-sponsored tags. Just like you keep doing.

You didn't answer my question. When were OSL's created? Now's your chance to educate me.

 

[shoots-straight]

Most landowners don't want every tom, dick and harry out there hunting without some supervision. So this just seems that it is going to drive a wedge between the landowners and
hunters. I don't have the money to lease ground like you might

No they want to make money off em! What about the small mom and pop shops? Shouldn't they be able to compete with the wealthy landowners?

I thought OSL came to save the outfitters so they could count on clients. So what your saying, is this was so big landowners could get outfitter licenses, then sell hunts on their land? If that's true then, either way the general public is locked out. So why should we care what happens to these people?

If you don't have the money to lease ground, then why would you be against I-161? Doesn't make sense.

 

[Blue Yummies]

Oak OSL' were established 1995, I dont know the bearing that has.

Shoots, I guess I would trust a local guide or outfitter to take his clients to a Mom & Pop store or taxidermist. Don't most NR's get there supplies and equip from the state they are in and take there game back to be processed or get it mounted..

I am just saying that I would hate to see the local mom and pop landowner go out of business. The ones I know have an outfitter, and still let me hunt. I would rather support the landowner than the local ice cream shop.

 

[Oak]

Oak OSL' were established 1995, I dont know the bearing that has.

I'm just trying to figure out how the guy in the video made a living as an outfitter for 10 years before OSLs...

See, I don't think he is being genuine...

 

[mtmiller]

I am just saying that I would hate to see the local mom and pop landowner go out of business.

Too late, they went under pre-'95.

 

[Nemont]

Most landowners dont want every tom, dick and harry out there hunting without some supervision. .

BY,
Explain how I161 would force any land owner to let every Tom, Dick and Harry on their land?

I know you won't answer that since you never answer questions.

I am curious what the Outfitters thought would happen as the leased up more lands? I think the bet that they owned the legislature and they would never ever have to return to the table.

All the talk of everyone involved sitting around the table talking about how to make hunting better for everybody is a big joke on resident hunters. Outfitters took the guaranteed tags and have not been at the table since.

Oak OSL' were established 1995, I dont know the bearing that has.

Shoots, I guess I would trust a local guide or outfitter to take his clients to a Mom & Pop store or taxidermist. Don't most NR's get there supplies and equip from the state they are in and take there game back to be processed or get it mounted..

I am just saying that I would hate to see the local mom and pop landowner go out of business. The ones I know have an outfitter, and still let me hunt. I would rather support the landowner than the local ice cream shop.

As the local drunk you may need to post something approaching proof of what you are yakking about in the above quote. The only reason Mom and Pop are in business is because the resident who live here year round support them when there are no hunters here. Most outfitted clients never see the inside of a restruant or hotel as they stay on the place they are hunting or in camp.

Funny story about you getting to hunt on land you also guide on for an outfitter. The average Joe has zero chance of getting on outfitted lands. You are the exception. Do this stop working for your outfitter and see how long your access last.


Having said all of that I still am going to vote against I161. However every time Blue Yummies post propaganda my mind changes a litte.

Nemont