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

[mtmuley]

Not every farmer or rancher stands in line with a hand out. mtmuley

 

[sacountry]

We would like that as well.......but can’t.

And here is where a good meeting at the negotiation table is better than the crap that goes on in Helena. I have no issue with the ask for a finite number of guaranteed NR combo tags. Of course, the bars that own the liquor licenses do pay state liquor taxes so it's just a matter of figuring out how to tax the tags that are sold by the outfitter, but that seems like a pretty easy hurdle since it's just cost that's passed on to the NR hunter.

 

[BuzzH]

Not every farmer or rancher stands in line with a hand out. mtmuley

Very true...but its not one or two that have collected 425 billion in the last 25 years either.

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

farm.ewg.org

For the record, I'm not opposed to the subsidies...just well past over the hypocrisy of the recipients.

 

[Gerald Martin]

We would like that as well.......but can’t.

Utilizing a public trust resource for profit comes with the understanding that access to that resource at the rate required to be profitable is not guaranteed.
That’s part of the equation and hasn’t changed since you and other outfitters implemented your business model. You knew the potential for there to not be guaranteed access.
Outfitters refer to I-161 and the rescinding of “guaranteed outfitter tags” like it was a complete upheaval of the way licenses were always allocated in MT. It wasn’t.
Back in 1995 when I first applied for a NR MT elk license, there was the same preference point system, the same(actually less in reality) number of NR deer and elk combo licenses available. The odds were@ 50-65% success for a first year applicant.
Yet many outfitters had learned how to navigate the allocation of tags and run successful businesses.

Neither you nor any other outfitter deserve to come first in line or have preference for a greater allocation of public trust resource just because you make money from it. Evolve your business to remain profitable. Add products, cut costs. Be successful or go out of business. Just like the rest of American business owners who “work for a living.”
Your industry using political shenanigans to force preference for resources for your financial benefit at the expense of the resource and added competition with other shareholders is disgusting.

I hope there is considerable blowback for these actions. If and when it does come, I can certainly say that the actions of MOGA and outfitters in the bills they have tried to advance in the legislature have destroyed what used to be a lot of good will I had towards the outfitter community.

I will not cry when those businesses who can’t survive without government welfare cease to operate.

 

[Gerald Martin]

But Gerald you aren't relying on a lottery system to run your business remember?

Some folks look at the rules of the game before they decide to play. Some decide the risk and investment isn’t likely to pay off and don’t start a business with that model.

Some jump in, expecting the rules to be changed to accommodate them when times get tougher than they think they deserve.

 

[Eric Albus]

Doubtful...

I think its more like, business as usual...socialism, subsidies and welfare seem pretty popular in Hinsdale. No reason to think you'd change your views about hunting licenses. Its part of the Culture...

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

farm.ewg.org

doubtful, is a 5.5 yr.old average for buck deer last season seem doubtful? oldest taken last fall was 8.5 if i put profit first I'd have clients killing 3.5-4.5 yr old bucks

 

[mtmuley]

For the record, I'm not opposed to the subsidies...just well past over the hypocrisy of the recipients.

I get it. A lot of members here I think have the view of the subsidized farmers and ranchers as representative of the whole industry. My family dryland wheat farms on the Hi-Line. No CRP. mtmuley

 

[Gerald Martin]

And here is where a good meeting at the negotiation table is better than the crap that goes on in Helena. I have no issue with the ask for a finite number of guaranteed NR combo tags. Of course, the bars that own the liquor licenses do pay state liquor taxes so it's just a matter of figuring out how to tax the tags that are sold by the outfitter, but that seems like a pretty easy hurdle since it's just cost that's passed on to the NR hunter.

I disagree. This industry has shown repeatedly that an agreed upon “finite” amount isn’t “enough” when they aren’t as profitable as they expected to be when they agreed to a number.

“Enough” is reflective of their hoped for financial benefit and isn’t tied to what the resource can handle or how it affects other shareholders of the resource.
Private profit from a public resource is not a priority. It may be a positive benefit that is accommodated by a well managed resource, but when profit is prioritized, both the resource and other shareholders are allowed to(and expected to)suffer in order for those who exploit the resource for profit to be “successful.”

 

[Wildabeest]

doubtful, is a 5.5 yr.old average for buck deer last season seem doubtful? oldest taken last fall was 8.5 if i put profit first I'd have clients killing 3.5-4.5 yr old bucks

Eric, I don’t think most people here question whether you run a legit operation. What we question is why you feel that you and your clients deserve preferential access to a public resource. That position is simply indefensible. And it’s welfare whether y’all want to admit it or not. The fact that y’all have to resort to such sleazy tactics at the legislature only further emphasizes these facts. As I said previously, you should be ashamed to be associated with repugnant crap.

 

[Eric Albus]

That's only an average of $168,000 per year. I grew up corn/milk cattle farming in the midwest during the corn "down years". We would get 3-4 times that a year to NOT grow corn. Running a farm and ranch is a very expensive business as many people are aware. Some years, you need the help just to buy seed or fill the diesel tanks to plow/sow the fields.

Don't be so quick to judge about farmer subsidies please.

Farming/ranching and outfitting are two completely different animals. I am doubtful that Eric makes enough money off outfitting to pay his "hay bill" for over winter.

As an eastern hunter, coming out west every year to hunt, I see both sides of the issue. I think that the way this bill slipped in was dirty, and I also do not like the "head of line privilege" for outfitted NR hunters. I currently hold 2 PP myself (passed on applying this year) and was fully intending on applying next year. I am just glad that I have max points going into next years draw for a deer/elk combo and the new system will not affect me this ONE time. The future is dim for Montana, with more and more people coming east to move there, I see a major political shift in the near term that I don't think anyone in MT is ready for. (Think COLORADO)

Thank you for looking at things objectively. Most on here can only see through their red tinted glasses. 168K does not even cover our chemical bill, which pales in comparison to the fertilizer bill. The average farm and ranch operate at a 2-4% profit margin, on a good year, bad years its break even or burn a little equity even.

If you really sit down and look objectively at the farm subsidies, the direct beneficiary of the payments(farmers/ranchers) are using the subsidies to squeak out a small profit and hope to stay in business for another year, spending bulk of payments on equipment, repairs, fuel, fert./chem. ect.. The indirect beneficiary of the subsidies(consumers) are saving their money by having a cheap, reliable, clean, USDA inspected source of food. The money they save is used for living expenses, recreation, ect.. It is what makes the world spin economically. Other indirect beneficiaries of farm subsidies include chem/fert. dealers, implement dealers ect.

 

[Wildabeest]

Thank you for looking at things objectively. Most on here can only see through their red tinted glasses. 168K does not even cover our chemical bill, which pales in comparison to the fertilizer bill. The average farm and ranch operate at a 2-4% profit margin, on a good year, bad years its break even or burn a little equity even.

If you really sit down and look objectively at the farm subsidies, the direct beneficiary of the payments(farmers/ranchers) are using the subsidies to squeak out a small profit and hope to stay in business for another year, spending bulk of payments on equipment, repairs, fuel, fert./chem. ect.. The indirect beneficiary of the subsidies(consumers) are saving their money by having a cheap, reliable, clean, USDA inspected source of food. The money they save is used for living expenses, recreation, ect.. It is what makes the world spin economically. Other indirect beneficiaries of farm subsidies include chem/fert. dealers, implement dealers ect.

That “economics” argument can be made for just about any business or industry, so I’m not sure what your point is. There’s an infrastructure bill currently being floated that makes all the same claims. Should we assume farmers are going to get on board to support that since, you know, it will “make the world spin economically”? Or is it only OK when you’re the direct beneficiary of the welfare?

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric, I don’t think most people here question whether you run a legit operation. What we question is why you feel that you and your clients deserve preferential access to a public resource. That position is simply indefensible. And it’s welfare whether y’all want to admit it or not. The fact that y’all have to resort to such sleazy tactics at the legislature only further emphasizes these facts. As I said previously, you should be ashamed to be associated with repugnant crap.

Would you rather see unregulated business thrive in the state than a regulated one? That is what we've seen since passage of I-161. The license were available basically unlimited over the counter for years, and hunt clubs and illegal outfitters had their way with "our wildlife".

 

[Eric Albus]

That “economics” argument can be made for just about any business or industry, so I’m not sure what your point is. There’s an infrastructure bill currently being floated that makes all the same claims. Should we assume farmers are going to get on board to support that since, you know, it will “make the world spin economically”? Or is it only OK when you’re the direct beneficiary of the welfare?

Take the pork out of the infrastructure bill and I can support it. Contractors and builders would stand to benefit greatly, and all the good folks they employee.

 

[Eric Albus]

I disagree. This industry has shown repeatedly that an agreed upon “finite” amount isn’t “enough” when they aren’t as profitable as they expected to be when they agreed to a number.

“Enough” is reflective of their hoped for financial benefit and isn’t tied to what the resource can handle or how it affects other shareholders of the resource.
Private profit from a public resource is not a priority. It may be a positive benefit that is accommodated by a well managed resource, but when profit is prioritized, both the resource and other shareholders are allowed to(and expected to)suffer in order for those who exploit the resource for profit to be “successful.”

Disagree if you want, but we (outfitters) were happy with what we had in the OSL. The opposition took that from us by a sleazy process, which included hiring convicts to collect signatures.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

So a citizen’s initiative is sleazy? How dare those infidels take part in their governmental processes.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Disagree if you want, but we (outfitters) were happy with what we had in the OSL. The opposition took that from us by a sleazy process, which included hiring convicts to collect signatures.

How’d they get those jail birds out to collect signatures? If that’s what happened at least they were gainfully employed instead of collecting welfare.... right?

Complaining about a “sleazy process” after HB-637.....? Hold tight, I gotta look for a meme. Found it!

 

[tjones]

Disagree if you want, but we (outfitters) were happy with what we had in the OSL. The opposition took that from us by a sleazy process, which included hiring convicts to collect signatures.

What is your proof or is this just more bar stool facts?

 

[antlerradar]

I’d be thrilled to be making $168,000 a year plus having a bunch of land I get to hang out on and manage year round. Instead I work my butt off 40-80 hrs a week to make less than half of that and live on a postage stamp sized lot

So would I.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The irony is thick. Hopefully Eric has never hired an employee who’s been convicted of a crime.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The irony is thick. Hopefully Eric has never hired an employee who’s been convicted of a c

At least the Governor who is the last defense against implementing 637 is solid and has never been charged with anything. We have that going for us.