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

[sacountry]

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.

Keep in mind, that solution may or may not include the outfitter community. One solution could be to make a handful of guaranteed NR combo tags available per district regardless of outfitted or DIY. How do ones one discriminate? Supply /demand. Start the pricing at $5,000 in January for 1000 NR combo tags across the state (not to be in excess of FWP recommended tag quota).....then in March drop the price to $4,000.....July $3,000.....August $2,000. Those that go unsold simply get returned to the lot.

 

[Gerald Martin]

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.

There is a supply and demand force that bears consideration.
If I was convinced that the side arguing for commercial values being the measurement for priority was able to place their desire for profitability lower than the needs of the resource and equal to the access of other shareholders, I would be more more willing to address this issue from a supply/demand/$$ perspective.
Based on my perception of the outfitting industry’s behavior and demands/lobbying, I am convinced they don’t have the willingness or ability to subjugate financial interests to any higher priority. $$$$ is the staring point, the middle and the end. Resource management is only a means to that end.

On that basis, we are probably going to disagree with the best approach for finding solutions.
It is appropriate in life to view resources as commodities at certain times and in certain contexts. That’s the only way economies have stability. Yet, without the understanding that there are higher priorities and values beyond what a resource is valued as a commodity and a willingness of all shareholders to recognize this and act accordingly, conflict over resources is going to continue until the resource ceases to exist to fight over.

 

[Irrelevant]

Why lose out to other states?

Who is losing in your mind? You've said you are booked years in advance, and when over booked you send potential clients to others, so it's not you. The state is sold out on NR tags, so it's not them. So who is losing?

Unless you are suggesting that Outfitter tags, which are easier to come by, should cost more money, at which point the State would be missing out on more revenue. I think there would be more support for outfitter licenses if they cost more money and if that additional revenue was used to better manage the resource or increase public access.

 

[Eric Albus]

Keep in mind, that solution may or may not include the outfitter community. One solution could be to make a handful of guaranteed NR combo tags available per district regardless of outfitted or DIY. How do ones one discriminate? Supply /demand. Start the pricing at $5,000 in January for 1000 NR combo tags across the state (not to be in excess of FWP recommended tag quota).....then in March drop the price to $4,000.....July $3,000.....August $2,000. Those that go unsold simply get returned to the lot.

Some of us have talked of a market driven license already. The only thing I don't like about it being available to all NR is that it will make hunting clubs easier, and absentee landowners happy. If an outfitter is in control of license there is most likely going to be fewer antics by NR absentee owners, and hunt clubs will mostly disappear.

 

[antlerradar]

Some of us have talked of a market driven license already. The only thing I don't like about it being available to all NR is that it will make hunting clubs easier, and absentee landowners happy. If an outfitter is in control of license there is most likely going to be fewer antics by NR absentee owners, and hunt clubs will mostly disappear.

There was some benefits to the old outfitter sponsor licenses.

 

[sacountry]

Some of us have talked of a market driven license already. The only thing I don't like about it being available to all NR is that it will make hunting clubs easier, and absentee landowners happy. If an outfitter is in control of license there is most likely going to be fewer antics by NR absentee owners, and hunt clubs will mostly disappear.

Perhaps that's an area you'd have to give up in order to get what you need. I don't believe anyone other than FWP should ever be in control of a license, which should improve the odds of fewer antics overall.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Ok, maybe this a dumb question, but what are hunt clubs and absentee landowners?

 

[SAJ-99]

but what are hunt clubs and absentee landowners?

Hunt clubs are just that. Corporate entities created to own land and then they have members who pay an annual membership fee to hunt the land.

NR who own land in Montana but don't have permanent residence in the state.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Some of us have talked of a market driven license already. The only thing I don't like about it being available to all NR is that it will make hunting clubs easier, and absentee landowners happy. If an outfitter is in control of license there is most likely going to be fewer antics by NR absentee owners, and hunt clubs will mostly disappear.

I can see why you would prefer this. But, as someone who isn’t likely going to be able to access outfitted property, hunt club property or absentee landowners’ ranches, why should I care or why should it make a difference who gets a NR tag?

Some of these concerns are one of my biggest arguments against market driven prices for NR tags.
Trying to manipulate leasing practices or private land access by diverting tags towards preferred special interests causes more problems than it solves. There are always going to be be vying special interests with deep pockets claiming they deserve priority. In the clamor for which special is the most special the least special (public land resident hunters and DIY N.R) get the management scraps the “specials” don’t claim for themselves.

 

[antlerradar]

Ok, maybe this a dumb question, but what are hunt clubs and absentee landowners?

Hunt clubs are a group of hunters that lease a property for hunting. The absentee landowners Eric is referring to are for the most part people that buy a property with the primary reason for buying is having exclusive property to hunt on. Both of these arrangements have increased substantially since the passage of I-161.

edit SAJ-99 beat me too it. I spent too much time spell checking.

 

[Buffs35]

I didn't know purchasing private property was evil, thanks for the heads up.

 

[antlerradar]

I can see why you would prefer this. But, as someone who isn’t likely going to be able to access outfitted property, hunt club property or absentee landowners’ ranches, why should I care or why should it make a difference who gets a NR tag?

If all the land leased by outfitter was leased by a hunt club or owned by an absentee landowner it would be 2000 hunters hunting the property and not the 8000 that currently do. The extra 6000 would be crowding on to public land. It could also end up with 8000 hunt club and absentee owners locking up four times as much land as the outfitters do currently.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Hunt clubs and absentee landowners owning property is a current reality. What is keeping them from making a market driven argument that they deserve priority for licenses if outfitters deserve priority for licenses?
IMO, Governor Gianforte is way cozier with those groups than he is with the outfitting industry.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If all the land leased by outfitter was leased by a hunt club or owned by an absentee landowner it would be 2000 hunters hunting the property and not the 8000 that currently do. The extra 6000 would be crowding on to public land. It could also end up with 8000 hunt club and absentee owners locking up four times as much land as the outfitters do currently.

I understand this from a preference standard. I probably agree.
But on what basis other than “I don’t prefer that.”, can those practices be curtailed or discriminated against?

 

[mtmiller]

Do these absentee landowners get preference for tags every year (better odds) or is that just the outfitted hunters?

EDIT - damn you Martin.

 

[406dn]

For the sake of an argument, let's say the state moved to some sort of market based approach to non-resident licenses.

Absentee landowners should have the same private property rights as do resident landowners. So,, if resident landowners get any favors from the state, so should absentee landowners. Anything else is clearly denying a property right to a subset of property owners. My proposed solution is owning property does not guarantee anything regarding hunting licenses.

If non residents hunters decide to approach landowners to lease hunting rights, that is clearly within both the landowner and the non resident hunters rights. With the newly passed law, it clearly favors one group of leasers over the other. Why should a landowner, who for their reasons, prefers leasing their land to non resident hunt clubs, be placed in a lesser position to a landowner leasing to an outfitter? That seems discriminatory to me.

Until today I had not thought much about the prospect of pricing non resident licenses in a manner proposed in post #2901. It has some merit, but also some problems. I struggle with some one simply buying their way to the front of the line. I have to think about that one.

But clearly the new law is the antithesis of a market based approach. It has the state picking winners and losers. The winners are outfitters, landowners who lease to outfitters, and well heeled non resident hunters who chose to use outfitters. Losers are every other non resident hunter and landowners who prefer to lease to a group of individuals instead of an outfitter. Losers include motel owners, cafe owners etc who will lose a percentage of their business. Losers include resident hunters who have friends and family from out of state that would like to hunt in Montana with their resident friend/family member.

The outfitter set aside is a system one could expect in a corrupt state, where the politically well connected get special treatment at the expense of everyone else.

I am reasonably confident this new law will not stand for long.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Do these absentee landowners get preference for tags every year (better odds) or is that just the outfitted hunters?

With the current policy from 637? Or “in an ideal world.”?
Currently, only outfitted hunters.

 

[mtmiller]

My humor was lost....as usual.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It seems to me that much of the arguments can be condensed to “I prefer things so and so” and think there is enough legislative sympathy for my preferences to write it into law.

Pendulum effects when the balance of power shifts and preferences change have a way of leaving those smiling today, crying tomorrow.

Consensus derived solutions are going to produce a lot more predictability and stability for all shareholders.

 

[sacountry]

Hunt clubs and absentee landowners owning property is a current reality. What is keeping them from making a market driven argument that they deserve priority for licenses if outfitters deserve priority for licenses?
IMO, Governor Gianforte is way cozier with those groups than he is with the outfitting industry.

Total agreement here.

For the sake of an argument, let's say the state moved to some sort of market based approach to non-resident licenses.

Absentee landowners should have the same private property rights as do resident landowners. So,, if resident landowners get any favors from the state, so should absentee landowners. Anything else is clearly denying a property right to a subset of property owners. My proposed solution is owning property does not guarantee anything regarding hunting licenses.

If non residents hunters decide to approach landowners to lease hunting rights, that is clearly within both the landowner and the non resident hunters rights. With the newly passed law, it clearly favors one group of leasers over the other. Why should a landowner, who for their reasons, prefers leasing their land to non resident hunt clubs, be placed in a lesser position to a landowner leasing to an outfitter? That seems discriminatory to me.

Until today I had not thought much about the prospect of pricing non resident licenses in a manner proposed in post #2901. It has some merit, but also some problems. I struggle with some one simply buying their way to the front of the line. I have to think about that one.

But clearly the new law is the antithesis of a market based approach. It has the state picking winners and losers. The winners are outfitters, landowners who lease to outfitters, and well heeled non resident hunters who chose to use outfitters. Losers are every other non resident hunter and landowners who prefer to lease to a group of individuals instead of an outfitter. Losers include motel owners, cafe owners etc who will lose a percentage of their business. Losers include resident hunters who have friends and family from out of state that would like to hunt in Montana with their resident friend/family member.

The outfitter set aside is a system one could expect in a corrupt state, where the politically well connected get special treatment at the expense of everyone else.

I am reasonably confident this new law will not stand for long.

You're right....the wealthy move to the front of the line, but that's better than watching them get out of the line and taking their money to other states. Further, if properly managed by the state (and I know that statement is fraught with issues), then those who can't afford to be at the front of the line benefit indirectly, hopefully with more Block Mgmt land to hunt. Honestly, the Block program needs a LOT more cash to make Block $$$ close to as appealing as Outfitter $$$. It'll never be the same because outfitters will always be able to promise less land stress than the Block program, BUT we need to close the gap.

And I'm not suggesting all NR tags become market based.....just 10% of them maybe. We don't want hardworking North Dakota DIY hunters to miss out on tagging a beautiful 3 year old 140" muley in Wolf Point.