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

[Eric Albus]

Gerald Martin for Governor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only thing Gerald forgets is that he does not have to first build the house, then wait to see if any perspective buyers draw a lottery license to purchase said home.

 

[tjones]

Or a better way to look at it is 60% of all new home owners HAVE to buy from a contractor.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The only thing Gerald forgets is that he does not have to first build the house, then wait to see if any perspective buyers draw a lottery license to purchase said home.

You knew what the market looked like before you got in.

 

[Eric Albus]

Then outfitters shouldn't need handouts to be in business. Right?

According to the BBER study, it's somewhere around 17400 outfitted clients for MT, but yes, I believe I did state that it was high dollar/low impact in some regards. In others, it's high impact as animals are hazed away from public, hunters are threatened with trespass citations on public land/state land, and lack of meaningful access to areas of harboring create more economic impact.

Prairie county for example. If we had a mechanism by which, IDK, the board of outfitters could use to show how many of those NR users are outfitted versus DIY, then perhaps we could further extrapolate why Prairie County's economics are tilted so heavily towards the NR hunter. But that's tough to come by now, since MOGA has spent the last 4 sessions removing safeguards for the public to know these things about their resources (You should be thanking Bullock on that, btw. He catered to outfitters - just in a different way).

Right now, it looks like outfitter leases/private hunt clubs/landowner outfitters are dominating that county, based on the fact NR's spend twice as much as resident hunters.

So maybe it's the outfitters who should pony up the cash for a game damage program. About $5 million ought to cover it. You know, to help cover the cost of your impacts.

But regardless of all of this, and according to the data, outfitting is less of an economic driver than general DIY hunters, resident and non.

My best guess to that will be the amount of public land in P-Cnty. There are a pile of NR DIY guys hunting/leasing there. There are only 4-5 guys I know(there may be more I don't know of) Outfitting in P-Cnty.

There may be 17k outfitted clients total, counting bird hunters and deer/elk/antelope/moose/sheep/goat.

Without the outfitters doing what we do there would be nobody accessing the majority of what we hunt, approx. 6.2M acres.

What I really don't get is why the haters don't concentrate on making the accessible lands better. If the public accessible lands were managed to look like the inaccessible lands we would not even be having these discussions.

You knew what the market looked like before you got in.

Ya, we had the OSL.

 

[Eric Albus]

Wayne Brady just smacked a B#tch

maybe you'd should try smacking me next time I see you

Your world is very small.

I admittedly live in a microcosm. From south of Cowtown 50 miles, to the Canadian border is about all I travel. I can tell you that NE Mt., and SE Mt. looks like a campground from opening day of archery to end of Nov., then it's vacated. The majority of locals have a great deal of distaste for western Mt and NR hunters here in the East. They come here in droves and take "our wildlife" leaving very little behind.

 

[BuzzH]

maybe you'd should try smacking me next time I see you

I admittedly live in a microcosm. From south of Cowtown 50 miles, to the Canadian border is about all I travel. I can tell you that NE Mt., and SE Mt. looks like a campground from opening day of archery to end of Nov., then it's vacated. The majority of locals have a great deal of distaste for western Mt and NR hunters here in the East. They come here in droves and take "our wildlife" leaving very little behind.

How you can lay claim to wildlife you don't pay to manage is still a mystery...and as hypocritical as it gets.

When you and your outfitter buddies actually start paying for some management, you may have something to complain about in regard to Montana R and NR hunters taking "their wildlife", until then go find another shoulder to cry on...

I usually hunt NW Montana on public land, may start heading east and hunting MY wildlife over that way for a while.

 

[RobertD]

The majority of locals have a great deal of distaste for western Mt and NR hunters here in the East. They come here in droves and take "our wildlife" leaving very little behind.

Never mind that tag allocations make it mathematically impossible for NRs to take "their wildlife" at a rate higher than they do.

 

[huntin24/7]

Yes, eastern MT has an overcrowding issue during deer rifle season. A simple solution would be to manage like most every other state and determine number of total tags each unit can support and give out 10% of tags from each unit to non residents. That would be pretty consistent with other states. Those 10% could choose to book with an outfitter or go diy. Managing for each unit is a start. Not sure why I wasted all that typing though. There would be a lot of sobbing by guys that can’t hunt their favorite unit each year and might have to drive a few hours some years to hunt a second choice, because proper management can’t trump what’s most convenient to most guys.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The only thing Gerald forgets is that he does not have to first build the house, then wait to see if any perspective buyers draw a lottery license to purchase said home.

Nope. Not apples to apples in your comparison. You have have been advancing a logic that says outfitted clients bring more $$$ into MT than DIY hunters so they should have priority.
I say home builders bring in more $$$ than outfitters, so according to your logic our industry deserves priority for licenses than your industry does.
Step further back in line, sir.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My best guess to that will be the amount of public land in P-Cnty. There are a pile of NR DIY guys hunting/leasing there. There are only 4-5 guys I know(there may be more I don't know of) Outfitting in P-Cnty.

There may be 17k outfitted clients total, counting bird hunters and deer/elk/antelope/moose/sheep/goat.

Without the outfitters doing what we do there would be nobody accessing the majority of what we hunt, approx. 6.2M acres.

What I really don't get is why the haters don't concentrate on making the accessible lands better. If the public accessible lands were managed to look like the inaccessible lands we would not even be having these discussions.

Ya, we had the OSL.

It's been a lottery since the NR draw was instituted. OSL's were only in existence for around 15 years.

Folks have been working on the making accessible lands better, but we got shot down the legislature, and Congress. Right up until it was important for re-election, then we were able to get LWCF permanently reathorized & fully funded, and we walked out of the Legislature this session with something like $14 million for land management, acquisition & improvement. There have been proposals to put billions into improving public land, remove invasives, etc but they get stopped by McConnell, et al. Add on top of that the massive elimination of mitigation regulations, relaxing of drilling stips, etc and you can easily see that public land management has gone backwards in the last 4 years on a fast-track to more cheatgrass & less wildlife habitat.

Budgets for fighting invasive species were flat until we worked with Kelly Flynn to create the WHIP Act, which doubled MT's financial commitment to stopping invasives )$1 million), and it's still woefully underfunded. MT still needs 10 times that to make a dent on the issue, and the Fed is looking at how to do that as well, through various budget proposals, infrastructure and the revitalization of the Civilian Conservation Corps.


Montanans have put forward a lot of ideas that help habitat as well, often times over the objections of extremists from both sides, like Bullock's Good Neighbor Policy that fast-tracked stewardship logging on 10 million acres of public land in order to improve habitat. Then there's the blackfoot-clearwater stewardship act, lots of good work in the Troy area with some working groups, etc. There's also another $1.5 million in the new budget for operations and maintenance of FWP lands in the budget.

What you are really advocating though is reducing hunting pressure altogether in order to achieve easy hunts. There's a balance between opportunity & antler quality that has to be preserved, and whenever that conversation comes up, it gets presented as either/or. You will not see the same kind of hunting on public land as you do a leased land, because the laws governing public lands do not allow for it. That land has to be shared with livestock, mining, drilling, etc. And at every step - there has been resistance, even from you, to do the right thing in terms of habitat management.

maybe you'd should try smacking me next time I see you

It was a joke based on a funny skit. Apologies if you didn't get the reference. No actual harm was meant, just some locker room talk.

 

[Gerald Martin]

How about we implement a novel concept that ties the number of licenses available to the amount of game observed and counted instead of static numbers and the WAG concept of “we’re still killing as many critters as we did historically so populations must be okay.”?

Like, use some actual, like tangible numbers, dude.?

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Nope. Not apples to apples in your comparison. You have have been advancing a logic that says outfitted clients bring more $$$ into MT than DIY hunters so they should have priority.
I say home builders bring in more $$$ than outfitters, so according to your logic our industry deserves priority for licenses than your industry does.
Step further back in line, sir.

Homebuilders that sell to out of state buyers, especially ones from CA should get priority in building permits, get a discount on all building materials, and have preference in all hiring for future work. Out of state buyers must use a contractor, must build a new home and are entitled to preference above all others in choosing their home. No DIY construction or purchase of resales allowed for out of state homebuyers.

Those out of state buyers just bring more to the economy and spend a lot of money on soy lattes, which pays for baristas, which fuels hybrid auto sales, which fuels the sale of yoga pants, which we can all agree is what Montana needs.

I'm just applying the logic presented by the outfitters so Gerald gets a fair shot to make a living.

 

[Schaaf]

Our Governor doesn’t even have the balls to stand up and sign HB637. Bet he lets it go 10 days and automatically become law. @shrapnel

 

[SAJ-99]

The heartburn I have, and others will also, with a market driven license it will allow the elite wealthy, trophy ranch owning, no access giving, absentee landowner a "free-ride" to license. I'd rather see them bleed a little and have to deal with an outfitter for license. By the way, I'd feel this way even if I was not an outfitter, so spare me the comments if you don't like the idea.

Umm, did you see what got proposed this session? It was a lot of that.

The market driven license may not benefit outfitters as much. It is an interesting idea that we both know people would hate. But economics is ugly.

How about a specific outfitter tag? A completely separate tag for NRs, 20% of NR quote, that limits NRs to hunting with that outfitter on land the outfitter leases. I don't think anyone wants to give outfitters and incentive not to work. That would be un-American. Competition is good.

 

[Eric Albus]

It's been a lottery since the NR draw was instituted. OSL's were only in existence for around 15 years.

Folks have been working on the making accessible lands better, but we got shot down the legislature, and Congress. Right up until it was important for re-election, then we were able to get LWCF permanently reathorized & fully funded, and we walked out of the Legislature this session with something like $14 million for land management, acquisition & improvement. There have been proposals to put billions into improving public land, remove invasives, etc but they get stopped by McConnell, et al. Add on top of that the massive elimination of mitigation regulations, relaxing of drilling stips, etc and you can easily see that public land management has gone backwards in the last 4 years on a fast-track to more cheatgrass & less wildlife habitat.

Budgets for fighting invasive species were flat until we worked with Kelly Flynn to create the WHIP Act, which doubled MT's financial commitment to stopping invasives )$1 million), and it's still woefully underfunded. MT still needs 10 times that to make a dent on the issue, and the Fed is looking at how to do that as well, through various budget proposals, infrastructure and the revitalization of the Civilian Conservation Corps.


Montanans have put forward a lot of ideas that help habitat as well, often times over the objections of extremists from both sides, like Bullock's Good Neighbor Policy that fast-tracked stewardship logging on 10 million acres of public land in order to improve habitat. Then there's the blackfoot-clearwater stewardship act, lots of good work in the Troy area with some working groups, etc. There's also another $1.5 million in the new budget for operations and maintenance of FWP lands in the budget.

What you are really advocating though is reducing hunting pressure altogether in order to achieve easy hunts. There's a balance between opportunity & antler quality that has to be preserved, and whenever that conversation comes up, it gets presented as either/or. You will not see the same kind of hunting on public land as you do a leased land, because the laws governing public lands do not allow for it. That land has to be shared with livestock, mining, drilling, etc. And at every step - there has been resistance, even from you, to do the right thing in terms of habitat management.



It was a joke based on a funny skit. Apologies if you didn't get the reference. No actual harm was meant, just some locker room talk.

I don’t watch tv

 

[Eric Albus]

Umm, did you see what got proposed this session? It was a lot of that.

The market driven license may not benefit outfitters as much. It is an interesting idea that we both know people would hate. But economics is ugly.

How about a specific outfitter tag? A completely separate tag for NRs, 20% of NR quote, that limits NRs to hunting with that outfitter on land the outfitter leases. I don't think anyone wants to give outfitters and incentive not to work. That would be un-American. Competition is good.

We need some kind of solution, and what you suggest is reasonable.

637 is not a compromise and I can see mid-use and abuses coming.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Homebuilders that sell to out of state buyers, especially ones from CA should get priority in building permits, get a discount on all building materials, and have preference in all hiring for future work. Out of state buyers must use a contractor, must build a new home and are entitled to preference above all others in choosing their home. No DIY construction or purchase of resales allowed for out of state homebuyers.

Those out of state buyers just bring more to the economy and spend a lot of money on soy lattes, which pays for baristas, which fuels hybrid auto sales, which fuels the sale of yoga pants, which we can all agree is what Montana needs.

I'm just applying the logic presented by the outfitters so Gerald gets a fair shot to make a living.

We are considering market driven allocation of licenses. I don’t want just building materials and clients funneled my way. I want big game tags as well to make my industry’s products more desirable.

 

[Point Creep]

maybe you'd should try smacking me next time I see you

I admittedly live in a microcosm. From south of Cowtown 50 miles, to the Canadian border is about all I travel. I can tell you that NE Mt., and SE Mt. looks like a campground from opening day of archery to end of Nov., then it's vacated. The majority of locals have a great deal of distaste for western Mt and NR hunters here in the East. They come here in droves and take "our wildlife" leaving very little behind.

Got some news for you.. the wildlife isn't just "yours".

 

[Eric Albus]

It's been a lottery since the NR draw was instituted. OSL's were only in existence for around 15 years.

Folks have been working on the making accessible lands better, but we got shot down the legislature, and Congress. Right up until it was important for re-election, then we were able to get LWCF permanently reathorized & fully funded, and we walked out of the Legislature this session with something like $14 million for land management, acquisition & improvement. There have been proposals to put billions into improving public land, remove invasives, etc but they get stopped by McConnell, et al. Add on top of that the massive elimination of mitigation regulations, relaxing of drilling stips, etc and you can easily see that public land management has gone backwards in the last 4 years on a fast-track to more cheatgrass & less wildlife habitat.

Budgets for fighting invasive species were flat until we worked with Kelly Flynn to create the WHIP Act, which doubled MT's financial commitment to stopping invasives )$1 million), and it's still woefully underfunded. MT still needs 10 times that to make a dent on the issue, and the Fed is looking at how to do that as well, through various budget proposals, infrastructure and the revitalization of the Civilian Conservation Corps.


Montanans have put forward a lot of ideas that help habitat as well, often times over the objections of extremists from both sides, like Bullock's Good Neighbor Policy that fast-tracked stewardship logging on 10 million acres of public land in order to improve habitat. Then there's the blackfoot-clearwater stewardship act, lots of good work in the Troy area with some working groups, etc. There's also another $1.5 million in the new budget for operations and maintenance of FWP lands in the budget.

What you are really advocating though is reducing hunting pressure altogether in order to achieve easy hunts. There's a balance between opportunity & antler quality that has to be preserved, and whenever that conversation comes up, it gets presented as either/or. You will not see the same kind of hunting on public land as you do a leased land, because the laws governing public lands do not allow for it. That land has to be shared with livestock, mining, drilling, etc. And at every step - there has been resistance, even from you, to do the right thing in terms of habitat management.



It was a joke based on a funny skit. Apologies if you didn't get the reference. No actual harm was meant, just some locker room talk.

The whole thing is easier to solve than many believe. My hope is through this commission we will see biological management of deer and elk in general season areas. In my microcosm the public lands are generally superior mule deer habitat. Very little needs be done habitat wise. There are far to many people competing for far to little resource. 1000 yard rifles, spotting scopes that rival Hubble, UTV’s, the game has no advantage.

 

[Eric Albus]

Got some news for you.. the wildlife isn't just "yours".

That would be why I called it "our wildlife", meaning all of us in Eastern Mt who live here. Stay in Bozeman and keep "your elk" and leave "our mule deer alone", I will make an exception for you, a former North Easterner displaced to the far left side of the state.