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

[sneakypete]

This meeting really scared me as a non resident property and hunter. First off when the bill writer says right off” the 60% number isn't correct we think it might be 40-45%” Then the parade started of outfitters/ one store proponents! The opposition had more on zoom than in person, but did a good job for us. My sense is that the senator’s that. Asked the questions at the end are on our side! The claim of the loss over one million acres of Block Management is probably correct, ranches sell or end the program.

 

[Hunt&FishCO]

Point 1: Maybe this a naive question but wouldn’t guaranteed outfitter NR tags impact MT Res Hunter Oppty long term? Especially if that % allocation of NR outfitter tags creeps over time?

Theoretically outfitted NR hunters have a higher success rate than NR DIY hunters. I’d guess 50% vs 15%, the higher success multiplied and grown over time would erode the total tags that can be allocated since more animals are taken every year by the NR cohort.

Is that flawed logic?

Point 2: Don’t public land outfitters pay a licensing for using federal lands? Therefore the more outfitted hunters - the more that gets kicked back to the federal govt?

Point 3: Do MT res hunters want to be competing with NY finance guys / CA tech millionaires who can afford the pay-to-play outfitted hunts or do they want out of state DIY father & sons sharing the same opportunity they have?

 

[Hunt West]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounded like the outfitters were complaining that they had to tell clients that they didn't draw a tag, not that they didn't have enough clients. If they have more tags available to guided clients, they will get more clients, correct?


I would imagine that there won't be many leftover tags, so in essence, this does take away tags from NR DIY'ers.

Left over or not it WILL take away opportunity for a diy NR. To simplify the math if you take 14 people and apply for 10 tags your odds are roughly 70%. Now under this bill to take 6 tags out for the outfitter leaving 8 people applying for 4 tags making your odds 50%.

 

[Bullbrl]

Point 1: Maybe this a naive question but wouldn’t guaranteed outfitter NR tags impact MT Res Hunter Oppty long term? Especially if that % allocation of NR tags creeps over time?

Theoretically outfitted NR hunters have a higher success rate than NR DIY hunters. I’d guess 50% vs 15%, the higher success multiplied and grown over time would erode the total tags that can be allocated since more animals are taken every year by the NR cohort.

Is that flawed logic?

Point 2: Don’t public land outfitters pay a licensing for using federal lands? Therefore the more outfitted hunters - the more that gets kicked back to the federal govt?

Point 3: Do MT res hunters want to be competing with NY finance guys / CA tech millionaires who can afford the pay-to-play outfitted hunts or do they want out of state DIY father & sons sharing the same opportunity they have?

I was thinking about your #1 yesterday. Even though a point was brought up about NR Diy'ers competing more with residents, I agree with your point. The success rate of guided hunters will eventually cause tag numbers to get lower for everyone, including residents.

 

[Hunt&FishCO]

Left over or not it WILL take away opportunity for a diy NR. To simplify the math if you take 14 people and apply for 10 tags your odds are roughly 70%. Now under this bill to take 6 tags out for the outfitter leaving 8 people applying for 4 tags making your odds 50%.

This also will retroactively induce point creep too since there’s less tags available to NR DIYers (like myself) who’ve been accumulating points over the years.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I was on board with the point until he said essentially "my elk on my land". Public resource on private land. But the point he made was understandable about having to have an outfitter and that he would sell his property before he paid for an outfitter on his own land.

Unfortunately, My Elk, My Deer, My Antelope on My Land is a pretty common attitude among ranchers in my experience. That same feeling extends to any BLM/National Forest grazing leases that they may have.

 

[a-a-ron]

Sorry...I don’t mean to be that guy...just got in for the night and trying figure out if it passed through commitee or did we get lucky and it died on the floor? Thanks

 

[Bullshot]

Sorry...I don’t mean to be that guy...just got in for the night and trying figure out if it passed through commitee or did we get lucky and it died on the floor? Thanks

This was only introductory I think. Sponsor said he will be adding amendments. I didn’t watch the adjournment of the meeting, so don’t know the process if were there actual votes to accept/advance the bill?

 

[a-a-ron]

Ah gotchya...ok thanks for the clarification.

 

[Smartweed]

Rats, well this doesn't sound good so far. Guess we have to keep the heat in, I emailed the committee chair for what that's worth n

 

[Crusty Buckeye]

I live in WI where we have a couple hundred thousand non residents come for 9 days every year to deer hunt. Trust me I wouldn't be complaining 21000 on the amount of public land you all have is absolutely nothing.

WIbiggame, I copy that. Ohio is the same way. There is no restriction on hunter numbers. Yes, some areas are congested at times. The seasons are long giving plenty of opportunities. We have little National forest ( owned by every US citizen), compared to Montana. To my knowledge, having hunted this state for 41 years, I have NEVER heard of any legislation restricting NR hunters. Come to Ohio. Huge deer, turkeys, small game, and great fishing. Sorry Big Fin, the grouse numbers are down.

 

[winmag]

don’t know the process if were there actual votes to accept/advance the bill?

No vote, just quickly adjourned. Guess they were late for dinner.

 

[golfer]

No vote, just quickly adjourned. Guess they were late for dinner.

They don’t vote the same day as the hearings.

 

[winmag]

Judging by his last name, I am guessing that is Jim Posewitz’s son?

Maybe so. The presenter in opposition's name was Andrew Posewitz and Jim Posewitz does have a son named Andrew.

 

[winmag]

I kept waiting for a Public Land Owner shirt to surface on a speaker for the opposition, but alas, I was disappointed.

 

[Point Creep]

If you folks listening think the cons won over the pros in today’s testimony, you’re gonna really be sorry. I had to cut out during the expert Q/A at the end - so I still don’t have a real solid opinion other than I don’t think our licenses should be carved up based on if you’re hiring help or not..

 

[HuntTheWestMN]

What a day to make my first ever Hunt Talk post! I am a NR hunter from MN, having held multiple MT tags in recent years. I'm familiar with the site and check back on topics of interest time to time but never went through with offering opinions until today.

I have never used a guide or outfitter service and have no intent to, however I do understand they have a place and it is obvious that many people have the luxury of employing them all over the west. I do not, however believe it is the legislature's job to decide how many tags are earmarked for guiding services, even if it is 1%. I appreciate the comments during the hearing of possibly moving the draw date up to allow as many people that will be looking for outfitters to have ample time to do so, but I never heard a legitimate argument for passing a bill that seems so extremely in favor of one party's interest. The Sponsor continued to reiterate that this bill wont change things as it is based on historical stats and his law of averages; well then my response is, why do we need this bill? Can't anyone who draws a tag in the current lottery system then seek to employ an outfitter? It seems to me that it is guaranteeing a pool of licenses (money) and funding for access to more landlocked public land (which I'm sure will be conveniently located). What it doesn't seem to do is allow for any change in the opposite direction. Say another decade passes and more and more people are applying for tags and not wanting outfitting services. Do you think that the leftover tags the Sponsor spoke of will actually make it back to the general pool? I seriously doubt they will and once given, pretty tough to take away.

Long winded for a first time, I apologize but quite the week for a hunter who just wants to access public land and be able to enjoy hunting in all the great places a lot of you call home.

Minnesota
RMEF Member
BHA Member
Conservationist

 

[gradeAchuck]

They brought up that a guided hunter has 7 points of contact, thus spending more. I don't get that though. Other than paying for an outfitter, they go to less places during a trip than a DIY. They come in town, go off to the lodge or camp, and then leave.

There's some funny number crunching going on somewhere.

I would like a detailed breakdown of these "7 points of contact" and where they got the actual survey/data to back it up. I have a sneaky suspicion that there was some cherry picking of the facts/numbers. This argument also assumes that the NR DIY hunter doesn't go out to do any pre-scouting (hotel, food, gas, etc), they are only doing a remote pack in hunt, and they have brought all their food/supplies from out of State.

Oh yeah, and of course it also assumes that they don't go into town and drink beer

 

[Bullbrl]

Question: Would any of you Montanans voted differently for 161 if it didn't include the private land wording like Allsworth (or whatever his name was) mentioned?

 

[sneakypete]

What a day to make my first ever Hunt Talk post! I am a NR hunter from MN, having held multiple MT tags in recent years. I'm familiar with the site and check back on topics of interest time to time but never went through with offering opinions until today.

I have never used a guide or outfitter service and have no intent to, however I do understand they have a place and it is obvious that many people have the luxury of employing them all over the west. I do not, however believe it is the legislature's job to decide how many tags are earmarked for guiding services, even if it is 1%. I appreciate the comments during the hearing of possibly moving the draw date up to allow as many people that will be looking for outfitters to have ample time to do so, but I never heard a legitimate argument for passing a bill that seems so extremely in favor of one party's interest. The Sponsor continued to reiterate that this bill wont change things as it is based on historical stats and his law of averages; well then my response is, why do we need this bill? Can't anyone who draws a tag in the current lottery system then seek to employ an outfitter? It seems to me that it is guaranteeing a pool of licenses (money) and funding for access to more landlocked public land (which I'm sure will be conveniently located). What it doesn't seem to do is allow for any change in the opposite direction. Say another decade passes and more and more people are applying for tags and not wanting outfitting services. Do you think that the leftover tags the Sponsor spoke of will actually make it back to the general pool? I seriously doubt they will and once given, pretty tough to take away.

Long winded for a first time, I apologize but quite the week for a hunter who just wants to access public land and be able to enjoy hunting in all the great places a lot of you call home.

Minnesota
RMEF Member
BHA Member
Conservationist

Well said!! Welcome to the forum.