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

[WIbiggame]

So how does this get calculated if you hunt more than Montana? I get what your trying to prove, but most of those items will be used many times in many states so I’m curious how it should count? I’d say count it if you sell it after your hunt.

I am 100% pulling at straws but the arguments I have seen for this bill from people on here and in the testimony was even more far fetched.

Edit: if I didn't hunt in montana by buying there and not using the public resource I am actually contributing more than anyone bc I am not taking from the resource pool right? I mean because over crowding on public land was one of the 15 arguments that have been spun into this circle

Also does it really matter if I use them in multiple states? The money is still sent to the state of Montana? So I am actually screwing the other states I hunt in?

 

[golfer]

I am 100% pulling at straws but the arguments I have seen for this bill from people on here and in the testimony was even more far fetched.

Edit: if I didn't hunt in montana by buying there and not using the public resource I am actually contributing more than anyone bc I am not taking from the resource pool right? I mean because over crowding on public land was one of the 15 arguments that have been spun into this circle

Also does it really matter if I use them in multiple states? The money is still sent to the state of Montana? So I am actually screwing the other states I hunt in?

What I’m saying is you can’t factor in a backpack 100%. I mean go ahead you number will be big this time but the next time you hunt here you should not need another so your contributions will be much smaller.

I won’t go down the over crowding road.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Somewhere out there amongst all them trees is a forest….

Which will burn if we don’t log all the trees…
But then we’ll have pastures for cattle which should help elk because they are grazers.

Except, they eat grass which would be more profitable if cows would eat it instead so we have to kill all the elk….

I once heard a saying about life that goes something like this. “The only thing more tragic than not getting exactly what you want in life is getting it.”

 

[Derek44]

So how does this get calculated if you hunt more than Montana? I get what your trying to prove, but most of those items will be used many times in many states so I’m curious how it should count? I’d say count it if you sell it after your hunt.

Doesn’t matter where it gets used. There’s no stipulation on where the public resource gets used after it’s harvested utilizing the outfitter. Just matters that the initial dollar was spent with a MT business

 

[golfer]

Doesn’t matter where it gets used. There’s no stipulation on where the public resource gets used after it’s harvested utilizing the outfitter. Just matters that the initial dollar was spent with a MT business

Initial dollar may be spent with those MT business, lets be real everyone and their dog uses promo codes on other sites to save money. So yes, if they are ordered direct I see your point but if you buy your stuff through a scheels, black ovis, s and s archery, etc., not sure the dollar is "really" spent in state.

 

[brownbear932008]

Don't forget the almost $300 dollars donated by a ton of DIY guys each year when they don't draw a big game combo or choose to return if no permit is drawn. I've spent almost $900 dollars in misc. fees the last three years without a tag in my pocket or stepping foot in MT. Quite the system compared to other States IMO.
Now it appears we will have three hurdles to cross to obtain a permit. Can't wait to burn my elk points hopefully next fall so I can exit that mess.

 

[Derek44]

Initial dollar may be spent with those MT business, lets be real everyone and their dog uses promo codes on other sites to save money. So yes, if they are ordered direct I see your point but if you buy your stuff through a scheels, black ovis, s and s archery, etc., not sure the dollar is "really" spent in state.

I guess that could be washed out with the equivalent of outfitters that live out of state.

See….. an argument can be made for any reply, hahaha. It’s ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the entire situation. Only way to eliminate the ridiculousness is to just go to a “no special advantage” for “anyone” but the resident. Preference points are pretty cool and make sense but no NR should be given priority over any other non resident to tilt the table

 

[WIbiggame]

What I’m saying is you can’t factor in a backpack 100%. I mean go ahead you number will be big this time but the next time you hunt here you should not need another so your contributions will be much smaller.

I won’t go down the over crowding road.

My initial comment was 100% tongue and cheek and was meant to be sarcastic. But you did prove my point that by me saying I buy all that stuff in MT doesn't mean I should move to the head of the line

I know that buying MT products means nothing nor should it.

As Derek mentioned above, my comment was to prove an argument can be made for any business or person to "deserve" the tag.

The outfitters just need to accept this was 100% a government welfare handout to them and their clients and move on.

 

[WIbiggame]

So yes, if they are ordered direct I see your point

Al my stuff is ordered direct, I will always pay a little more to go directly to the business. And SG is always visited on my trips and I spend way more than I should everytime

 

[Big Shooter]

I think I can concede that in total the NR outfitted client spends more $ than the NR DIY. If you subtract the amount paid to the outfitter that advantage larger disappears, but there is some trickle down from the outfitter to local businesses (and national chains). The difference isn’t nearly as large as the study suggests but there is some positive benefit, especially in the rural areas.

I also concede that MT outfitters are competing with other states for NR, big spending clients. If clients can go to NM or WY then MT outfitter ends up “losing” that client and has replace them. That is the nature of a competitive business. An economic argument can be made here, but I doubt anyone in the legislature or MOGA could build it given they cry about the complexity of the point system. I argue that for every NR you lose there is a potential client to take their place but you have to find them. Consequently outfitters should argue that the NR DIY spends a lot of money with very low success rates. That makes the outfitter fee more palatable.

But the people of Montana already decided this. As @Gerald Martin and @Andrew Posewitz point out, it is an issue of selling a limited resource held for all citizens. We might as well auction the NR licenses and use the money for things that benefit R hunters rather than just benefitting the few in a single industry. I suspect Montana voters will have to make their voice heard again. It seems MOGAs view on R hunters is “let them eat cake”.

So…..you think we should have an auction and use the money for something that benefits the Resident hunters?? Isn’t that real similar to what we had with the Guaranteed Outfitter Tag prior to I-161? It was a market driven price, varied from year to year depending on the demand…somewhat resembling an auction…..and the revenue from that license was the main vehicle that funded the ever so famous Block Management…….which benefitted Resident (as well as) Non-resident hunters. In my opinion…..that was a benefit to a single industry as well as the resident hunter……..but apparently the Montana voter didn’t like it.

 

[golfer]

My initial comment was 100% tongue and cheek and was meant to be sarcastic. But you did prove my point that by me saying I buy all that stuff in MT doesn't mean I should move to the head of the line

I know that buying MT products means nothing nor should it.

As Derek mentioned above, my comment was to prove an argument can be made for any business or person to "deserve" the tag.

The outfitters just need to accept this was 100% a government welfare handout to them and their clients and move on.

sarcasm is tough at times through a screen.

 

[Buffs35]

sarcasm is tough at times through a screen.

Other sites I am on have a designated sarcasm font.

 

[SAJ-99]

So…..you think we should have an auction and use the money for something that benefits the Resident hunters?? Isn’t that real similar to what we had with the Guaranteed Outfitter Tag prior to I-161? It was a market driven price, varied from year to year depending on the demand…somewhat resembling an auction…..and the revenue from that license was the main vehicle that funded the ever so famous Block Management…….which benefitted Resident (as well as) Non-resident hunters. In my opinion…..that was a benefit to a single industry as well as the resident hunter……..but apparently the Montana voter didn’t like it.

Maybe. What we discover is that no solution is perfect and we shouldn’t expect it. Everybody has to be willing to get less than they want. Using the legislature isn’t ideal. A lot of them would sell their first born for their name in the press. All this stuff does is create a vitriolic relationship toward outfitters, and not all of them deserve it.

 

[4ohSick]

If it’s all about the money, and what you can do for the states economy, maybe FWP should just have its own visa reward card and when you spend a certain number of dollars in the state of MT you get a guaranteed tag. None of this subsidy bullshit for one specific occupation.

I kind of love this idea. Save on card processing fees too.

 

[Nemont]

155 pages and zero has been solved.

MOGA should consider that they have prevailed in getting a one time deal but from where I sit it sure seems that Mac has spread some real hate and discontent with how he went about getting the one time deal done. Perhaps damage control isn't Mac's strong suit but maybe he should attempt to build some kind of bridge instead of his scorched earth policy, but I guess that it worked once so maybe MOGA/Mac believe they can prevail on everything they want by burning the whole place down.

Resident hunters need to start realizing that they need to help the resource too and we are going to have to give up the beloved rut hunting of Mule deer bucks for sure and such long seasons.

Seems like there could be compromise struck but after his actions in the last session, I trust Mac to be an honest broker about as far as I could throw him.

 

[brocksw]

155 pages and zero has been solved.

MOGA should consider that they have prevailed in getting a one time deal but from where I sit it sure seems that Mac has spread some real hate and discontent with how he went about getting the one time deal done. Perhaps damage control isn't Mac's strong suit but maybe he should attempt to build some kind of bridge instead of his scorched earth policy, but I guess that it worked once so maybe MOGA/Mac believe they can prevail on everything they want by burning the whole place down.

Resident hunters need to start realizing that they need to help the resource too and we are going to have to give up the beloved rut hunting of Mule deer bucks for sure and such long seasons.

Seems like there could be compromise struck but after his actions in the last session, I trust Mac to be an honest broker about as far as I could throw him.

I don't disagree.

Perhaps Mac knew damn well what he was doing and what the blow back would be. He also knew he'd have the same support from the elected/appointed in the next session, but with 2 more years of planning and lobbying, and the addition of 2 more years of nationalized political races. Because Obama's still coming for their guns and babies campaign that he and the UPOM crew can molest to their advantage.

While part of me thinks this could've been a mistake on his part, one that he regrets and wishes he could do over, the other part of me thinks this is just the beginning. Only Mac and the MOGA constituents can be transparent about it until then to give us any type of clue where this all sits.

Unless some effort is made on both sides to figure this out, I suspect Mac and Chuck will be looking for someone to hold their beer come next session.

FYI UPOM only has two mission objectives. Kill all the elk and stop the APR.

Home - UPOM

United Property Owners of Montana The deterioration of one person’s property rights is really the erosion of everyone’s property rights. Everyone owns something, and whether it’s a city lot or a sprawling ranch, your property rights are sacred to you. Stop APR Legal Action Fund For years we’ve...

upom.org

 

[Derek44]

I don't disagree.

Perhaps Mac knew damn well what he was doing and what the blow back would be. He also knew he'd have the same support from the elected/appointed in the next session, but with 2 more years of planning and lobbying, and the addition of 2 more years of nationalized political races. Because Obama's still coming for their guns and babies campaign that he and the UPOM crew can molest to their advantage.

While part of me thinks this could've been a mistake on his part, one that he regrets and wishes he could do over, the other part of me thinks this is just the beginning. Only Mac and the MOGA constituents can be transparent about it until then to give us any type of clue where this all sits.

Unless some effort is made on both sides to figure this out, I suspect Mac and Chuck will be looking for someone to hold their beer come next session.

FYI UPOM only has two mission objectives. Kill all the elk and stop the APR.

Home - UPOM

United Property Owners of Montana The deterioration of one person’s property rights is really the erosion of everyone’s property rights. Everyone owns something, and whether it’s a city lot or a sprawling ranch, your property rights are sacred to you. Stop APR Legal Action Fund For years we’ve...

upom.org

End of the story today is, they took what they wanted. No holds barred. Best wishes to them if they think it’s sustainable, but in my short life of experiences, that pendulum never quits swinging. They may have got enough till they don’t care no more, but I’m sure they have grandchildren that might

 

[tjones]

More from the Senator that brought us this piece of crap bill.

Sen. Ellsworth charged with reckless driving, obstructing officer

The legislator from Hamilton was pulled over for speeding in May and claimed constitutional exemption from arrest.

montanafreepress.org

 

[Deleted member 20812]

More from the Senator that brought us this piece of crap bill.

Sen. Ellsworth charged with reckless driving, obstructing officer

The legislator from Hamilton was pulled over for speeding in May and claimed constitutional exemption from arrest.

montanafreepress.org

He sounds like a real gem.

 

[Gerald Martin]

He sounds like a real gem.

A real treasure. Folks like these need to get sent out on a fencing crew with a post hole digger in rocky ground to learn just how important they are.