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

[shoots-straight]

The govt did not grant me
Clientele, I had to go find them. When I was younger I did sportsman shows from NC to Ut. We have a service that thousands of sportsmen have used over last 30 years. I have more ppl wanting to hunt with me than I can take, or the resource can handle, so I turn them to my friends .
No other business has to rely on a lottery for clientele, if you really own a business you’d understand My guess is you really don’t. The other “men” on Here who do make coherent arguments, but they Do Not Rely on lottery to contract houses or sell their wares. I do, and concede that licensure for outfitted clients may not be fair, but outfitter clients bring in 5-8x’s more money than diy guys. The other great thing as a public land RESIDENT hunter, I don’t have to see the &-8500 NR hunters who use an outfitter in my favorite spot.

Eric, please don't embellish. Not all 8500 NR hunters using outfitters are hunting private property such as yours. Many are also competing with me on public lands hunting.

 

[mtmuley]

I don’t hate outfitters. Believe it or don’t.

Ok. mtmuley

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Ok. mtmuley

I do hate my Chevy work truck, especially after I had to miss dinner while I was waiting for a tow truck to come and get me. But, I certainly don’t hate outfitters, regardless of how some would like to spin that narrative.

 

[Derek44]

I don’t hate outfitters. Believe it or don’t.

Yeah, but remember, nobody "hates" outfitters. mtmuley

I don’t either. Actually would love to do some outfitted hunts someday. What drives me nuts is people who seem to think society owes them something, and utilizes legislation to try to achieve that and people that think just because someone has more money or benefits their goals, they deserve more than the next guy.

 

[tjones]

No other business has to rely on a lottery for clientele, if you really own a business you’d understand My guess is you really don’t. The other “men” on Here who do make coherent arguments, but they Do Not Rely on lottery to contract houses or sell their wares.

For at least the 100 time, these businesses you keep comparing outfitting to DO NOT rely on a public resource to run their businesses. A very finite public resource.

Outfitters feel entitled to the public resource. Real simple.

 

[SAJ-99]

One group of potential clients that was considering booking a trophy mule deer hunt with me opted out the last couple days of March, siting they'd "rather go and buy landowner tags in NM, this way we know for sure we will all go together". I may not be remembering the state correct, but they were going to opt for landowner tags as Montana license is a lottery, and a poor odds one this year.

I agree with some of your points. The state sells licenses that give NRs the opportunity to hunt an animal. You sell an ancillary service around that opportunity. That service includes "an atmosphere of home cooked meals, comfortable lodging, and a friendly guide staff" and higher success rates (100% on mule deer rifle hunts) and opportunities on P&Y bucks- all the stuff that you have on your web site. You have misidentified your client base. You see it as celebs (again- your website) who want to vacation every year and hunt. Your true market is everyone who draws a tag (NR or R). You just need to reach them.

The NR demand for tags is greater than the number of tags. Period. Ranch/landowner tags allow the rancher to profit off of the limited resource (the opportunity). Even if there is restrictions on the price they can charge for the tag (i.e. the price the state can collect), they can increase the charge on the "services" provided. I think any system that would guarantee tags to specific people is a non-starter, but maybe with significant restrictions (limited # of tags and restrictions on where they can be used). Either way, it doesn't guarantee tags for your clients. If it were popular, it would eventually lead to more demand for your ranch tags than the number of tags available. You would still have to tell people 'No' and then come pack to the public teat for more freebies.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric, please don't embellish. Not all 8500 NR hunters using outfitters are hunting private property such as yours. Many are also competing with me on public lands hunting.

You are correct, I made a generalization. There are some of those using an outfitter that will hunt FS, BLM, State, CMR(very few, I think there are fewer than 18 outfitters left on the CMR).

 

[Eric Albus]

For at least the 100 time, these businesses you keep comparing outfitting to DO NOT rely on a public resource to run their businesses. A very finite public resource.

Outfitters feel entitled to the public resource. Real simple.

I don't feel entitled to anything, let alone the resource. Without the deer/antelope/birds there would not be an outfitting business, so yes I do rely on the resource. Do you think outfitting should be banned altogether?

 

[tjones]

Do you think outfitting should be banned altogether?

Nope, never once said that. But forcing hunters to use an outfitter should be banned-again.

 

[tjones]

You are correct, I made a generalization. There are some of those using an outfitter that will hunt FS, BLM, State, CMR(very few, I think there are fewer than 18 outfitters left on the CMR).

These set asides are not limited to eastern Montana.

 

[Eric Albus]

These set asides are not limited to eastern Montana.

thats why I included FS

 

[Eric Albus]

Nope, never once said that. But forcing hunters to use an outfitter should be banned-again.

nobody is forced to, it is a choice.

 

[tjones]

nobody is forced to, it is a choice.

So the guy that buys one of the 3000 extras this year doesn't need an outfitter?

 

[Gerald Martin]

I don't feel entitled to anything, let alone the resource. Without the deer/antelope/birds there would not be an outfitting business, so yes I do rely on the resource. Do you think outfitting should be banned altogether?

Eric, I think what everyone is trying to say in different ways is that outfitters have a legitimate right to offer their services. They just don’t deserve priority for public trust resources. If they can run a successful business with that business model that’s great. If they can’t, it isn’t right for outfitters to get priority in order to keep their businesses solvent.
With a public trust resource, those of us without commercial interests in the resource still have just as much right for access to licenses for whatever reasons we may have as those who are conducting a business. The same opportunity should be extended to those N.R.‘s we allow to purchase licenses.

In the overall big picture of resource allocation, individual businesses being profitable is not the highest priority. Outfitter needs can and should be considered as part of the ongoing management conversation. Their concerns are relevant as are the concerns of residents and nonresident hunters, landowners and other shareholders.

No one can claim straight faced that MOGA or outfitter sympathetic legislators have given that concept equal consideration with the bills that were introduced this session.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Careful Gerald, you’ll be construed as a hater if you’re not careful.

 

[Hem]

Careful Gerald, you’ll be construed as a hater if you’re not careful.

The whole lot of you must be on the dole with the amount of time convincing nobody.

 

[sacountry]

Eric, I think what everyone is trying to say in different ways is that outfitters have a legitimate right to offer their services. They just don’t deserve priority for public trust resources. If they can run a successful business with that business model that’s great. If they can’t, it isn’t right for outfitters to get priority in order to keep their businesses solvent.
With a public trust resource, those of us without commercial interests in the resource still have just as much right for access to licenses for whatever reasons we may have as those who are conducting a business. The same opportunity should be extended to those N.R.‘s we allow to purchase licenses.

In the overall big picture of resource allocation, individual businesses being profitable is not the highest priority. Outfitter needs can and should be considered as part of the ongoing management conversation. Their concerns are relevant as are the concerns of residents and nonresident hunters, landowners and other shareholders.

No one can claim straight faced that MOGA or outfitter sympathetic legislators have given that concept equal consideration with the bills that were introduced this session.

This is where I disagree with Gerald the Hater ;-) There is a supply / demand force at play that could be used to improve our state's wildlife management. Eric touched on a group of clients that opted to go to NM for guaranteed landowner tags for their party. I would be willing to have the conversation on how the state can equitably capitalize on that consumer without compromising resident hunter opportunities or jacking up the preference point system. Simply put, we need more money to make the Block Mgmt system work better, improve biology studies, and increase FWP pay if we want good people to work these jobs. These consumers clearly have more money to spend and they're going to spend it in other states which is lost opportunity for us.

 

[Eric Albus]

This is where I disagree with Gerald the Hater ;-) There is a supply / demand force at play that could be used to improve our state's wildlife management. Eric touched on a group of clients that opted to go to NM for guaranteed landowner tags for their party. I would be willing to have the conversation on how the state can equitably capitalize on that consumer without compromising resident hunter opportunities or jacking up the preference point system. Simply put, we need more money to make the Block Mgmt system work better, improve biology studies, and increase FWP pay if we want good people to work these jobs. These consumers clearly have more money to spend and they're going to spend it in other states which is lost opportunity for us.

Thank you for eloquent pontification of the point I’ve attempted to make.(I’m out of big words now)

This has been my point. Why lose out to other states? Let’s figure out how to make our access mechanism (block management) work. It clearly doesn’t work properly.

 

[Eric Albus]

If we keep this up we will not only be to 200 pages, but might have a starting place for a compromise that livable for both sides

 

[Gerald Martin]

Careful Gerald, you’ll be construed as a hater if you’re not careful.

Trying to figure out how to leverage a victim mentality for being labeled a hater into tags.... How much mental anguish and suffering from being misunderstood is a sheep tag worth?

Haters need consideration and stability too.