Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)

[idahohuntr]

I do think there could have been some sort of compromise here if level heads had sat down together and mutually worked on a bill that had real benefits (like access and habitat programs) for DIY hunters in exchange for a small, modest set aside of tags for outfitters. That is not what happened and MOGA won this round, but the way they did it I strongly believe is going to backfire. These outfitters wanted some certainty, and I think the momentum is going to shift and the next initiative needs to hammer them. So there will not be certainty for their business...the tag allocations will continue to be jerked around and ideally the initiative will be punitive towards them for their behavior in this session. I look forward to contributing time or money to any organized effort to move an initiative forward.

 

[Big Shooter]

You and every other blue collar out there.

Work for a living? Implying some don’t? I thought you were smarter than that.

Never meant that at all.

 

[brockel]

You and every other blue collar out there.

Work for a living? Implying some don’t? I thought you were smarter than that.

But we aren’t guaranteed an income.

 

[mtmuley]

Boy I'm glad I don't have to work for a living.

I know it's tough being a rancher. I sat at a kitchen table one time while the outfitter wrote a check for $60,000. That rancher almost broke a sweat endorsing the check.

More F#$@% money than I make in a year, in about 30 seconds.

The funny thing is they wanted more the next year when we went back.

So what? If I was said rancher I'd take that money in a heartbeat. mtmuley

 

[antlerradar]

Boy I'm glad I don't have to work for a living.

I know it's tough being a rancher. I sat at a kitchen table one time while the outfitter wrote a check for $60,000. That rancher almost broke a sweat endorsing the check.

More F#$@% money than I make in a year, in about 30 seconds.

The funny thing is they wanted more the next year when we went back.

Sixty thousand, That would be a nice payday. Must be a good sized ranch, minimum of 500 head of cattle. That 60,000 might cover a fourth of the losses due to the recent downturn in the cattle market.

 

[Schaaf]

Also opposing the bill was Sen. Brad Molnar, R-Laurel, who recalled fierce debates between outfitters, landowners and public hunter advocates in the 1990s. The fallout from passing the bill in the eyes of the general public “can change majorities,” he said.

“Think about everybody else that will be enraged when we said all nonresidents after the fact can have tags,” he said. “That will change seats, I guarantee you.”

That guy understands the ramifications.

 

[SAJ-99]

But......I bet you didn’t have to pay for that ranch either.....or the every day expenses that occurred.

Sure. But what about self-sufficiency, working hard, preferring small government, less regulation, not wanting a handout, etc etc. I guess the reality is everyone is flexible on that stuff when the check is made out to them, because the check always gets cashed.

 

[mtmuley]

Sure. But what about self-sufficiency, working hard, preferring small government, less regulation, not wanting a handout, etc etc. I guess the reality is everyone is flexible on that stuff when the check is made out to them, because the check always gets cashed.

What handout? mtmuley

 

[antlerradar]

With all do respect Shooter, it was the outfitters that broke the deal. I was there the whole way.
So let me see:
Outfitters to Sportsmen: So if you agree to give us another 5500 tags that go to Outfitters only, they will be unlimited, but if we oversell then the next year prices will even out so only 5500 a year are sold. We will make sure that money goes into a fund that will open the door to massive amounts of lands to all, outright purchases, and leases. We will make sure that we keep the number of outfitters where they are today give or take, and we won't increase the competition on public lands.

So after a decade of this "Agreement" the Outfitters started to hire way more "Guides" than they had on hand in the beginning. For a fee, or hunting permission many outfitters were "Hiring" landowners as "Guides" working for them. Those "landowners" would make the money for guiding through the Outfitters license, and then either pay a fee or let the outfitter take clients on those lands.

I think the most unpalatable abuse of the outfitter sponsored licenses was when outfitters used the licenses to guarantee out of state landowners and hunt clubs licenses.
The hiring of more guides was also a big loophole, but those sportsman in on crafting the "agreement" should have seen that coming. As for outfitters hiring landowners as guides, That has been happening for as long as outfitter have operated on private land.
I think sportsman had reason to be unhappy with the way the outfitter sponsored licenses were being used, too bad I-161 didn't deal with the abuses and not blow up the whole thing.

Leased properties went through the roof in acreage and haven't left. Weird the tags are needed as both of you on this forum claim your booked.

Outfitters never joined in with sportsmen to acquire lands for "All" they never joined in with sportsmen, for the resource. They only showed up when it was time for a hand out, or when a restriction was possible, like limited entry tags. God forbid we raise the bar for wildlife vs some other special interest group.

So we tired of the "agreement" that was being abused yearly in over sales of tags leased lands blocking more access, crowding on public lands and decided to run the chance of an Initiative to do away with this OSL "Agreement".

I thought that I-161 was only about getting rid of licenses for outfitter clients and had nothing to do with leasing and access. In my opinion I-161 has been an epic fail. For nearly 10 years both outfitters and hunt clubs had all the tags they needed to expand, no strings attached and now we have this abomination passed by the legislature. I would take the 5500 outfitter sponsor tags over what we have now.
The biggest fail of I-161 is that it has been ten years of sportsman chasing a rabbit called access and not dealing with the management issues that are plaguing the state. Deal with those issues and access will improve.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The biggest fail of I-161 is that it has been ten years of sportsman chasing a rabbit called access and not dealing with the management issues that are plaguing the state. Deal with those issues and access will improve.

Yes, and no.

In 2011, there were over 120 bills introduced on just wildlife. Bills that would have eliminated the bundled permits for the breaks, done away with state mgt of wolves, eliminated access programs, etc. 2013 saw lower numbers, but the same attacks.

2009, 2011 saw attacks on stream access. 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021 all saw attacks on Habitat Montana as well as bills being introduced to make management of elk & deer far worse than it is today. Meanwhile, most sportsmen's organizations can't get bills out of committee because of partisan gridlock and the fear that if something good happens, somehow "the libtards" are going to win.

This is a cluster-#*^@#* rodeo well over 20 years in the making. Attacks on access have been happening repeatedly by the legislature & in some instances, trade organizations & ag groups. Attacks on management have been from those same groups & clusters of politicians. In that time (let's say 2009 to present), there have been a handful of victories on access that were the result of lawsuits brought to open up illegally closed roads, or through legislative battles. Brian Schweitzer's use of Habitat Montana to purchase WMA's is still used as an attack on Habitat MT by legislators who don't even know how the property tax side of FWP works, or what those lands were destined for because their pervious owners wanted to leave all of Montana better off.

Meanwhile, attempts to improve management have been met with political bluster from special interests who prefer the current system as it benefits them more than the general public.

I get that it's frustrating to constantly hear no from the hunting community, but when the same rejected ideas are brought back with no real interest in dialog, then there is little left to do but retreat into corners and come out swinging. I think folks have been at each other's throats for so long, we tend to forget that reasonable outcomes can occur if we all sit down together and honestly advocate for what we want. That's a shame, especially because I think the more mainstream ag groups would take the opportunity to find common ground.

Title 87, the section of the Montana Code Annotated, is one of the thickest sections of code in Montana state law. It's a dumpster fire of bad ideas & vengeful legislation, and it makes every conversation impossible because of the political malfeasance of the legislature over the last 20 years (Going back to Barret's objectives bill). Management won't change until the laws are reformed.

The reality on access is the current programs work great, but the funding levels are low. Raising Block to $25K is a good start and I'm glad that was added back into HB 637, but to try and lay all of this crap on the feet of sportsmen completely ignores the antagonistic atmosphere that all of this work is done in.

It may be time for an initiative if the Legislature refuses to enact reasonable reforms to title 87 and get rid of all of the mission creep and specialized handouts, etc that have overtaken what should be pretty stream-lined code. 2023 is going to be another roller-coaster and if sportsmen are smart, they'll start working on reform bills now, rather than wait until we're attacked at the legislature once again for simply standing up for the public trust.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

I like how Bob Brown wants to start referring to them as “small businesses.” I prefer “wards of the state.”

 

[Straight Arrow]

I actually work for a living.

This attitude perpetuated by you and UPOM that if you're not a rancher, outfitter, or cowboy, then you haven't expended a hard day's work is a self-aggrandizing myth, which much of Montana now deeply resents. The truth is that so many ranchers and large landowners are actually benefitting from the blood, sweat, and toil of their grandparents, who "proved" up the land or otherwise passed down the wherewithal to own a ranch. Most of us have struggled for a lifetime on credit to acquire what paltry real estate we own. When we buy a truck or trailer it's not "for the ranch" and it's not a write-off. It's personal in so many ways!

It's not that farmers and ranchers don't work hard or don't face many tough challenges ... it's the fact that many, many Montanans and others work as hard or harder and perhaps face even more difficult challenges. Think about the past year's work for those in the medical profession ... and you won't feel so high and mighty about your time guiding hunters, calving, driving your tractor, riding your horse, or working your irrigation lines ... all out of doors!

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Never meant that at all.

I think you’re full of sanctimonious crap.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

We do stand for something!! Small businesses in rural MT! People that are trying to pay for ranches, mortgages, college tuitions.....the list goes on. That is what we stand for!

This is factually inaccurate. Hotels, restaurants, and grocery stores are also small businesses. This bill results in 3000 people required to stay in elk camp and not those hotels and not eating in those restaurants. This bill takes from them and gives to you. No one needs COVID relief more than those businesses and they also need to pay mortgages and tuitions. You haven't grown the economy, you have just diverted it to yourself. Your stated support for small business is in direct conflict with the actions of this bill. The Government is now dictating where consumers spend their money. If the government forced you to spend your money somewhere you would spin off this planet with socialist rage, yet seem fine as the recipient of the welfare. Imagine going to the liquor store and being told no more do it yourself Jack, you have to go to the bar to drink. This is a terrible bill which is why the process was shady. The bill was dead for a month, inserted the 2nd to last day without notice and no public comment in a totally unrelated bill. This is not what proud people do.

The question is whether the hunting community, the hotels and restaurants, the VRBO owners, the local grocery stores and chambers of commerce decide to come to the fight. The best analogy I can come up with for the long game is the travel agent. They did all the same things when people started being able to book their own trips by requiring airlines to set aside tickets for agents to sell, it worked for a short window of time but now they are the buggy whip manufacturer, a few left to guide the incompetent. The dustbin of history is full of people who fought progress and the good news is that as more and more people learn to do it themselves, less and less will be booking guides, and the middleman will get cut out and market efficiency achieved, the only thing we control is how fast.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Amen, Andrew.

 

[Wildabeest]

This is a terrible bill which is why the process was shady. The bill was dead for a month, inserted the 2nd to last day without notice and no public comment in a totally unrelated bill. This is not what proud people do.

^^^^^^^^ No truer statement than this right here!

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

We ranch and yet somehow my dad’s found the time to visit his grandsons in Washington 6 times over the last year and my brother fishes 5 nights a week. And we’re profitable. What we don’t do is take 11 weeks to rub shoulders with rich clients hunting the ranch.

 

[goodhunt]

I have to give it to MOGA. Their intention with the first bill was to ensure that all outfitted clients that wanted a tag could get a tag. They couldn't accomplish it by complicating the draw process further so they just got the legislature to give them extra tags this year and let the rich guys pay up to be guaranteed a tag every year for as long as it only takes 2 points. More than one way to skin a cat and it looks like they found another way. I have no skin in the game as I don't live there and don't plan to hunt there. So from an impartial third party I would anticipate a couple things:
1. Preference point creep in that state just got worse. Honestly at the current rate of growth do they really expect it to be that long before it takes 3 points to be guaranteed a tag. Legitimate question; what happens to your points when you've applied for 3 years, have 3 points but fail to draw? Do you just loose the points and have to start over at 0? Somebody better start thinking about that because it is going to happen.
2. Overall in the long term this action will make it harder for all non residents to have opportunities in the state, guided or nonguided. Residents aren't going to differentiate here. They already complain the NR are ruining everything and all they are going to see is that NR were given extra tags this year. The next battle will not be pretty for NR, I can almost guarantee that.

I hope you all work it out. Good luck Montana, you're going to need it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why?

As we have discussed I was a MT resident for 3 years.
My sister works completely remote, and travels around.
So say I want a tag, I could ask her to move up to MT, she could go to Bozeman live there for 6 months, then we could get tags and go hunt.

I think we both agree, that's ridiculous.

If you move out of a state you move out, seems a bit have your cake and eat it too to heavily restrict NR tags but then allow a subset of NR to hunt whenever they want.

 

[Sytes]

The Government is now dictating where consumers spend their money. If the government forced you to spend your money somewhere you would spin off this planet with socialist rage, yet seem fine as the recipient of the welfare.

About sums it up!