Their application strategy article would get a lot easier to write.
"Wanna hunt Montana this year? Work longer hours, and get a second job."
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
"Wanna hunt Montana this year? Work longer hours, and get a second job."
When I hunted MT as NR the only thing I bought in MT was fuel and that was mostly to just drive to the area I was hunting. All the other supplies were hauled from home and I stayed in a wall tent I brought with me. I think this is pretty typical.
In fact I hunted both guided and unguided as a NR in MT and then only reason I started doing it unguided was it was significantly cheaper.
Last edited:
Eric, I think its very disingenuous to hope for 8000 guaranteed tags but to ask for over 12000.
I have zero problem forcing a greater number of NR to use outfitters as long as the numbers are capped at current numbers or less. Anything more and the access situation just gets worse. Make no mistake my opinion on this isn't because I love the idea of outfitting but rather I do like the idea of lowering NR impact much more than it is currently.
I think we also need to look at lowering NR license accross the board wether one uses an outfitter or not. This isnt the year 2000 anymore. Elk have mostly disappeared from certain traditional areas and exploded in others with little public access. Outfitting has swallowed up huge chunks of formerly open private and hunters are being forced onto ever decreasing lands that actually hold game.
I have zero problem forcing a greater number of NR to use outfitters as long as the numbers are capped at current numbers or less. Anything more and the access situation just gets worse. Make no mistake my opinion on this isn't because I love the idea of outfitting but rather I do like the idea of lowering NR impact much more than it is currently.
I think we also need to look at lowering NR license accross the board wether one uses an outfitter or not. This isnt the year 2000 anymore. Elk have mostly disappeared from certain traditional areas and exploded in others with little public access. Outfitting has swallowed up huge chunks of formerly open private and hunters are being forced onto ever decreasing lands that actually hold game.
Last edited:
It sounds like more than just NR licenses need to be reduced. If the elk and deer are in such bad shape and it's not "2000 anymore", it sounds like Montana needs to lower all licenses, both resident and NR. With more people leaving the cities and moving to states like Montana, it's only a matter of time.
Look at Idaho, they are having a HUGE amount of people moving there. A decent percent are or will become hunters...don't think the same thing will not be happening to Montana. I've already heard the stories from friends around Bozeman who are seeing the new crop of Subaru driving, flat brimmed, bro-brahs invading.
We, as an entire hunting community, are on a slippery slope right now. It's moving to more and more about how much $$ you have.
Also remember, if something happens in Montana where you need the support of the entire hunting community...it's better to not have burned too many bridges.
Last edited:
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,042
At the end of the day, how much money a nonresident hunter spends in Montana should not be determinative of whether they should get a license. Their spending runs the gamut, from very little to quite a bit.
I do not as a resident feel any obligation to justify my hunting by spending money without a good reason. There are some trips where I buy fuel in town, go hunt and not spend a dime outside of my local area. Other trips, lasting longer, I might buy several restaurant meals, propane, groceries, hay and any miscellaneous item that was forgotten but needed.
How do you think it would go over if 30% of all resident hunters were mandated to use an outfitter? Outfitters are savvy enough to know that would be a bridge too far. The only reason this proposal is being made, is non residents can't vote, and they think resident hunters won't pay much attention.
I do not as a resident feel any obligation to justify my hunting by spending money without a good reason. There are some trips where I buy fuel in town, go hunt and not spend a dime outside of my local area. Other trips, lasting longer, I might buy several restaurant meals, propane, groceries, hay and any miscellaneous item that was forgotten but needed.
How do you think it would go over if 30% of all resident hunters were mandated to use an outfitter? Outfitters are savvy enough to know that would be a bridge too far. The only reason this proposal is being made, is non residents can't vote, and they think resident hunters won't pay much attention.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Regardless, of all the banter back and forth, good points vs bad ones. For me it boils down to one simple thing. Montana voters, voted to do away with Outfitter sponsored tags. Bringing them back is pure Arrogance, it's a slap in the face to those that voted for I-161, and a piss stain on our democratic process, shame on those helping the Outfitters bringing this back.
I Edited this because I have no evidence that MOGA is the source. I was making assumptions.
I Edited this because I have no evidence that MOGA is the source. I was making assumptions.
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Oh, and I might add, that you did this because you knew that the State of Montana is controlled by one party that's usually in the Outfitters court. Easy peasy to get through, right?
Arrogance to think we won't come back and run another Initiative to fix this stain? Be advised!!!!
Arrogance to think we won't come back and run another Initiative to fix this stain? Be advised!!!!
Last edited:
Shangobango
Well-known member
I agree.
My issue was that some of the figures put forth were low balled quite a bit below a likely average.
Heard from folks inside the Capitol today that MOGA & their lobby team were working this pretty hard with all the F&G membership of the majority party.
I think you're safe to say it's a MOGA bill.
Last edited:
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
I have friends and family that outfit in MT. I know that I-161 is a PIA for booking clients, 100% agree there. I will also say that many, many outfitters have great service reputations in the communities that they operate in - and have earned that reputation through hard-work.
This bill doesn't solve it and as Shoots mentioned above, there will be changes in the future that reverse it if it does pass. The bill only makes it more difficult to solve real issues facing MT hunters. As a business owner myself - I need to be adaptable and when things come up (like COVID) - I need to react and make changes that benefit my company. Sometimes those are regulations that are handed down. I don't go to a lobbyist to get the regulation overturned - I adapt my business to be more resilient.
Bookings, timing, finding new revenue streams are always part of owning a business. The woe-is-me attitude really ticks me off the more stuff like this comes up.
This bill doesn't solve it and as Shoots mentioned above, there will be changes in the future that reverse it if it does pass. The bill only makes it more difficult to solve real issues facing MT hunters. As a business owner myself - I need to be adaptable and when things come up (like COVID) - I need to react and make changes that benefit my company. Sometimes those are regulations that are handed down. I don't go to a lobbyist to get the regulation overturned - I adapt my business to be more resilient.
Bookings, timing, finding new revenue streams are always part of owning a business. The woe-is-me attitude really ticks me off the more stuff like this comes up.
sneakypete
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,872
Well, I have to disagree on that, I got a call two days ago asking if I’d have a few minutes for the survey. I said sure, the guy asked if I hunted upland birds last season, I said no thinking he’s going to move on to deer & elk. He said thanks all were interested in now is upland birds!
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,634
Buzz, I already do that(pass off the over drawn hunters to other outfitters). I refuse on account of a conscience(hard to believe I have one isn't it?) to over hunt already over hunted public lands.
Ben, do the Canadian Provinces "prop up business models" by allocating tags for game? Come on. How about Mexico, or Nb with OTC NR license.....
The funniest thing about this, is even though I do not know most of you(maybe I do on account of Anonymous Monikers) most know I would never over book and set up a wall tent camp and put clients on a poor hunt. So good on you all for calling me out. However I can't say that within our industry there are those who are capable of this to make a buck.
I am feeling kinda stupid after talking with my neighbor about this. He is a little pissed about this and pointed out to me that the group of NR's who have been paying him to hunt his ranch may have a hard time drawing license if this thing passes. So I will have to do a little thinking on this further, maybe it is not a very good deal.
Ben, do the Canadian Provinces "prop up business models" by allocating tags for game? Come on. How about Mexico, or Nb with OTC NR license.....
The funniest thing about this, is even though I do not know most of you(maybe I do on account of Anonymous Monikers) most know I would never over book and set up a wall tent camp and put clients on a poor hunt. So good on you all for calling me out. However I can't say that within our industry there are those who are capable of this to make a buck.
I am feeling kinda stupid after talking with my neighbor about this. He is a little pissed about this and pointed out to me that the group of NR's who have been paying him to hunt his ranch may have a hard time drawing license if this thing passes. So I will have to do a little thinking on this further, maybe it is not a very good deal.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,634
Drake, there are to many outfitters in Montana. We've gone from 430-440 to about 380-390. If there were none it might be better.
Addicting
Well-known member
But your lobbying for a bill that would create more outfitters not less.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,042
Is that number just for hunting outfitters,,or does it include outfitters for fishing as well?
The total number can be a little misleading. It may well be a contraction, but it could be consolidation,, or some combination of both.
Also, thank you for engaging, stating your side and considering other points of view.
The difficult thing to realize are the unintended consequences of changes. This bill, even if well intentioned, is replete with unintended consequences. They range from your neighbor losing an access fee to me having more difficulty hosting a cousin on an elk hunt.
I think most of us know how we would like to be treated. Taking a choice away from a visiting hunter is not how most of us would like to be treated if in their shoes.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
+1. I agree...its good dialogue that Eric Albus offers up a different perspective. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to converse. May not necessarily agree with everything said, but I do like the fact that he's on here.
So by this statement you have enough clients that you are passing hunters off so why the need/want for more tags guaranteed to yourself and the other outfitters?
HighWildFree
Well-known member
Most outfitters that I knew and worked for never had problems filling spots (and some of those operations were absolute dumpster fires) pre or post I-161. Rather how I see this helping outfitters is that they will be able to charge more for an elk/deer hunt. Lease prices have gotten outrageous. $50,000 - $125,000 a year takes a lot of elk hunts to just pay the lease. Having the market shunted toward your business increases demand and you can command a higher price.
Even if this doesn't pass, I think the days of joe blow being able to knock on doors, cap in hand, is over in MT. Anybody with half decent elk hunting knows what it is worth and isn't gonna let you kill a bull that can make $10k from. When resident and NR alike realize that and demand that FWP start managing private and public land differently then maybe we can salvage some decent hunting in MT for us unwashed masses.
Even if this doesn't pass, I think the days of joe blow being able to knock on doors, cap in hand, is over in MT. Anybody with half decent elk hunting knows what it is worth and isn't gonna let you kill a bull that can make $10k from. When resident and NR alike realize that and demand that FWP start managing private and public land differently then maybe we can salvage some decent hunting in MT for us unwashed masses.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
To me, this whole thing just looks like gov’t sanctioned ticket scalping. If you accept the fact that demand far exceeds supply, then enterprising people will try to further control the supply and drive up the price (aka “scalping”).
In essence, what’s happening here is that you’re taking a public resource (I’m talking about the tag, not the game animal), purchasing it at a set price, and then putting a huge markup on it the same way a scalper would.
But, wait, the hunter is purchasing the tag not the outfitter, so how can they mark it up? The same way scalpers get around laws designed to prevent scalping - they bundle in a bunch of other stuff and say all that extra stuff is where the markup is. “For $5,000 you get this $100 concert ticket and a limo ride to the show! It’s a REALLY nice limo <wink, wink>.”
For me as a NR, I think all NR’s should have the same opportunity at those tags. Period. The decision as to whether to use an outfitter, if I’m successful drawing a tag, is then my choice to make. My tag odds should not have anything to do with whether I’m using an outfitter or not. If it’s done any other way, then it’s pay-to-play with a public resource and that goes completely against the entire ethos of the North American Model.
The other thing that I can’t really understand relative to the Defense’s argument is: if you are expecting to negotiate this down to current levels, then why the hell are you even doing it? Seems like a lot of pain and trouble to get to status quo. I understand that the guarantees make your booking process a bit easier, but seriously you need laws for that vs. managing your business around the realities of life like every other business owner does?
In essence, what’s happening here is that you’re taking a public resource (I’m talking about the tag, not the game animal), purchasing it at a set price, and then putting a huge markup on it the same way a scalper would.
But, wait, the hunter is purchasing the tag not the outfitter, so how can they mark it up? The same way scalpers get around laws designed to prevent scalping - they bundle in a bunch of other stuff and say all that extra stuff is where the markup is. “For $5,000 you get this $100 concert ticket and a limo ride to the show! It’s a REALLY nice limo <wink, wink>.”
For me as a NR, I think all NR’s should have the same opportunity at those tags. Period. The decision as to whether to use an outfitter, if I’m successful drawing a tag, is then my choice to make. My tag odds should not have anything to do with whether I’m using an outfitter or not. If it’s done any other way, then it’s pay-to-play with a public resource and that goes completely against the entire ethos of the North American Model.
The other thing that I can’t really understand relative to the Defense’s argument is: if you are expecting to negotiate this down to current levels, then why the hell are you even doing it? Seems like a lot of pain and trouble to get to status quo. I understand that the guarantees make your booking process a bit easier, but seriously you need laws for that vs. managing your business around the realities of life like every other business owner does?
Browning Rifles
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2020
- Messages
- 48
I have been biting my tounge on this but here you go.....
i find it funny that a “Montana outfitter “ Eric. Would get on this public land diy site and try to defend this ridiculous bill. I was raised by parents that taught me if you are in the right you don’t have to justify it. It ain’t right Eric, never will be. For the record outfitters like you are ruining hunting in Montana and the rest of the USA.
i find it funny that a “Montana outfitter “ Eric. Would get on this public land diy site and try to defend this ridiculous bill. I was raised by parents that taught me if you are in the right you don’t have to justify it. It ain’t right Eric, never will be. For the record outfitters like you are ruining hunting in Montana and the rest of the USA.
- Status
