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

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,831
Ya it will be interesting to see how this plays out with displaced local hunters.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
Guys, we kinda circled back and took a swipe at the reasons for I-161.

The Outfitters broke the contract with the Resident sportsmen on the access, / purchase of lands for hunting outright, that "Habitat Montana" was set up to do.

IF, and that's a giant IF MOGA came out in support of those things, even if the state gained lands as an increase in net acreage, did not fight against us(the resident sportsmen) trying to get lands in public hands, then we might be able to talk OSL again.

They are afraid that they might lose lands that they have exclusive rights to hunt with paid clients on.
I know hell would have to freeze over first though.
Collectively it would combat the absentee landowners problem, and also deal a blow to hunt clubs.

Hell the outfitters could even hunt these lands vs those uses. Win Win for all.
At least someone on the other side is starting to think. I just read what you posted and haven’t had time to think but there must be a compromise that’s tenable.

Only thing you have wrong is WE did not break the deal. We had fewer acres leased than any of our team thought when the audit happened. We actually went backwards in acres. We get the blame from FWP and sportsmen for hunt clubs and landowners who don’t want to say No, using “its leased out” as the scapegoat
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
The
1). any talk of OSL has to include talk of support for outright acquisitions of land into public hands. Easterners are all foaming at the mouths over APR, and others but also against State land net gain. Outright purchases from willing sellers would be a win for all.
a. It's a way to combat orgs like APR and others. Outfitters could still use these lands. It also combats hunt clubs and Richy richs from locking up those lands.
2). That the OSL comes out of 17,000. 3000 is the number now. so 3000 out of the 17,000.
3). If those things happen, maybe Resident hunters would add skin in the game to pay a fee for more acquisitions of lands like those locked up in the crazies.
4). Corner crossing legislation support. Members of MOGA need to agree to some sort of legislation or join in some sort of initiative to pass corner crossing laws.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
is rather see the state own more in
Lieu of the APR
 

Andrew Posewitz

Active member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
18
I have little interest in confusing being backdoored by a procedural sleight of hand with being in a position of political weakness when it comes to the Montana voter, in fact just the opposite. When this proposal saw the light of day it was pounded into submission in the most hostile of legislatures by public voices who couldn’t show up in person. Introduced at the last minute by a legislator who knew he wasn’t running again, back-stroking legislators defending themselves at the altar of a one-time covid bill and a governor creating a false strawman in a letter defending his Friday night signature. The stink of this bill may continue to rot for the next 18-months (that’s up to us).

This issue has been voted on by the people of Montana, and even the slimy cowardice of the last-minute amendments hasn’t repealed that, it is still the law of the land. I truly have nothing against outfitters/guides, but for me, there is no planet where a tag should be dependent on hiring a guide.

Admittedly there is little to do before this fall, but plenty of options are forming for ways to avoid this going forward. The conservation community was largely caught off guard by the onslaught of anti-public hunter legislation, this won’t happen again. Most are still going through the wreckage of this session and figuring out how to change as a result. Please push any you belong to and help them plan, if they aren't interested, that tells you what you need to know. Let this fuel you.

The extremists in the legislature have been able to defend themselves by blaming a hostile governor for 16 years, now this is their record and they will be asked to defend why they ignored the voters on this bill, HB 701, the effort to eliminate prescriptive easements, the effort to restrict private land sales are all things they won’t be able to run from. There are a number of national publications preparing long form stories on this bill.

This is a long battle for the public hunter, we’ve been at it for 130 years and will be for 130 more, this 2-year diversion sucks, but we’ve seen worse. Separating these issues from the current partisan rancor is a good place to start; that’s where I’ll be, finding ways to get our issues in front of the voters without all the partisan baggage, or being asked to bargain one thing I am entitled to under the law for another thing I am entitled to under the law.
 

Big Shooter

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
364
I have little interest in confusing being backdoored by a procedural sleight of hand with being in a position of political weakness when it comes to the Montana voter, in fact just the opposite. When this proposal saw the light of day it was pounded into submission in the most hostile of legislatures by public voices who couldn’t show up in person. Introduced at the last minute by a legislator who knew he wasn’t running again, back-stroking legislators defending themselves at the altar of a one-time covid bill and a governor creating a false strawman in a letter defending his Friday night signature. The stink of this bill may continue to rot for the next 18-months (that’s up to us).

This issue has been voted on by the people of Montana, and even the slimy cowardice of the last-minute amendments hasn’t repealed that, it is still the law of the land. I truly have nothing against outfitters/guides, but for me, there is no planet where a tag should be dependent on hiring a guide.

Admittedly there is little to do before this fall, but plenty of options are forming for ways to avoid this going forward. The conservation community was largely caught off guard by the onslaught of anti-public hunter legislation, this won’t happen again. Most are still going through the wreckage of this session and figuring out how to change as a result. Please push any you belong to and help them plan, if they aren't interested, that tells you what you need to know. Let this fuel you.

The extremists in the legislature have been able to defend themselves by blaming a hostile governor for 16 years, now this is their record and they will be asked to defend why they ignored the voters on this bill, HB 701, the effort to eliminate prescriptive easements, the effort to restrict private land sales are all things they won’t be able to run from. There are a number of national publications preparing long form stories on this bill.

This is a long battle for the public hunter, we’ve been at it for 130 years and will be for 130 more, this 2-year diversion sucks, but we’ve seen worse. Separating these issues from the current partisan rancor is a good place to start; that’s where I’ll be, finding ways to get our issues in front of the voters without all the partisan baggage, or being asked to bargain one thing I am entitled to under the law for another thing I am entitled to under the law.
I see some disparities in this post......but it’s all good. Carry on.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
949
I could think about getting behind OSL again for these reasons.
Two restrictions I would want on the OSL tags.

With the past OSL tags some outfitters were just a middle man and provided tags to absentee owners and hunt clubs. This practice needs to be eliminated.

Outfitters are worried about repeat customers. I can see there point. repeat customers are the bread and butter of any business. Make OSL tags only good for customers that have used the outfitter two or more times. This would give an advantage to outfitters that provide a quality service and the poor outfitters would be quickly weeded out of the industry. Montana could use a little weeding in the outfitting industry.

I would also allow outfitters to use OSL licenses when a substantial part of the hunt is donated to charity.

Sadly I am not sure shoots-straight made the if big enough.
How'd he do that? Make the IF so big?

I agree on the hunt club deal with you. The absentee landowner using an outfitter to secure license I have my dislike and like. The like is they are beholding to a Montana outfitter, financially and access wise(more access for R and NR hunters), they had to have a guide over seeing them, making sure they and their buddies didn't break laws, however my dislike(may outweigh the like). Dislike the fact that it may make Montana look better for an absentee owner in that they can secure license and drive up land values. Have to have healthy discussion on this and weigh pros Vs. cons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCS

TheTone

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
3,585
Location
ID
So according to the Gazette up to this point they’ve only sold 353 of these extras. 613 have submitted documents to purchase.

What a silly deal, sending letters to all unsuccessful applicants to see if they might just happen to have a signed contract prior to April 1. Why is that even an FWP issue? I could see the outfitters with the possible contracts reaching out to the possible clients but why is the state agency reaching out?
 

golfer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
1,056
What a silly deal, sending letters to all unsuccessful applicants to see if they might just happen to have a signed contract prior to April 1. Why is that even an FWP issue? I could see the outfitters with the possible contracts reaching out to the possible clients but why is the state agency reaching out?
This would be my guess.

1623338133878.gif
 

RobertD

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
574
Location
Southwest Georgia (GA)

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
856
I would like to see a capped number of OSL and a reduction in the current 17000 combo tags by say 5000. Raise the price of the licenses to be revenue neutral.
The seasons also need to be shorter, especially mule deer and you should have to pick your unit at the begining of the season.
In addition NR, DIY tags should be spread out accross the land scape such that areas like SE MT and the Breaks don't get piss pounded.
 

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,831
I would like to see a capped number of OSL and a reduction in the current 17000 combo tags by say 5000. Raise the price of the licenses to be revenue neutral.
The seasons also need to be shorter, especially mule deer and you should have to pick your unit at the begining of the season.
In addition NR, DIY tags should be spread out accross the land scape such that areas like SE MT and the Breaks don't get piss pounded.
Not bad ideas but my guess is you have never been to a FWP season setting meeting. Bring up even on of these ideas at one of their public meetings and you will be lucky to get out alive.
 

BWALKER77

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
856
Not bad ideas but my guess is you have never been to a FWP season setting meeting. Bring up even on of these ideas at one of their public meetings and you will be lucky to get out alive.
I think what I have outlined would be in MOGA's best interest and that of R sportsman. Believe it or not it would be in NR best interest too if they thought about it.
 

LostinOregon1

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
61
Eric,

Do you cap each hunting district? or just have to pick one? You could have a draw with 4 seasons, each being a week long, the later hunts would be harder to draw. Just an idea.

Rich
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
94,658
Messages
1,412,981
Members
29,695
Latest member
eschafer
Top