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

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,963
Location
Laramie, WY
Don't think for a minute that I like the fact there will be approx. 3k more ppl. here hunting.

Whose penny did I spend when planting feed and cover for deer/birds? When I look at my check stubs seems several thousand dollars go out each year to feed and house wildlife. I suppose I don't buy ammo/license/donated tens of thousands in the form of guided hunts to organizations either. Would you like a list of all the hunts I've donated the last 20yrs. to conservation organizations? If you want to have a peter measuring contest over who gives more bring it on.
Liked it enough to take the tags...no more complaining about too many people and too little resource.

The problem is in your mirror.
 

HighCountryCommando

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
91
If you step back and look at subsidies you will recognize that I may be the direct beneficiary of said payments. If you eat store bought bread, or buy any of your food in grocery store, you are the indirect beneficiary of the subsidy by having low priced food. Low priced food has been a must in our nation. Cheap food equates into people having more money for recreation. A populous that recreates is a happy and sedentary population. When people have to pay high prices for food and many go hungry you have civil unrest. Our Gov't is way ahead on this curve. Keep people fed, recreating and happy, they pay taxes and life is good.
Your side stepping the issue. I just pointed out that the wildlife improvements you make on your property is done with some of my pennies. I made no moral statement about the good or bad or right or wrong of subsidies as they relate to farming. Life is good...and your still making wildlife improvements with my pennies.
 

HighCountryCommando

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
91
And just to get ahead of an @Albus resonse to my last post, I'll repost Mr Martin's statement for dramatic effect. Drum role please....

It’s not about access to hunt private property.
That’s a completely separate discussion.

Just because I point out your improving wildlife on your land with other people's pennies does not mean I'm making a case that I should have access to said property.

I am making the case that your only able to do that good work with other people's pennies. As such, the wildlife improvements you make are not a service you provide to hunters out of the kindness of your heart. I view farm subsidies as a good investment in wildlife. Yes farmers provide much of the habitat the wildlife need...no question. But it not just you that is providing that benefit...tax paying hunters are paying for it too.

We get cheaper food and more habitat out of our investment...it's a win win for everyone.

However the farming community typically gets really irate when tax payers expect anything but lower food prices from our investments. So my post was two-fold (1) You can't side step that fact that it's I and my fellow tax paying hunters who make the vast benefits of farming possible and (2) tax paying hunters would like a little more credit than we typically get from the AG community for helping provide those benefits.

Now...anyone have a good court scene meme from A Few Good Men they can que up for me...I think I'm really going to need it.
 

Big Shooter

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
364
What a joke...justifying welfare seems to be all the moves you have.

I'm not opposed to all subsidies, but your claim here that keeping people "fed" through farm subsidies is a joke.

Yeah, lets subsidize a business that creates "cheap" food via corn, wheat, etc. to produce boat loads of processed/cheap shit, being pawned off as food. "Food" that creates a boat-load of health issues for those lowest on the economic scale.

I wish I were in charge of things for a week...I'd subsidize farming, but it wouldn't be corn, wheat, etc. farmers. It would be farmers producing a product that didn't induce diabetes, heart problems, etc. etc. etc.

Right on que, I see you also took your outfitter subsidy/welfare...as if I expected any less.
You need to put your bong down.....and step away! Are you a goddamn Doctor now? Or a nutritionist? I’m very glad that you aren’t ”in charge of things for a week”! You would make your new President look like a genius! WOW!
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
Your side stepping the issue. I just pointed out that the wildlife improvements you make on your property is done with some of my pennies. I made no moral statement about the good or bad or right or wrong of subsidies as they relate to farming. Life is good...and your still making wildlife improvements with my pennies.
And you are saving your pennies by having a cheap, steady supply of food.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
BuzzH said:
What a joke...justifying welfare seems to be all the moves you have.

I'm not opposed to all subsidies, but your claim here that keeping people "fed" through farm subsidies is a joke.

Yeah, lets subsidize a business that creates "cheap" food via corn, wheat, etc. to produce boat loads of processed/cheap shit, being pawned off as food. "Food" that creates a boat-load of health issues for those lowest on the economic scale.

I wish I were in charge of things for a week...I'd subsidize farming, but it wouldn't be corn, wheat, etc. farmers. It would be farmers producing a product that didn't induce diabetes, heart problems, etc. etc. etc.

Right on que, I see you also took your outfitter subsidy/welfare...as if I expected any less.

You can not really be this ignorant. Producers grow the beginning product. Wheat leaves our farm raw. Garbonzo Beans, yellow peas, barley, oats, lentils, and whatever else we can raise in this drought forbidden county I call home leaves the producers in RAW form. We don't raise corn here cause it doesn't rain enough.

Once the wheat leaves our farm it goes to the elevator, then onto a Warren Buffets railroad, he was taking only 1:3 bushels we produced, but with fuel going up he's added to the freight. The grain is off loaded on the coast into barges and shipped to various ports, to be processed (
these are the people you need to take issue with, they make the "garbage" poor folks eat, apparently by force in your mind)

By the way, we were a very large producer of Organic crops for a number of years also. The weeds finally take over and forced us back to conventional farming for the most part. The disparity in production is huge, organic vs. conventional. If all farmers were forced to grow organic we could not feed the U.S. let alone the rest of the world. Food cost would sky rocket, a loaf of bread you now pay $2.50 for would be $15-20.

It is the processors who turn our products into "garbage food" for the "lowest on the economic scale". Questions?
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
And just to get ahead of an @Albus resonse to my last post, I'll repost Mr Martin's statement for dramatic effect. Drum role please....



Just because I point out your improving wildlife on your land with other people's pennies does not mean I'm making a case that I should have access to said property.

I am making the case that your only able to do that good work with other people's pennies. As such, the wildlife improvements you make are not a service you provide to hunters out of the kindness of your heart. I view farm subsidies as a good investment in wildlife. Yes farmers provide much of the habitat the wildlife need...no question. But it not just you that is providing that benefit...tax paying hunters are paying for it too.

We get cheaper food and more habitat out of our investment...it's a win win for everyone.

However the farming community typically gets really irate when tax payers expect anything but lower food prices from our investments. So my post was two-fold (1) You can't side step that fact that it's I and my fellow tax paying hunters who make the vast benefits of farming possible and (2) tax paying hunters would like a little more credit than we typically get from the AG community for helping provide those benefits.

Now...anyone have a good court scene meme from A Few Good Men they can que up for me...I think I'm really going to need it.
Never thought you were making a case for access.

I am also paying those same taxes, and pay property taxes. You state, "farming community typically gets really irate when tax payers expect anything but lower food prices from our investments", I ask with all due respect, what are the tax payers expecting extra?

If it weren't for everyone paying their fair share(whatever that is or means) our system would fail, people would go hungry and civil war would be the order of the day. Keep people fed and they stay pretty happy, have a hungry populous and things go to hades in a hand basket in a hurry. Our Gov't knows this and keeps food affordable, keeps producers right next to broke so they have to sell crops and can't hold out for higher prices. The cattle man is really held hostage, it is impossible to store the calf crop in a grain bin, the ones on the bottom tend to get squashed flat.;)
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,945
Location
SE Montana
The economics of ag subsidies. Agricultural products are about as close as you get to a perfectly competitive market. Back when I took econ classes the professors almost always used an ag product as an example when describing a perfectly competitive market.
In this market there are numerous producers and none of the producers are large enough to affect the price. In the long run producers make zero economic profit. If costs are increased, producers experience losses in the short run and some producers drop out of the market. Over time the the price of the product increases to include all of the cost increase and the producers once again earn zero economic profit. The entire cost increase is passed on to consumers. The reverse happens with a subsidy. In the short run the producers earn an economic profit, but in the long run the as more of the product is produced the price falls to reflect the subsidy and the producers once again earn zero economic profit. The entire subsidy is passed on to the consumers in lower prices for the product in the long run.
If it was up to me there would be no ag subsidies as I would much rather get a better price for my product than have to deal with subsidies. Politicians see it differently. The reality is that ag subsidies in the long run are a way to get the rich ( the ones that pay the lions share of taxes) and future generations (the ones that are going to pay our debt) to pay for part of our food bill.

This tread has gone a long ways. Takes me back to days when I was a TA in collage and explaining this stuff to students in freshman economics.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,963
Location
Laramie, WY
I'm still trying to figure out how a market is competitive when, by design in the case of ag, its infused with a subsidy? Also, if its all the politicians fault, why does AG send lobbyist to D.C. by the trainload?

I think farming the government, for both ag and outfitters, is what they're best at.


 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
I'm still trying to figure out how a market is competitive when, by design in the case of ag, its infused with a subsidy? Also, if its all the politicians fault, why does AG send lobbyist to D.C. by the trainload?

I think farming the government, for both ag and outfitters, is what they're best at.


You show your true self with the above statements. Sad but true.

If it's all so easy, buy a farm/ranch or outfitting business.

antlerradar........
is correct in his quick run down of farm/ranch econ 101. If you are a consumer you are the winner of the ag subsidy. What you did not touch on much is the producers who are smaller that "get out" of ag, selling or leasing their land to a larger producer. In this business if you are not growing, you are going. Meaning that if a farm/ranch does not expand and continue to grow with the continual rising costs of production they will be the next one swallowed up by a larger producer. It is a fouled up system to say the least.

This must sound like total insanity to those who are not well versed or involved in ag.

Everyone should stop and ponder their place in this world. How many people actually out-produce what they consume in a days/weeks/months/years time? It bothers me that the instant I wake I become a consumer, turning on the light is the first act of consumption I commit. Maybe I should wait for daylight before I awaken?
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
The economics of ag subsidies. Agricultural products are about as close as you get to a perfectly competitive market. Back when I took econ classes the professors almost always used an ag product as an example when describing a perfectly competitive market.
In this market there are numerus producers and none of the producers are large enough to effect the price. In the long run producers make zero economic profit. If costs are increased producers experience losses in the short run and some producers drop out of the market. Over time the the price of the product increases to include all of the cost increase and the producers once again earn zero economic profit. The entire cost increase is passed on to consumers. The reverse happens with a subsidy. In the sort run the producers earn an economic profit, but in the long run the more of the product is produced and price falls to reflect the subsidy and the producers once again earn zero economic profit. The entire subsidy is passed on to the consumers in lower prices for the product in the long run.
If it was up to me there would be no ag subsidies as I would much rather get a better price for my product than have to deal with subsidies. Politicians see it differently. The reality is that ag subsidies in the long run are a way to get the rich ( the ones that pay the lions share of taxes) and future generations (the ones that are going to pay our debt) to pay for part of our food bill.

This tread has gone a long ways. Takes me back to days when I was a TA in collage and explaining this stuff to students in freshman economics.
glad it was Econ and not spelling.... 🤣 😂
 

Buffs35

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
572
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
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.
I never had a problem knocking on doors and getting access 20 years ago, not so much now.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,945
Location
SE Montana
glad it was Econ and not spelling.... 🤣 😂
I took at least a dozen 300 level or better econ and ag econ classes at MSU and received A in all of them. I usually was one of the top students in the classes. Just before I graduated my advisor called me in. This is what he said " Art, are you thinking about graduate school, MSU and far better schools would be happy to accept you. Doctor Smith is very impressed with your analytical ability." I looked Stauber right in the eye and replied back " Doctor Smith would not be very impressed when I flunked out because my spelling and English skills are crappy". That was the end of the graduate school talk.
A guy needs to know his weaknesses and spelling is mine. Never have been able to spell and I doubt that is going to change.
 

Big Shooter

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
364
I took at least a dozen 300 level or better econ and ag econ classes at MSU and received A in all of them. I usually was one of the top students in the classes. Just before I graduated my advisor called me in. This is what he said " Art, are you thinking about graduate school, MSU and far better schools would be happy to accept you. Doctor Smith is very impressed with your analytical ability." I looked Stauber right in the eye and replied back " Doctor Smith would not be very impressed when I flunked out because my spelling and English skills are crappy". That was the end of the graduate school talk.
A guy needs to know his weaknesses and spelling is mine. Never have been able to spell and I doubt that is going to change.
Guessing the Econ made you way more money than the spelling. I bet your fine.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,945
Location
SE Montana
Guessing the Econ made you way more money than the spelling. I bet your fine.
I some times wonder what I would be doing if I had went on to one of those better schools and some how managed to over come my phatic spelling skills enough to get a masters or doctorate in economics. Probably be setting at some bank or finical firm pulling a high six figure salary and looking to retire in a few years. One thing is certain. I would not be in the middle of nowhere Montana, working outside most days and getting to go antler hunting and scouting for deer and elk almost every day. Some things are worth more than a big salary and a corner office.
 
Last edited:

Walkalot

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
230
I been working alot and shed hunting. Been outvof the loop. So they passed hb 637 sneaky pricks. Just being lazy can someone post the names of the ones responsible.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
94,618
Messages
1,411,963
Members
29,678
Latest member
Luke2000
Top