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

[antlerradar]

BM is a strange economic experiment. The payment isn’t made directly by hunters. The landowner controls the capacity. There is no way for the hunter to increase the payment or the landowner to charge more, so you never figure out the elasticity of supply or demand. I agree with your conclusions, but I don’t see an easy solution. I also wonder how many landowners hit the $15,000 cap. I know a few that probably did.

Make the payment contingent on both the number of hunters and the quality of the land enrolled. For instance in eastern Montana one section of river bottom may contain as much game as 10 sections of sagebrush and open grassland a few miles away. Outfitters and hunt clubs recognize this and pay accordingly. With BM you are going to have crowding and issues with game leaving if you try to stuff as many hunters into the one section as you can the 10 so it is harder to get a competitive payment with BM on the river bottom land. The result is the the landowner with lower quality grassland the may enroll in BM and the best quality land is leased by others.

 

[timmy]

Have you ever attended a FWP public meeting?
Good luck getting the status quo “gimme” mentality to change so good management policies are preferred rather than wanting it all without sacrificing anything.

I have it is some of the most frustrating experiences I have had.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

You are framing a choice that doesn’t exist. Block Management is a program under which landowners give the public hunter access and in return are compensated for the groups potential impact on the landowner’s property. Wildlife management is a different division of FWP. You either want access or your don’t. You can say you want access AND you want to be guaranteed that the species you are hunting is on that land the day you show up. Hire an outfitter for that.

So let me get this straight.



Public hunter access is a totally separate issue from the management of the wildlife that the public hunter is acquiring access to pursue. So if the public hunter wants a reasonable assumption that the lands they are hiking hold healthy herds of managed wildlife, he or she should hire an outfitter?



I’m hope that is not what you meant to write, but if it was…..that is the failure of managing hunting for “OPPORTUNITY” instead of for the resource.

 

[SAJ-99]

So let me get this straight.



Public hunter access is a totally separate issue from the management of the wildlife that the public hunter is acquiring access to pursue. So if the public hunter wants a reasonable assumption that the lands they are hiking hold healthy herds of managed wildlife, he or she should hire an outfitter?



I’m hope that is not what you meant to write, but if it was…..that is the failure of managing hunting for “OPPORTUNITY” instead of for the resource.

If the hunter wants to assume there is game there any particular day they hunt, yes. Even the best BM can be lacking game if someone walked through earlier that day the outfitter can control access and pressure. That is why they charge so much. I have no problem no shooting anything on BM and still writing a thank you note and mailing it to the owner.

there is plenty of game in Montana. Just because it’s not on land you can access doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have no problem no shooting anything on BM and still writing a thank you note and mailing it to the owner.

there is plenty of game in Montana. Just because it’s not on land you can access doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Yep. That’s why I am not as concerned about managing to ensure access to private. I just want management policies to not devastate game on public and accessible private lands.

Current FWP policy is to try to address perceived overpopulation of game on private land by allowing hunters to overkill animals in a different locale and call it addressing landowner concerns and giving public hunters opportunity.

Problem is enough people are swallowing the “strategy” because they aren’t willing to see it for what it is and because what could be would require prioritizing the health of the resource over filling a cheap tag.

 

[Walkalot]

I dont know alot of things tie into this. My opinion residents should not be able hunt mule deer every yr. Otc draw liberal no hunting muleys in rut. Unless u draw a LE tag. So 2 diff draws. Elk dont think u should be able to hunt a bull every yr. Cows yes. Same thing 2 diff draws otc and LE. For residents. My opinion as a life long resident. As for non residents. I think they should get 10% of LE tags diff draw. Otc draw i see maybe a draw for them on private obviously leased guided and a draw for public. So 3 diff draws for non residents. % of tag wise i dont know. And yes non residents should have a say in the management allocation of tags to a certain degree. Maybe 10% vote

 

[Mtnhunter1]

If the hunter wants to assume there is game there any particular day they hunt, yes. Even the best BM can be lacking game if someone walked through earlier that day the outfitter can control access and pressure. That is why they charge so much. I have no problem no shooting anything on BM and still writing a thank you note and mailing it to the owner.

there is plenty of game in Montana. Just because it’s not on land you can access doesn’t mean it’s not there.

I am fully aware that Montana has “plenty of game”. It is where that game is plentiful, “Healthy Herds”, that should be cause for alarm.



As you acknowledged, Private land Outfitters can control access, pressure, harvest and habitat enhancements to establish a healthy wildlife population on the lands that they control. In other words, they have taken the “Management” of the resource very seriously to maintain an abundant and sustainable wildlife population.



It would nice to see even half the seriousness for “Wildlife Management” from our FWPs on ALL publicly accessible lands throughout this state.



Your statement, “there is plenty of game in Montana. Just because it’s not on land you can access doesn’t mean it’s not there.” I find extremely troubling.

 

[Eric Albus]

The license is for a chance to harvest an animal owned in trust for all Montanans, so that is a separate issue from access. As of today the average Joe has an equal opportunity to pony of his or her cash, right next to rich guy/gal, the out of state land owner and the outfitted client and see who draws for an opportunity to come to Montana and hunt. It is equal opportunity to draw a tag regardless of your bank account. What land you have access can absolutely be determined by your bank account. That seems like a fair deal to me IMO, your opinion may differ. Once the tag is drawn the "lucky" hunter then can choose whether he/she wants to tough it out on public/BMA lands, pay a trespass fee, hire an outfitter or buy into a hunting club. Seems like a free market for access which is based on private property rights and public trust doctrine for the opportunity to draw a tag based on the public trust doctrine of wildlife ownership.

Nemont

Jeff,
How would your business model look if you had to rely on a client to draw before buying your insurance package? I would bet that if there was legislation like this you’d be in Helena lobbying against it.
Maybe that’s the way it should work for all businesses. Maybe instead of selling grain to the elevator of choice it should be on lottery. Contractors building houses should be on lottery. This would keep house prices lower because the contractor would not be able to choose who he was building for. Kind of take what you get sort of deal. If your potential clients number is not drawn, you get no sale. End of analogies.

The demand for outfitter services was off the chart last year and this. The draw odds look abysmal this year, last year we were 100%, just like the last 20 years.

I do realize that the privilege of a hunting license is different I only ask each of you to look at the issue from the other side of the fence.
There will be a good many families suffer because of the poor draw odds this year. If this makes you happy and feel satisfied I truly pity you. Myself nor my contemporaries would wish financial hardship like this upon anyone.
Bills come in, even when the income doesn’t.

 

[Eric Albus]

I dont know alot of things tie into this. My opinion residents should not be able hunt mule deer every yr. Otc draw liberal no hunting muleys in rut. Unless u draw a LE tag. So 2 diff draws. Elk dont think u should be able to hunt a bull every yr. Cows yes. Same thing 2 diff draws otc and LE. For residents. My opinion as a life long resident. As for non residents. I think they should get 10% of LE tags diff draw. Otc draw i see maybe a draw for them on private obviously leased guided and a draw for public. So 3 diff draws for non residents. % of tag wise i dont know. And yes non residents should have a say in the management allocation of tags to a certain degree. Maybe 10% vote

There is a lot you post here I can agree with. The one thing that should be thought of in regards to the private lands is this, the more pressure private receives the better chance of game moving onto accessible lands becomes.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Jeff,
How would your business model look if you had to rely on a client to draw before buying your insurance package? I would bet that if there was legislation like this you’d be in Helena lobbying against it.
Maybe that’s the way it should work for all businesses. Maybe instead of selling grain to the elevator of choice it should be on lottery. Contractors building houses should be on lottery. This would keep house prices lower because the contractor would not be able to choose who he was building for. Kind of take what you get sort of deal. If your potential clients number is not drawn, you get no sale. End of analogies.

The demand for outfitter services was off the chart last year and this. The draw odds look abysmal this year, last year we were 100%, just like the last 20 years.

I do realize that the privilege of a hunting license is different I only ask each of you to look at the issue from the other side of the fence.
There will be a good many families suffer because of the poor draw odds this year. If this makes you happy and feel satisfied I truly pity you. Myself nor my contemporaries would wish financial hardship like this upon anyone.
Bills come in, even when the income doesn’t.

Eric, with all respect, you and other outfitters have built your business utilizing a public trust resource. That’s the business model you chose knowing that access to that resource is not always guaranteed and that the resource and other users have at least as much if not a higher priority than your ability to be profitable.

It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to give up their interests because outfitters “deserve” anything. If you can run a successful business and not harm my or other people’s interests in the process that’s great and I wish you great financial success.
When outfitters repeatedly demonstrate they view their interests exceed others in priority and don’t care about the consequences of the bills intended to benefit themselves, expect to see significant pushback and growing anti-outfitter sentiment from those who see their interests being harmed.

There is a welfare mentality among outfitters of today. I see very little appreciation among outfitters for the opportunity to operate a business that utilizes a public resource.
There can be plenty for all. But it’s going to take working together instead of one side pushing for all their interests and disenfranchising others on the process.

 

[LostinOregon1]

How would hunting be in Eastern Montana if it was all public land and no private? I have seen what happens to private once it is enrolled in block management. The deer get pushed to the adjacent private land and off the block management after the initial slaughter. There is more to managing the herd than just making sure that the outfitters and landowners don't get set aside tags. Hey, maybe we can shoot 5 mule deer does each on the forest again, that will help.

Rich

 

[Wildabeest]

Eric, with all respect, you and other outfitters have built your business utilizing a public trust resource. That’s the business model you chose knowing that access to that resource is not always guaranteed and that the resource and other users have at least as much if not a higher priority than your ability to be profitable.

It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to give up their interests because outfitters “deserve” anything. If you can run a successful business and not harm my or other people’s interests in the process that’s great and I wish you great financial success.
When outfitters repeatedly demonstrate they view their interests exceed others in priority and don’t care about the consequences of the bills intended to benefit themselves, expect to see significant pushback and growing anti-outfitter sentiment from those who see their interests being harmed.

There is a welfare mentality among outfitters of today. I see very little appreciation among outfitters for the opportunity to operate a business that utilizes a public resource.
There can be plenty for all. But it’s going to take working together instead of one side pushing for all their interests and disenfranchising others on the process.

In 86 pages, the whole deal is summed up right here. Nothing more needs to be said. Once again @Gerald Martin hit the nail on the head.

 

[Gerald Martin]

How would hunting be in Eastern Montana if it was all public land and no private? I have seen what happens to private once it is enrolled in block management. The deer get pushed to the adjacent private land and off the block management after the initial slaughter. There is more to managing the herd than just making sure that the outfitters and landowners don't get set aside tags. Hey, maybe we can shoot 5 mule deer does each on the forest again, that will help.

Rich

Some good points here, but I would point out that deer are going to be creatures of habitat and habit and will filter back to BMA’s as pressure eases, especially if there’s good habitat.
I am less concerned about hunting pressure on specific spots than I am about poor policies unit wide that overexploit vulnerable populations.

8000 mule deer doe tags that can be filled on public land in region 7 is a classic example of a bad policy.
Make those tags private land only unless the deer numbers are exceeding carrying capacity on public.

 

[timmy]

Also the issue of statewide tags which every one could be hunting in 1 district with their buck tags. Especially after the spotlight has been put on certain areas. A lot of people contributed to that.

 

[Walkalot]

Private is usually better than public hunting wise. Common denominator hunting pressure, harvest. They only way to manage public better is too limit non resident and resident hunters. Private that allows public hunting, true block management should be rewarded. Glad to c $25,000. Another thing private actually manages herds where as public seems sadly left for recreational use primarily and shoot everything. Yes cow elk tags good for private only a good thing

 

[tjones]

Jeff,
How would your business model look if you had to rely on a client to draw before buying your insurance package? I would bet that if there was legislation like this you’d be in Helena lobbying against it.
Maybe that’s the way it should work for all businesses. Maybe instead of selling grain to the elevator of choice it should be on lottery. Contractors building houses should be on lottery. This would keep house prices lower because the contractor would not be able to choose who he was building for. Kind of take what you get sort of deal. If your potential clients number is not drawn, you get no sale. End of analogies.

Eric, you keep throwing this nonsense out comparing outfitters to other businesses.
The contractor, fence builder, insurance agent— whatever—do not rely on a limited public resource for their income. You do. You make a living kill stuff that belongs to all of us.
If you can’t understand that and that difference —welfare set asides won’t save your business.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

The demand for outfitter services was off the chart last year and this. The draw odds look abysmal this year, last year we were 100%, just like the last 20 years

Maybe I am missing something, but if the demand for outfitter service this and last year was so great, why are you concerned about not getting business?

 

[brockel]

I dont know alot of things tie into this. My opinion residents should not be able hunt mule deer every yr. Otc draw liberal no hunting muleys in rut. Unless u draw a LE tag. So 2 diff draws. Elk dont think u should be able to hunt a bull every yr. Cows yes. Same thing 2 diff draws otc and LE. For residents. My opinion as a life long resident. As for non residents. I think they should get 10% of LE tags diff draw. Otc draw i see maybe a draw for them on private obviously leased guided and a draw for public. So 3 diff draws for non residents. % of tag wise i dont know. And yes non residents should have a say in the management allocation of tags to a certain degree. Maybe 10% vote

FWP can’t even get the normal draw done without a hitch. You expect them to do that many more draws?

 

[Nemont]

Jeff,
How would your business model look if you had to rely on a client to draw before buying your insurance package? I would bet that if there was legislation like this you’d be in Helena lobbying against it.
Maybe that’s the way it should work for all businesses. Maybe instead of selling grain to the elevator of choice it should be on lottery. Contractors building houses should be on lottery. This would keep house prices lower because the contractor would not be able to choose who he was building for. Kind of take what you get sort of deal. If your potential clients number is not drawn, you get no sale. End of analogies.

The demand for outfitter services was off the chart last year and this. The draw odds look abysmal this year, last year we were 100%, just like the last 20 years.

I do realize that the privilege of a hunting license is different I only ask each of you to look at the issue from the other side of the fence.
There will be a good many families suffer because of the poor draw odds this year. If this makes you happy and feel satisfied I truly pity you. Myself nor my contemporaries would wish financial hardship like this upon anyone.
Bills come in, even when the income doesn’t.

Eric,

I bet if we dug into it my business is more regulated by both the state and federal governments than what you deal with. If you showed up and wanted to buy from me but are outside open enrollment and can’t qualify through an event I have to send you away.

I hope every outfitter makes a go of it and get no joy out of any business failing. So that isn’t even in my mind.

I remain open to listening to solution.

I guess I was jaded by Mac Minard’s opening play of grabbing 60% of the pool. Left a bad taste in my mouth when at the first hint of opposition the number dropped by 35% from 60% to a set aside 39%. Seems like he did no homework or try

 

[Big Shooter]

Maybe I am missing something, but if the demand for outfitter service this and last year was so great, why are you concerned about not getting business?

AGAIN......we have the clients.......but if said clients can’t get the tags it doesn’t work well.....for us anyway.