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

[FI460]

I’m fine with limited acquisition. I am for no net gain. I would rather see the state give up(sell) a piece that was not of critical concern in exchange for something more beneficial.
I could see my way to allow some gain were the piece of super value, like critical winter range and so on. The argument can be made “every piece Is critical” so a rigid requiem would need be set.
I realize many of you don’t feel the same way about no net gain. If you were mine or Rod’s boots you’d understand the reasoning. If I step back and look at it as a non landowning sportsman I’d be for the state buying more too, so I could have more free hunting/recreation.

What's your rationale for supporting no net gain?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m fine with limited acquisition. I am for no net gain. I would rather see the state give up(sell) a piece that was not of critical concern in exchange for something more beneficial.
I could see my way to allow some gain were the piece of super value, like critical winter range and so on. The argument can be made “every piece Is critical” so a rigid requiem would need be set.
I realize many of you don’t feel the same way about no net gain. If you were mine or Rod’s boots you’d understand the reasoning. If I step back and look at it as a non landowning sportsman I’d be for the state buying more too, so I could have more free hunting/recreation.

The Land Banking program already does this for State Trust lands, but Habitat Montana is for land that is owned by FWP like Wildlife Management Areas. It's also for conservation easements between willing sellers & the willing buyer (DFWP). The program has been wildly successful in conserving some the best wildlife habitat in MT. Now, with MOGA's help, the legislature is looking to not only take the weed money from sportsmen, but also cause the diversion of $28 million in PR funding through the game damage program that the chairman of House Ag is pushing forward.

Not Net Gain is simplistic and ignores the reality of land management. There is no scale to weigh the acre by acre acquisition, sale or trade on a short term, which is what No Net Gain calls for. Nop Net Gain also means there wouldn't be any more public land, because now HM wouldn't be able to leverage LWCF dollars to purchase new lands or easements.

No Net Gain is just a smoke screen for no new public land. That's unacceptable, especially since what this thread has devolved into is how bad public land can be for hunting, while locked up private is Nirvana.

 

[Eric Albus]

The Land Banking program already does this for State Trust lands, but Habitat Montana is for land that is owned by FWP like Wildlife Management Areas. It's also for conservation easements between willing sellers & the willing buyer (DFWP). The program has been wildly successful in conserving some the best wildlife habitat in MT. Now, with MOGA's help, the legislature is looking to not only take the weed money from sportsmen, but also cause the diversion of $28 million in PR funding through the game damage program that the chairman of House Ag is pushing forward.

Not Net Gain is simplistic and ignores the reality of land management. There is no scale to weigh the acre by acre acquisition, sale or trade on a short term, which is what No Net Gain calls for. Nop Net Gain also means there wouldn't be any more public land, because now HM wouldn't be able to leverage LWCF dollars to purchase new lands or easements.

No Net Gain is just a smoke screen for no new public land. That's unacceptable, especially since what this thread has devolved into is how bad public land can be for hunting, while locked up private is Nirvana.

Hmm, whose fault is that, the private “nirvana” vs public fiasco? Must be an outfitter.

“No new public ground”? Only
Place there is “new ground” of any sort is next to a lava flow, ie. Hawaii .

No net gain. It’s not a smoke screen, it is meant to keep gov’t entities from competing the private sector. How’d you like it if the state had a state funded consultation entity? Bet you’d sue them for competing in the private sector. How about if the state put a snow plow, dump truck and wheel loader in a private owned business parking lot and was cleaning up snow for free. Would that be ok?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Hmm, whose fault is that, the private “nirvana” vs public fiasco? Must be an outfitter.

“No new public ground”? Only
Place there is “new ground” of any sort is next to a lava flow, ie. Hawaii .

Eric, public access and over use is only a very small reason for the difference in game on private land vs. public.
In most locales, private land encompasses the riparian habitat and water since it was the most desirable habitat when the west was settled.
For the most part, what is now public land was the least desirable habitat in terms of food and water.
That difference in habitat is going to always tend to concentrate wildlife towards private over public.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hmm, whose fault is that, the private “nirvana” vs public fiasco? Must be an outfitter.

“No new public ground”? Only
Place there is “new ground” of any sort is next to a lava flow, ie. Hawaii .

No net gain. It’s not a smoke screen, it is meant to keep gov’t entities from competing the private sector. How’d you like it if the state had a state funded consultation entity? Bet you’d sue them for competing in the private sector. How about if the state put a snow plow, dump truck and wheel loader in a private owned business parking lot and was cleaning up snow for free. Would that be ok?

You realize you just walked backwards into opposing your own bill, due to government intervention to prop up one user group over another, right?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

You realize you just walked backwards into opposing your own bill, due to government intervention to prop up one user group over another, right?

C’mon Ben. It’s different.

 

[Eric Albus]

You realize you just walked backwards into opposing your own bill, due to government intervention to prop up one user group over another, right?

The state is already in competition with me, BMA leases directly compete with the outfitter, yet you hear no complaint from us on this. Very few other industries would tolerate state funded competition in the private sector.

 

[pyrotechnic]

Please explain why you shouldn't have to compete with the public for a public resource.

 

[antlerradar]

Eric, public access and over use is only a very small reason for the difference in game on private land vs. public.
In most locales, private land encompasses the riparian habitat and water since it was the most desirable habitat when the west was settled.
For the most part, what is now public land was the least desirable habitat in terms of food and water.
That difference in habitat is going to always tend to concentrate wildlife towards private over public.

While it may be true that the river bottoms are the place to be today, this wasn't the way I remember it when I was young. My father guided hunters in the 60's and 70's. He almost never hunted the river bottoms, unless he was after whitetails. He hunted mule deer in the hills because that is were they were. I spent most of the 80's and 90's back off the river looking for mule deer bucks because that is where you fond the best ones. The new found crush of mule deer on the river bottoms is a fairly new thing where I live and it corresponds nicely with the orange invasion starting in the mid 90's.

 

[timmy]

While it may be true that the river bottoms are the place to be today, this wasn't the way I remember it when I was young. My father guided hunters in the 60's and 70's. He almost never hunted the river bottoms, unless he was after whitetails. He hunted mule deer in the hills because that is were they were. I spent most of the 80's and 90's back off the river looking for mule deer bucks because that is where you fond the best ones. The new found crush of mule deer on the river bottoms is a fairly new thing where I live and it corresponds nicely with the orange invasion starting in the mid 90's.

Completely agree. Some of the best habitat in eastern Montana at least is on public. People need to look in the mirror to realize why the animals aren’t there.

 

[Eric Albus]

Completely agree. Some of the best habitat in eastern Montana at least is on public. People need to look in the mirror to realize why the animals aren’t there.

The best core habitat for mule deer in Reg 6 is public land. We have noticed a huge influx of mule deer into the Milk River, where even 10 year ago it was rare to see a mulie.

 

[Eric Albus]

Please explain why you shouldn't have to compete with the public for a public resource.

I never said I had a problem with the state and BMA. It was part of the win win created with the OSL. Outfitters got license, public got BMA private access. Then public crawfished and by listening to lies and half truths from the opposition took said license with a ballot initiative.

I guess if I was vindictive I would’ve attempted to lease every BMA I could’ve when we had unlimited license in the aftermath of 161.

 

[pyrotechnic]

I never said I had a problem with the state and BMA. It was part of the win win created with the OSL. Outfitters got license, public got BMA private access. Then public crawfished and by listening to lies and half truths from the opposition took said license with a ballot initiative.

I guess if I was vindictive I would’ve attempted to lease every BMA I could’ve when we had unlimited license in the aftermath of 161.

Thank you for responding. I'll have to take your word for how that went down as I haven't been paying attention that long. Although I would imagine the proponents of I-616 probably view it differently.

It would be nice if landowners, sportsmen, outfitters, and whatever other stakeholders could come up with a mutually beneficial solution(s) that any one group wasn't keen on changing immediately once it detected a shift in the balance of power. But this is politics, and that's probably a pipe dream.

 

[BuzzH]

I never said I had a problem with the state and BMA. It was part of the win win created with the OSL. Outfitters got license, public got BMA private access. Then public crawfished and by listening to lies and half truths from the opposition took said license with a ballot initiative.

I guess if I was vindictive I would’ve attempted to lease every BMA I could’ve when we had unlimited license in the aftermath of 161.

That cuts both ways, maybe its time to not cap the BM program on the amount of money that Sportsman can pay for a BMA.

Let the competition happen on a level playing field.

 

[Eric Albus]

That cuts both ways, maybe its time to not cap the BM program on the amount of money that Sportsman can pay for a BMA.

Let the competition happen on a level playing field.

I’d have no problem with that either.

 

[Eric Albus]

Give me back the license which was taken and if I fail it’s my fault.

 

[Schaaf]

SB 143 UPDATE

 

[Outdoor-enthusiast24]

Thank you for the info!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Keep your heads up. Reports are that they may try to add SB 143 to HB 637.

Latest I've seen is adding 1900 wilderness NR licenses, 30% of the b10 & b11 as well as an EO to give out unlimited B10's & B11's without changing current caps (illegal).

 

[Big Fin]

Keep your heads up. Reports are that they may try to add SB 143 to HB 637.

Latest I've seen is adding 1900 wilderness NR licenses, 30% of the b10 & b11 as well as an EO to give out unlimited B10's & B11's without changing current caps (illegal).

I sent emails this morning, expressing my opposition to these ideas. This might be even worse than SB 143 in its original form.