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

[antlerradar]

Got a solicitation in the mail yesterday from one of the outfitters that testified for SB 143 looking for a long term private land lease. Guess he in not having much trouble finding clients or maybe he is just trying to get ahead of the rush if SB 143 passes.

 

[NativeIndian]

Nooooooo! All full.

Great! Take another 10k or so with you.

Maybe you guys should ask your local businesses that benefit from NR hunters during these seasons. BTW... what happens when the outfitters no longer get NR hunters? You also seem to forget that this is public land paid for by taxpayers throughout the US. State land is one thing but this is OUR land. We could fix that and make it all private. How would that work for you? <---Rhetorical question. I know the answer.

 

[Addicting]

addickting, what is your question?

@Eric Albus you haven’t tried to address the posts I made calling out your version of use days. I am curious to hear your side of why and how them becoming exponentially more valuable is good for the common Montana residents who may want to get into guiding?

@Eric Albus you can easily identify me
[email protected] is my email address, I live in SW, MI.

I don’t have anything to hide and I am being civil. If you cannot navigate this simple site to answer questions then how is anyone to believe in your research data.

Here is where I got mine:

https://www.montanaoutfitters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-MBO-FAQ-Presentation.pdf

View attachment 172594

 

[NativeIndian]

I am not so certain. Have you seen what that man will do for a Dairy Queen Dilly Bar?

How do we know he isn’t in it for the ice cream?

edit.... whoops. Randy, don’t ban me for being “Honest” about your addiction.

You forgot GROUSE!

 

[NativeIndian]

Its not that NR that are saturating the public land. There are 10 resident tags for every 1 NR. Look at the hunter effort number on the FWP site. Residents have 4-10 times the number of hunting day as NR depending on the district. It should be this was, there should be 10 times the resident hunters. But to blame the overrun of public land on NR is incorrect according to the numbers.

Now there you go again with those pesky facts!

 

[tjones]

I listened to the commission meeting. No one except MWF called in on 652 mule deer to comment for or against. Not even a pissed off outfitter that cares.

 

[Eric Albus]

Did not know that the permits were up for discussion, or the meeting was happening. I have been spending most days in semi hauling wheat and you did not bother to call me and tell me about meeting or agenda. Feel free to next time there is a commission meeting. Was 20 below this morning so hauling is off until it warms up.

addicting asked; you haven’t tried to address the posts I made calling out your version of use days. I am curious to hear your side of why and how them becoming exponentially more valuable is good for the common Montana residents who may want to get into guiding?

Right now FS and NCHU have established values. I do not know that either will become exponentially more valuable. I do not have or particularly understand FS, but from outside looking in I would say FS day use is way more tangible than NCHU, they can at least sell a trip to look at scenery. NCHU only has value if you have private acreage to lease(or the purchaser has land they can lease), and most leases are annual to 5 yrs being most I have heard of. Compare it to selling a land lease, I lease 320 acres from my neighbor to farm, and have a 5 year lock. In year 2 I want to sell it. Who would pay much, if anything for a lease like this? I certainly would not, as I don't know if the landowner will continue to lease me the acreage.

 

[tjones]

The commission meetings schedule is on line Eric well in advance of the meetings along with the agenda.

Along with set aside tag I guess you deserve special notice for the meetings. I will try and remember that.

 

[LostinOregon1]

Late to this conversation. I remember the exuberance on the posting boards when by the do it yourself guys and NR when the outfitter sponsored deer tags went away. Everyone said that the outiftters would go away and that Montana would turn back into the old days of knocking on doors for access and everything wouldn't be leased up anymore. Well, as you can see that didn't turn out that way. I don't know of many outfitters now that currently hunt public land for deer in Montana. I don't see the harm in having a set aside for outfitters that are private land only tags. It would keep the guided guys out of the NR DIY quota. The fact of the matter is that the private will always be locked up by folks with leases/outfitters/buddies or whatever. I have been hunting eastern Montana for 25 plus years and know some landowners over there. The outfitters have remained consistent with the DIY on the rise in the last 5 years especially. Just my thoughts from watching over time.

 

[timmy]

Late to this conversation. I remember the exuberance on the posting boards when by the do it yourself guys and NR when the outfitter sponsored deer tags went away. Everyone said that the outiftters would go away and that Montana would turn back into the old days of knocking on doors for access and everything wouldn't be leased up anymore. Well, as you can see that didn't turn out that way. I don't know of many outfitters now that currently hunt public land for deer in Montana. I don't see the harm in having a set aside for outfitters that are private land only tags. It would keep the guided guys out of the NR DIY quota. The fact of the matter is that the private will always be locked up by folks with leases/outfitters/buddies or whatever. I have been hunting eastern Montana for 25 plus years and know some landowners over there. The outfitters have remained consistent with the DIY on the rise in the last 5 years especially. Just my thoughts from watching over time.

The quicker people realize they will never get to hunt private the better.

 

[BWALKER77]

Maybe you guys should ask your local businesses that benefit from NR hunters during these seasons. BTW... what happens when the outfitters no longer get NR hunters? You also seem to forget that this is public land paid for by taxpayers throughout the US. State land is one thing but this is OUR land. We could fix that and make it all private. How would that work for you? <---Rhetorical question. I know the answer.

You seem to forget that game is managed by the state and you have no rights to it.

 

[BWALKER77]

The quicker people realize they will never get to hunt private the better.

Just takes money.

 

[longbow51]

Just takes money.

Or friendships. If it's not leased, and you have relationships, you can still hunt. Strangers knocking on doors rarely works.

 

[Walkalot]

Obviously private land is going in there own direction. Which if i owned a big ranch i would too. But public should be managed for the other 99%. Sad about 652. But iam guessing outfitters and private land owners influenced that. Big private ranches basically are LE units they just want more tags, at the expense of public land hunter. FWP new logo quality on private land quanity on public. For the public land to be better, we the public land hunter need to come together.

 

[Buffs35]

Montana FWP: You don't need a big gun, if you have a big wallet.

 

[Badger_55]

You seem to forget that game is managed by the state and you have no rights to it.

Just as much rights to them as you when they are living on the nation's property.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is your idea with one week seasons to limit people or total tags?

Last year Colorado had a 19% overall success rate during rifle seasons (R+NR) with hunters having to choose either a 5 - 7- 9 - 5 day season. (Choose one)

Last year Montana Residents had a 22% success rate being able to hunt a 6 week archery season plus a 5 week rifle season.

So Montana Residents had a 3% improvement over all CO hunters, adding 4 weeks of rifle season and getting to hunt all archery season.

Last year Wyoming Residents had a 40.4% success rate getting to hunt (on average) 1 month of archery + 2 weeks of rifle on their tag.

Is your idea with one week seasons to limit people or total tags?

There is a difference between feeling crowded and success. Colorado's 1 week season dramatically reduces crowding, Colorado is a smaller state than MT and yet it put 2X as many hunters in the field last year. There is essentially no limit on NR tags. Colorado's goal is to put as many people in the field as possible and yet maintain the herd. If CO were to strive for WY success rates, I think the state could do so, but it would need to cap NR at similar numbers to MT or WY which in effect would reduce the total NR hunting opportunity in the west by ~ 50%. Imagine the point creep all around.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Last year Colorado had a 19% overall success rate during rifle seasons (R+NR) with hunters having to choose either a 5 - 7- 9 - 5 day season. (Choose one)

Last year Montana Residents had a 22% success rate being able to hunt a 6 week archery season plus a 5 week rifle season.

So Montana Residents had a 3% improvement over all CO hunters, adding 4 weeks of rifle season and getting to hunt all archery season.

Last year Wyoming Residents had a 47.8% success rate getting to hunt (on average) 1 month of archery + 2 weeks of rifle on their tag.



There is a difference between feeling crowded and success. Colorado's 1 week season dramatically reduces crowding, Colorado is a smaller state than MT and yet it put 2X as many hunters in the field last year. There is essentially no limit on NR tags. Colorado's goal is to put as many people in the field as possible and yet maintain the herd. If CO were to strive for WY success rates, I think the state could do so, but it would need to cap NR at similar numbers to MT or WY which in effect would reduce the total NR hunting opportunity in the west by ~ 50%. Imagine the point creep all around.

Something tells me your comparisons are not apples to apples, but nice try.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Something tells me your comparisons are not apples to apples, but nice try.

I compared Resident MT hunters to all CO hunters, because 1. Colorado doesn't break out success rates by residency status, and 2. NR residents don't benefit from an 11 week seasons all that much compared to Residents, not many NR are driving out every weekend to hunt.

If I'm being misleading, feel free to point out the flaw. (I notice I did flip WY R and NR rates, edited)

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/Elk/2019StatewideElkHarvest.pdf

Montana

FWP :: Harvest Estimates

Wyoming

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/2019-Elk-3-5-2020.pdf

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Just as much rights to them as you when they are living on the nation's property.

No. Not true. This has long been established in the court system.