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

[Walkalot]

A mule deer buck tag every 5yrs. Whitetail otc.

 

[Carnage2011]

A mule deer buck tag every 5yrs. Whitetail otc.

Wont happen in MT. It’s fun to dream but that’s not happening.

 

[Big Shooter]

Let me clear this up before Buzz has a stroke over the topic. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but if I was a betting man, the number of nonresident outfitters has declined in the past 10 years. Not to zero obviously, but has gotten lower than in the past. Those are the legal ones, illegal ones are possibly getting higher. One reason the amendment to 143 could come back to bite us in the ass. The amount of money they leave in the state is still significant with the lease payments and so on. Eric touched on this a few posts previous that if we had our way they would be taxed heavily for removing the resource and not leaving the kind of money in the state as the resident outfitters. Has been brought up before and definitely will be again. When I refer to 100% of the money staying in state, I guess I am referring to the majority. My bad.

 

[SAJ-99]

I understand that the people who don’t draw will go into the normal draw

To clarify, tags not drawn in the first go to the regular draw, not applicants. NR tags are capped at a specific number. I assume all the tags will be gone in the first draw.

 

[Carnage2011]

To clarify, tags not drawn in the first go to the regular draw, not applicants. NR tags are capped at a specific number. I assume all the tags will be gone in the first draw.

Yes, I misspoke on that. So the 40% in the early draw will probably sell out. If I was betting on it I’d say there is a good chance the odds are worse in the early draw.

 

[SAJ-99]

According to bigshooter all the money from outfitting stays in Montana...which everyone knows is a lie.

What is this “staying in Montana” stuff? That is not a thing in economics. State economies are not self contained structures operating in a purely competitive way. What matters is how many times the money gets spent. If a group from WY drives to MT to hunt and stops at the Billings Costco to load up, that money doesn’t “stay in Montana”. The only think that helps MT budget is the ability to tax income or collect fees. If a guide is from CA he should still have to fill out a MT tax return (again, this violates my first assumption- that everyone cheats on their taxes). The UM study was flawed in its design and incomplete in its conclusions. I could argue that $100 spent in various establishments is better than $500 given to a single entity. Velocity of the money is what matters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What is this “staying in Montana” stuff? That is not a thing in economics. State economies are not self contained structures operating in a purely competitive way. What matters is how many times the money gets spent. If a group from WY drives to MT to hunt and stops at the Billings Costco to load up, that money doesn’t “stay in Montana”. The only think that helps MT budget is the ability to tax income or collect fees. If a guide is from CA he should still have to fill out a MT tax return (again, this violates my first assumption- that everyone cheats on their taxes). The UM study was flawed in its design and incomplete in its conclusions. I could argue that $100 spent in various establishments is better than $500 given to a single entity. Velocity of the money is what matters.

After 94 pages, I don't think many of us with a business background really buy what the outfitters are selling.

 

[YoungGun]

Does the amended bill state where the extra $300 for the early draw gets allocated?

 

[Gerald Martin]

After 94 pages, I don't think many of us with a business background really buy what the outfitters are selling.

After 94 pages what this thread is missing is pictures of cheese.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Does the amended bill state where the extra $300 for the early draw gets allocated?

As amended, the early draw fee would go to Habitat Montana, which was opposed by the chairman of the Senate Fish & Game Committee, as well as the bill sponsor & MOGA.

Meanwhile, the legislature again attacks Habitat Montana with more bills & diversion of funding.

So MOGA hates access & conservation easements, while trying to steal 60% of the NR licenses. Great look guys.

 

[Ben Lamb]

After 94 pages what this thread is missing is pictures of cheese.

We've been grooving on the Costco Jarlsberg lately.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, I misspoke on that. So the 40% in the early draw will probably sell out. If I was betting on it I’d say there is a good chance the odds are worse in the early draw.

I don’t think so. How I read the last amended version, all NR tags are in the first draw. For a participant to get in that draw, they pay $300. See Ben’s post on where $ goes. They don’t need to have an outfitter and no tags are allocated to outfitters. If a DIY NR pays the $300, they are in the draw. The odds can’t be worse. If all the tags are gone, the draw odds for those that didn’t pony up the $ are 0%.

 

[YoungGun]

As amended, the early draw fee would go to Habitat Montana, which was opposed by the chairman of the Senate Fish & Game Committee, as well as the bill sponsor & MOGA.

Meanwhile, the legislature again attacks Habitat Montana with more bills & diversion of funding.

So MOGA hates access & conservation easements, while trying to steal 60% of the NR licenses. Great look guys.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Carnage2011]

I don’t think so. How I read the last amended version, all NR tags are in the first draw. For a participant to get in that draw, they pay $300. See Ben’s post on where $ goes. They don’t need to have an outfitter and no tags are allocated to outfitters. If a DIY NR pays the $300, they are in the draw. The odds can’t be worse. If all the tags are gone, the draw odds for those that didn’t pony up the $ are 0%.

I’ll have to read that again. The way I understood it was 40% of tags would go into an early draw at $300 and anyone could apply. The other 60% would be in the regular draw in March. I’m assuming a pile of people will pay the extra and it will end up being easier to draw in the lower priced draw.

However, if all tags are in the early draw that changes everything.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Need to smoke some more.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I bet @JLS pronounces it gooooo-da.

Such a ruffian.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Everyone knows it’s pronounced gew-duh.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Perhaps then a license good for only public lands and one for only private land needs be created.
Perhaps a private land mule deer tag, a public land md tag, and a whitetail license, buck R&NR can only hold one buck tag per year.

Please don't urge the Legislature to create more new tag laws. FG Commission and FWP already can do that, as illustrated by hunting district rules such as shoulder season and other rules specifying taking elk only on private land or in other specified areas described in the regulations.

 

[SAJ-99]

I’ll have to read that again. The way I understood it was 40% of tags would go into an early draw at $300 and anyone could apply. The other 60% would be in the regular draw in March. I’m assuming a pile of people will pay the extra and it will end up being easier to draw in the lower priced draw.

However, if all tags are in the early draw that changes everything.

You are right and I was wrong. It is 40%. I have read a reread so many bills I can’t keep anything straight.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, I misspoke on that. So the 40% in the early draw will probably sell out. If I was betting on it I’d say there is a good chance the odds are worse in the early draw.

It looks like the undrawn tags and applicants who don’t draw move. So basically the $300 buys two bites at the same apple?