These same tired arguments are as old today as they were 90-days ago and ten years ago when the Montana voters spoke:
First and foremost, I agree with Gerald that the question of "who spends more?" is completely irrelevant. If this were our standard, we would just auction the tags, but we don't because anyone who has spent 5 minutes studying the history of hunting in America realizes that the idea of the commercialization of the public resource leads to its destruction. I don't have to speculate, it actually happened. It is the reason that one of the key tenets of the North American Wildlife Recovery model is to avoid this.
That said, to unpack the recent attempts to justify the unjustifiable:
The argument that only outfitters depend on the current tag system is demonstrably false. Hotels, restaurants, vrbo owners, campgrounds, grocery stores, gas stations, convenience store owners all depend on out of state visitors, including hunters. These businesses are better off when the winner of the drawn tag does not hire a guide. To the question asked earlier - the money may end up in the local economy, but the government has now decided where in the local economy the consumer is permitted to spend their money, this seems wrong to me and antithetical to the ballot measure passed by the citizens of Montana. When the government overrules the will of the people, people should and are paying attention.
This bill is a government hand out that helps some small businesses at the expense of others, it is the government picking winners and losers which is the exact opposite of the promises made during the campaign and a free market system, even one operating within a system where supply is regulated by the govt (for those interested there are a lot of these, the best examples I know of is (a) taxi medallions in some large cities - people are still allowed to take the bus or trains in those places, they are not forced to hire taxi, or (b) liquor licenses don't require me to pay a person to pour my drink, I can also go the liquor store and buy a bottle and pour it myself). The idea that this is some unheard of or even mildly unique situation that requires government intervention is also demonstrably false. This is a kickback to political donors, nothing more.
The government is absolutely forcing people to hire a guide if they want a tag. In this case, the government has specifically said to the public, if you tried to hire a guide and failed in the draw, you and only you are now eligible for a tag, therefore, if one of those 3,000 people wants to hunt here, the government is forcing them to hire an outfitter. If you did not try to hire a guide, you are not eligible. No amount of fantasy math, or mental gymnastic changes this.
The attempt to now label those who oppose this as socialist is the most foul stench of desperation yet in this thread and speaks volumes about the lack of merits in the underlying argument. When all else fails, call the other side names, bonus points if the proper response is, "I know you are but what am I?".
