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

[Hunting Wife]

sneakypete, obviously you're an absentee non-resident since you are drawing for license. I know many absentee non-resident landowners, and they leave little to nothing in our communities.

Ben, come up with something better than welfare tags. The "outfitter sponsored variable priced license" was not welfare. Outfitters had to sell a high priced license for the state, and convince someone to pay for their services.

Allow me to enlighten some of you with a little revisionist history.


Roughly 1993 the outfitting community was granted the "variable priced outfitter sponsored license"(unfortunately for my team, known as the "guaranteed license") This license was used by FWP to fund Block Management. This license was UNLIMITED, only being checked by price(hence the variable priced moniker). Price of license went up when we(outfitters) sold more than 2300 B-10(deer combo) or 5600 B-11(elk/deer combo), sell less the price dropped.

This license was taken by ballot initiative 161, roughly 2010. We (outfitting community) then had another UNLIMITED(way less expensive) LICENSE, 8 years of a depressed stock market and economy during the Obama Presidency. I can remember having clients call in October and book hunts, buying their license OTC at WalMart when they arrived. During this 8 year period the hunting outfitters had 0(zero, zilch, nada) growth.

Then along came Trump, under his first year as President non-residents were in an actual draw for license. The number of non-residents applying for license steadily increased under Trumps Presidency, last year there were 10,000 more applicants than license. Finally I-161 after 12 years did what some of you wanted, hurt viable outfitting business', we are in a draw. Leveled the playing field as some touted, 12 years it took and gave us(outfitters) the chance to run amuck(but we didn't). Now the outfitting community is seeking a way to stabilize business by having a license.

When I stand on the outside looking in at the license the biggest loser is the unguided non-resident and absentee landowner. I can see their point for opposing this, as it will decrease their odds of getting a license.

If this bill passes the money will be used to pay landowners for access. I see no real downside from a resident sportsman's perspective.

Signed,
Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter

With 10,000 more applicants than available tags, clearly the tags sell themselves these days. All the outfitter has to do is convince someone to pay for your services, as you say. If you are unable to do that, doesn’t that mean the market doesn’t see the value of those services? If you must rely on the state to generate that value for you by reserving tags, its welfare.

 

[Big Shooter]

Ben, would you please enlighten the crowd as to where in the wording of this Bill that the outfitting industry is “guaranteed“ a customer base? I’ll wait and reread the Bill again, but I’m pretty sure that wording is not in there. One thing that you need to get your mind wrapped around is that very fact.

 

[MTGomer]

Ben, would you please enlighten the crowd as to where in the wording of this Bill that the outfitting industry is “guaranteed“ a customer base? I’ll wait and reread the Bill again, but I’m pretty sure that wording is not in there. One thing that you need to get your mind wrapped around is that very fact.

Wouldn’t it be right there in the part that deals with outfitter set asides?

 

[Big Shooter]

Gomer....actually no. It does NOT GUARANTEE A CUSTOMER. What it does is that if an outfitter can obtain said “customer” they now have a better chance of getting a tag. Does not guarantee a customer.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Gomer....actually no. It does NOT GUARANTEE A CUSTOMER. What it does is that if an outfitter can obtain said “customer” they now have a better chance of getting a tag. Does not guarantee a customer.

Good point. So they want to be gifted a resource belonging to the state that was GUARANTEED to produce revenue prior to being gifted to them but might not produce anything once provided to an outfitter. Sounds like a great idea.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, would you please enlighten the crowd as to where in the wording of this Bill that the outfitting industry is “guaranteed“ a customer base? I’ll wait and reread the Bill again, but I’m pretty sure that wording is not in there. One thing that you need to get your mind wrapped around is that very fact.

New Section 1 guarantees a license on a first come, first serve basis for outfitter sponsored applicants.

Did you not read this bill?

 

[Carnage2011]

Gomer....actually no. It does NOT GUARANTEE A CUSTOMER. What it does is that if an outfitter can obtain said “customer” they now have a better chance of getting a tag. Does not guarantee a customer.

Bullshit. You already have to obtain said “customer.” Now you just have an easier sale since you can almost guarantee a tag.
Being a salesman is the biggest part of owning a business. If you can’t do that you won’t make it anyway.

How come you only show up here when some BS legislation is trying to be pushed through? It’s almost like you are trying to polish a turd...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tax accountants.

Morticians

 

[Schaaf]

I wish I loved anything as much as Albus loves getting dunked on.

 

[MThuntr]

Ben, would you please enlighten the crowd as to where in the wording of this Bill that the outfitting industry is “guaranteed“ a customer base? I’ll wait and reread the Bill again, but I’m pretty sure that wording is not in there. One thing that you need to get your mind wrapped around is that very fact.

Section 8. Section 87-2-511, MCA, is amended to read: 18 "87-2-511. Sale and use of Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses. (1) Except as provided in [section 1], the department shall offer the Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses for sale on April 1, with 60% of each of the Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses reserved for applicants hunting with a licensed outfitter pursuant to [section 1] and 2,000 of the authorized Class B-11 licenses reserved for applicants indicating their intent to hunt hunting with a resident sponsor on land owned by that sponsor, as provided in subsections (2) and (3) pursuant to [section 3].

The term "shall" is a legal term that would require the state to issue those permits to applicants hunting with a licensed outfitter...sure it doesn't state specifically that outfitter X gets 5 guys but as a collective outfitters would be guaranteed customers because it would be law. Now if you can't get a client with 60% of those permits then maybe you should reconsider your chosen path.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I may have missed it but does anyone know the current percentage of Class B-10 and B-11 license holders that hunt with an outfitter?

 

[HSi-ESi]

I get the convenience factor that having 60% of the non-resident tags would allow outfitters a much easier path to obtain clients - and that many outfitters have repeat clients that have been using their guide service for a long, long time. The outfitters naturally want to be able to ensure that those customers can keep coming back.

The bill is unreasonable though.

Two thoughts:

1) Instead of fighting over how much pie we can get, could we look at buying a bigger pie? Yes, this takes longer - but if we can keep the allocated Weed tax money and have more to spend on improvements - eventually translating into more NR tags.

2) Do something else to decrease the current inconvenience factor for Outfitters? Maybe change some dates (again) to get drawing results sooner in the year? Revamp the drawing structure so it is more like WY's?

 

[MTGomer]

Gomer....actually no. It does NOT GUARANTEE A CUSTOMER. What it does is that if an outfitter can obtain said “customer” they now have a better chance of getting a tag. Does not guarantee a customer.

Say I own a car dealership and the government places very tight quotas on the number of car titles that can be transferred via private party sales, forcing all remaining car buyers to dealers. That helps even the shitty dealers. When the good dealers run out of inventory, the buyers will be around to test drive my shitty cars because they need a car and I’ll up-sell them an extended warranty that doesn’t cover anything.

In this business model, I depend on being in bed with crooked politicians because like them, I’m lazy, have no work ethic, poor salesmanship and would starve without handouts. I call myself conservative, but I dine at the public trough.
It’s not pretty but it pays the bills.

 

[BWALKER77]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it. But as written now it will only lead to an expansion of outfitting, more private land being leased up, etc.

 

[timmy]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it. But as written now it will only lead to an expansion of outfitting, more private land being leased up, etc.

Agreed. Nonresidents and RESIDENTS need to be limited. The demand is higher than the resource, this bill is not the way to do it. People are going to have to sacrifice some aspect of opportunity.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I don't think licenses should be carved out of the overall pool for non-residents, based on whether they chose an outfitter or not. It's a bad precedent with hunting, but not as bad as the landowner license idea. MT hunting continues to swirl into a death spiral for quality hunting ..

 

[WIbiggame]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it. But as written now it will only lead to an expansion of outfitting, more private land being leased up, etc.

Why should NR be limited to the use of public lands? It is in the name PUBLIC as in for all to use? We (NR) are already limited by the 17000 elk tags and 4600 deer tags.

 

[WIbiggame]

Gomer....actually no. It does NOT GUARANTEE A CUSTOMER. What it does is that if an outfitter can obtain said “customer” they now have a better chance of getting a tag. Does not guarantee a customer.

How does it not "Guarantee" a customer if I call your outfitting business today and want to book a hunt, you are going say well the draw is April and "IF YOU DRAW A TAG" we can talk and set you up. You have roughly a 72% chance that customer draws a tag.

Now let's say this bill passes I call you today with the same inquiry about a hunt. The call would go like this "I CAN GUARANTEE YOU A TAG BEFORE EVEN GOING TO DRAW"

Seems pretty cut and dry even for a simple guy from WI here. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong tho.

 

[shoots-straight]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it. But as written now it will only lead to an expansion of outfitting, more private land being leased up, etc.

You touched on something that's been lost in selective memory's. Back when the Outfitters approached us (Montana Sportsmen's groups) The claim was the same as Shooter has stated that they needed to "Stabilize" their industry and the carrot was not just Block, but Habitat Montana Money to buy lands outright to hunt on. Why would be want to make room for 7500 more hunters a year min. We were worried that this "set aside" would grow more Outfitters working the state and that was a big issue for us. They (Outfitters) said they would work to keep the cap on the existing licensed Outfitters. Over time, the cap was close to the same, BUT the numbers of Guides grew exponentially. Landowners where being licensed as guides by Outfitters for exchange for money, and access. In my opinion any of this "set aside" BS ends with major abuses to the system. I'd certainly love it if 60% of those that wish to build their own homes or remodel their existing structures were forced to use General Contractors. Yea, that's not a subsidy or anything like it right?

 

[BWALKER77]

Why should NR be limited to the use of public lands? It is in the name PUBLIC as in for all to use? We (NR) are already limited by the 17000 elk tags and 4600 deer tags.

Poor choice of words. NR should not be limited as it pertains to using public lands, but they should absolutely be limited in harvest the states game. 17000/4600 permits is way to many IMO. Given Montana's preference for "Opportunity " it's just not sustainable IMO. To deal with the funding shortfall double the price of NR tags.
We simply cant go on pounding every inch of public and block management into the dirt, driving most of the game onto private lands. That benefits no one.