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

[devon deer]

Just seen @Big Fin fin post on facebook and comments are pouring in.
I just wondering, I emailed all on the committee and not a single reply....maybe they are getting swamped?
Cheers
Richard

 

[BuzzH]

Some have figured out how to provide services, access, lodging, or other values that attract a portion of that revenue stream. They have provided a value proposition that the non-resident finds compelling.

This bill, when measured in pure economics, intends to divert 60% of that revenue to a small group of people, as a result of their ability to influence those controlling the levers of power, in this case the Legislature and the Governor.

This is the part that I don't like, and the very part that Albus and Bigshooter fail to address. What about all the other Montana Resident businesses that have built those businesses around DIY NR hunters? Where do they fit into this welfare scheme? What happens when their business becomes "unstable" due to outfitters only looking out for themselves? Should hotels, restaurants, tire shops get some hotel sponsored NR tags to sell, How about restaurant sponsored NR tags? Why only outfitters should benefit from a state resource seems pretty selfish.

I guess they just don't count.

It also amuses me to no end that a certain political party, that I'm sure both Albus and Bigshooter belong to, talks about how bad welfare is all the time. About how we all need "pull ourselves up by the bootstraps", rail away about free markets and capitalism.

Then turn around and seek the very thing they supposedly don't like...hilarious.

 

[Eric Albus]

Ben Lamb said : "2.) These family businesses are a $350 million industry, according to your studies. There are no other family businesses that are requiring a gov't mandated client base to do their job. I'm thankful you donated those hunts, and Big Hearts is a great program, but to try and lay all of that out as some kind of benevolence when it's really marketing & PR work is again a cheap ploy to pull at heartstrings. Are you going to tell us kids will starve next."

This does in no way give a Gov't mandated client base. We still must first find a client willing to purchase our services and then buy a high price license. There is no mandate of clientele. I look at it the same way as I do couch on a showroom floor. Does anybody want to win a lottery in order to purchase a couch?

Ben, Randy, both of you understand that there is no expectation of 60% of the license. My guess is that it will be bargained down to 40% (this number matches current use by NR outfitted clients).

It also does nothing to address the real problem, which is management of wildlife. Hopefully a new Gov. and Commission will look to manage wildlife biologically in the state.

 

[406dn]

For the life of me, I do not understand the need for a deer and antelope outfitting industry. Anyone with the skills to hunt whitetails in their home state, can with a modest learning curve hunt mule deer and antelope on their own. What the outfitter is selling and really the biggest thing he is selling is access to lightly hunted land. For the most part they aren't supplying crucial equipment or skills needed to be successful.

I do see a place for outfitters for elk in large rugged semi-wild parcels of land. In that circumstance, the outfitter can provide a service that many cannot accomplish without assistance. Even then, it should be the hunters' choice whether they go at it themselves or hire an outfitter.

Many years ago now, I used to hunt the Broadus area,,,before the outfitting really got going. A guy could get on some places and not on others. Over time, I lost the access to areas due to outfitting. Around the same time, in the grocery store and gas stations were posters inviting people to come hunt does. You could not kill a buck, mind you, but they were begging for some does to be taken. I declined that offer and have not been back in 25 years or so. I was always willing to fill doe tags in exchange for a chance at a buck,, but I will never be interested in doing clean up as a second class hunter.

I won't be surprised if this bill passes. I also think it will again be reversed by the people in an election or two. Just as there is wide support across the political spectrum for our stream access laws, it rubs most Montanan's the wrong way to let some cut in line ahead of the general public.

I guess crony capitalism is only bad if one thinks some one else is benefiting. When you are the beneficiary, crony capitalism is just government stabilizing a crucial economic activity. I never knew outfitting was as crucial as, say the auto industry.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To summarize what one Senator told me yesterday in regards to the volumes of emails coming in on this bill, "This is turning into a $hit storm that some didn't want."

Carry on......

They have the opportunity to end this in committee. Or the sponsor, whom I genuinely like and think is a good person, could request that the bill be pulled and not heard.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben Lamb said : "2.) These family businesses are a $350 million industry, according to your studies. There are no other family businesses that are requiring a gov't mandated client base to do their job. I'm thankful you donated those hunts, and Big Hearts is a great program, but to try and lay all of that out as some kind of benevolence when it's really marketing & PR work is again a cheap ploy to pull at heartstrings. Are you going to tell us kids will starve next."

This does in no way give a Gov't mandated client base. We still must first find a client willing to purchase our services and then buy a high price license. There is no mandate of clientele. I look at it the same way as I do couch on a showroom floor. Does anybody want to win a lottery in order to purchase a couch?

This is simply untrue, Eric.

IT LITERALLY GAUANTREES FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE in the NR draw for outfitted clients, up to 60% of the NR license pool for B10 &B11 licenses. It literally guarantees your clients a license if they are sponsored & it adds 2,000 licenses to the B11 while making the resident landowner sponsored license a NR sponsored license.

If you haven't read your own bill, I suggest doing so. Because you're misrepresenting the clear language in it.

 

[Hirtlene]

I am one of the DIY hunters that started to come to Montana to hunt elk a few years back. Montana has a good thing going for us non-residents, Id hate to see that be diminished. The fact that a non-resident can make effort and be successfully in a beautiful state is huge. Emails have bee sent, lets hope it makes a difference.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben Lamb said : "2.) These family businesses are a $350 million industry, according to your studies. There are no other family businesses that are requiring a gov't mandated client base to do their job. I'm thankful you donated those hunts, and Big Hearts is a great program, but to try and lay all of that out as some kind of benevolence when it's really marketing & PR work is again a cheap ploy to pull at heartstrings. Are you going to tell us kids will starve next."

This does in no way give a Gov't mandated client base. We still must first find a client willing to purchase our services and then buy a high price license. There is no mandate of clientele. I look at it the same way as I do couch on a showroom floor. Does anybody want to win a lottery in order to purchase a couch?

Ben, Randy, both of you understand that there is no expectation of 60% of the license. My guess is that it will be bargained down to 40% (this number matches current use by NR outfitted clients).

It also does nothing to address the real problem, which is management of wildlife. Hopefully a new Gov. and Commission will look to manage wildlife biologically in the state.

What a load of crap.

As I said above, why shouldn't a hotel or restaurant be given NR tags to sell their clients?

Its all about you...those other guys can just jump on board the free market capitalism train while you freeload...

What a joke the outfitting industry has become.

 

[Muleys32]

Emails have been sent to all members. Heard back from one already.

 

[Eric Albus]

Buzz, you make a legit point about other business', but read my post above, we will never come away with 60%. Outfitters have never even come close to that number. When you enter into the legislative fray expect to be bargained down, so start high on account you can't come up.

As to free markets and capitalism having a license does nothing to disrupt this. I am still in competition with every other outfitter in Montana, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to sell a hunt.

Were I made King over this deal in Montana it would look a lot like Canada. Each license would be tied to and area of operation and when the wildlife numbers crash license sales would be reduced or suspended. I have hope that if this does pass it will pave a way to allocation and areas of operation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Buzz, you make a legit point about other business', but read my post above, we will never come away with 60%. Outfitters have never even come close to that number. When you enter into the legislative fray expect to be bargained down, so start high on account you can't come up.

As to free markets and capitalism having a license does nothing to disrupt this. I am still in competition with every other outfitter in Montana, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to sell a hunt.

Were I made King over this deal in Montana it would look a lot like Canada. Each license would be tied to and area of operation and when the wildlife numbers crash license sales would be reduced or suspended. I have hope that if this does pass it will pave a way to allocation and areas of operation.

Eric,

You have a leg up on that competition because you can guarantee a tag. That's state subsidy to your industry. You're being given a competitive edge by the state in allowing for you to be the entity that cuts tyhe line for your clients & gets them a guaranteed tag.

Starting at 60% is not expecting to negotiate down, it's asking for as much as you want, and accepting that you may get less. If your target was 40% the MOGA should have been honest and asked for that rather than 60%. It's also a tacit acknowledgement that every outfitter will have a client with a tag, making this again - a guaranteed tag for your clients.

If I were king, there'd be a serious effort to look at the Alberta model that disallows outfitting entirely. It probably wouldn't pass, so we can negotiate down from there.

 

[BuzzH]

It's just truly unbelievable how fast morals, principles, and beliefs go down the drain when legislation you would otherwise oppose benefits you.

I just wonder how you sleep at night Albus...?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Were I made King over this deal in Montana it would look a lot like Canada. Each license would be tied to and area of operation and when the wildlife numbers crash license sales would be reduced or suspended. I have hope that if this does pass it will pave a way to allocation and areas of operation.

That is far from the intent of this legislation. Now you are just grasping for straws of justification to support a MOGA imperative of "socialism" to be legislated by the very party which has adamantly opposed any form of "socialism". Please, blinders off for a moment, recognize the heightened hypocrisy.

 

[Irrelevant]

So am I understanding this correctly the there is no limit on outfitters right now? As in, anyone who currently draws a tag can use an outfitter? If that's correct then it's more of an economics problem, outfitters aren't providing a service at a price that people are willing to pay.

 

[tjones]

I am still in competition with every other outfitter in Montana, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to sell a hunt.

Well hell, 2 years from now lets run a bill so each outfitter gets his own tags. Each outfitter can guarantee NR hunters a spot and every outfitter will be booked solid all season. Cut to the chase so to speak. Make the life of the outfitter super easy.

Also let run a bill to remove "welfare" and "subsidy" from the Montana English dictionary. We can then replace those words with "deserve".

 

[Straight Arrow]

As tjones suggests, why not cut to the chase and in two years pass a bill similar to Wyoming's wilderness guide for NRs and require NRs hunting in Montana to be "guided and supervised" wherever they hunt in Montana to protect the landscape, provide a "quality" hunt, and promote the MOGA form of tourism?

 

[jlong17]

Last year I was fortunate enough to hunt Montana as a NR. I got the invite from a fellow HuntTalker that lives out there, and we had a blast. I'd hate to see yet another opportunity slip away for us DIY folks.
I think the best part of this thread is seeing non-residents and residents band together for a common cause. We poke at eachother all year long (me especially being "that guy" from CA), but when it comes down to it we all want to see opportunities exist for generations to come. One of my goals in being a father is to bring my little girl on a DIY elk hunt. I don't need a guide put me on animals when all I really want is time to forge relationships in the elk woods.

 

[CUElk]

So am I understanding this correctly the there is no limit on outfitters right now? As in, anyone who currently draws a tag can use an outfitter? If that's correct then it's more of an economics problem, outfitters aren't providing a service at a price that people are willing to pay.

Exactly. Well said

 

[BuzzH]

Last year I was fortunate enough to hunt Montana as a NR. I got the invite from a fellow HuntTalker that lives out there, and we had a blast. I'd hate to see yet another opportunity slip away for us DIY folks.
I think the best part of this thread is seeing non-residents and residents band together for a common cause. We poke at eachother all year long (me especially being "that guy" from CA), but when it comes down to it we all want to see opportunities exist for generations to come. One of my goals in being a father is to bring my little girl on a DIY elk hunt. I don't need a guide put me on animals when all I really want is time to forge relationships in the elk woods.

Good point, but the outfitting industry doesnt care about any of that...they could care less about DIY hunters, the future of hunting, or that NR youth hunters get a chance to a hunt in Montana.

Trust me, if they could pass a bill to require every R and NR to pay for an outfitted hunt, they'd do it in a heartbeat and wouldn't care how it impacts youth, first time hunters, those that couldn't/can't afford a guided hunt, etc. etc.

Doesn't matter, its all about the $$$...even to the detriment of their own friends and family. They don't care, its total self-serving and they don't even try to hide it.

 

[Dale_P]

I sent an email to all on the committee petitioning them to make a bi-partisan effort to squash this in the interest of Montanan's collectively, vs favoring a special interest group. I agree that it'll be interesting to see the outcome of our efforts.