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

[WIbiggame]

So I just read this bill. Thanks @Big Fin for the link. And someone correct me if I am wrong but in reading it, aside from the 60% of licenses going to outfitters (huge crock) i had these 2 other questions:

1) 28.5% percent of all licenses sales will go into the account that pays for the public land access agreements? This sounds great but won't the people benefitting from this the most be the big ranches that are already leasing to outfitters?

2) Did they put 60% as the number of tags for the outfitter pool so high assuming they could show they are "compromising" when they "only" take 50%?

 

[Pucky Freak]

I emailed the one state senator (D) I have some kind of connection to. He’s not on the committee, but hopefully it at least raises awareness about the issue and how it could impact his constituents.

 

[timmy]

I don’t support it but I do recognize outfitters serve a purpose but should not get special treatment Even if they didn’t lease up private land the common hunter still wouldn’t get to hunt it. I’m not sure people understand that.

 

[Big Shooter]

Gevock....you need to get your facts straight before you start spreading lies and disconten! What you are saying is not factual and you know this. It is NOT creating Landowner tags and is NOT increasing any nonresident caps. Do your due diligence before attempting to herd the flock in your direction.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Screenshot from the bill - it would appear non-resident deer combos would increase from 4600 to 6600. So it is increasing non-resident tags. However, if you do the math laid out in the bill - 6600 total B-11 tags, 60% of which are reserved for outfitted hunters and 2000 of which are reserved for landowner-sponsored hunters...that's 5960 licenses. So there would be only 40 licenses out of 6600 left for regular folks? Admittedly I'm not sure I understand and interpret Legislation-speak....am I doing that math right? Because that seems ridiculous.

 

[Ben Lamb]

View attachment 171796


Screenshot from the bill - it would appear non-resident deer combos would increase from 4600 to 6600. So it is increasing non-resident tags. However, if you do the math laid out in the bill - 6600 total B-11 tags, 60% of which are reserved for outfitted hunters and 2000 of which are reserved for landowner-sponsored hunters...that's 5960 licenses. So there would be only 40 licenses out of 6600 left for regular folks? Admittedly I'm not sure I understand and interpret Legislation-speak....am I doing that math right? Because that seems ridiculous.

That's how I read it, and I think it's fairly clear that it increases licenses by 2000 & sets the 60% of licenses for outfitted dudes. It's an increase in the cap & it's a tag grab by outfitters. The licenses that are not sold to outfitters then go back into the general draw, for the poor folks who can't afford to hire an outfitter.

It also eliminates the Consumer Price Indexing that the legislature put in place a few years ago on NR tags, so MOGA can make up some math to impress committee members about how much revenue this will bring in for the Department.

 

[marksjeep]

640 remain, but still no bueno.

 

[huntin24/7]

Elkduds, so far you are about the only one who has it correct. This bill will decrease opportunity for on your own public land non-resident hunters, who compete directly with RESIDENT Montana public land hunters, looks like a win for residents.


I do not have time to go into the post Gevock put up from MWF, but I hopefully will be able to clarify some of the either outright lies, misinformation, or whatever that narrative is as soon as I have an hour to sit down. One thing I will clear up right out the gate, the bill DOES NOT create 2000 "new landowner license", those license have been around since '87, and went to 2000 in 1990.

It’s not a win for residents. A win for residents would be the tags being allocated more by unit and and region to residents and non residents alike for what each deer herd can support. Sorry man but you’re going to have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone of anything positive about this.

 

[Hunting Wife]

640 remain, but still no bueno.

Duh. This is what happens when I try to do math before coffee. Thanks.

 

[Browning Rifles]

The more I read on this bill the sicker I get. If our legislators pass this we all need to start looking for a new place to live because it will be very apparent that our state government doesn’t care about our economy and they can be bought. The nerve of the MOGA to think this is right or even makes a little sense is sad. This must be coming from these new young outfitters who want it handed to them and not have to work hard and establish a reputation so that getting paying customers is not an issue. Typical of today’s society...

 

[devon deer]

I have sent an email to each and every one on the committee, I sincerely hope this bill fails, and I will come back one day.
Best of luck Montanans
Cheers
Richard

 

[CUElk]

emails sent

Has anyone done any digging into the POLITICIANS that support this? connections to outfitters? I sure hope there are not any behind the scenes promises being made.... free hunts.

The more I think about this the madder I get. ALL big game hunters on this site that hunt Our public land need to get involved on this one, not just residents and non-residents that hunt Montana. This will have a snowball effect if it passes. These hunters will not just stop hunting, we will look for other places to hunt. Colorado, you think it is crowed there now, just wait; Wyoming, you think point creep is bad now, just wait; and so on...

 

[Big Shooter]

The 2000 Landowner Sponsored tags have existed for many, many years. Nothing new is being created NOR is any cap being raised. Here is some simple math that should better explain it.

4600 deer only tags + 2000 Landowner tags (that have been in place for years) = 6600 total
6600 x 60% = 3960
6600 - 3960 = 2640

Feel free to correct me if my math is wrong.

 

[Big Fin]

Thanks to all who are commenting here and emailing the committee members. I know a few folks on that committee and this bill has created a lot of "interest" when compared against other bills.

 

[Eprevost_tec]

A Canadian Perspective.....

Many Canadian provinces have this approach to outfitter dominance. Non residents need to use a guide in many cases, percentages of tags are allocated to outfitters to issue to their guests, etc. Here are the problems this has created.

- The requirement to use outfitters and tag allocation is justified on the basis of "economic development". The reality is that outfitter business barely scrape by, have very few employees and in all honesty don't generate any real economic opportunities to the local communities where they operate. To be honest, just allowing non residents to come on their own would generate more economic opportunity to local communities because they would use more hotels, restaurants, etc.

- In a number of cases, residents frustrate with poor draw odds, just to go to outfitters and purchase the tags they have. Its easier for the outfitter because they don't have to host and guide a non resident.

- In our Canadian constitution we can travel freely between provinces without restriction, and out public lands are public throughout the country. The allocation of wildlife is not for the benefit of the residents of each province, but the management of such is the responsibility of each province. Therefore, a moose in Ontario, BC or Alberta are all the same, owned by no one, but managed by the province. Yet for some reason, as an Ontario resident I cant hunt moose in Alberta without and Alberta outfitter. The laws and regulation dont make sense and only limit opportunity while doing little for wildlife management.

-Here is the worse, wildlife agencies are not funded by license sales. When you buy a license, your dollars go into general revenue for the provincial government. Then, at budget time, they allocate all their income to what ever agency they want. So there is no incentive for the wildlife agencies to do a better job to increase wildlife populations, increase hunter opportunity or recruitment, or do anything to promote hunting in any form. Its a very broken and flawed system.

Fight hard against this proposal. You have a great thing in Montana and we all need to fight hard to keep it. My hat is in the ring on this one, lets see the representative reaction when they start getting calls from Canadians......

 

[sneakypete]

As a non resident property owner and hunter I’ve emailed all representatives involved in this meeting! It’s hard enough to draw the big game combo as it is. This Bill makes it almost impossible!

 

[sneakypete]

Thanks to all who are commenting here and emailing the committee members. I know a few folks on that committee and this bill has created a lot of "interest" when compared against other bills.

Randy,
Thank you for bringing this up during Elk talk last night. I’ve already emailed all on the meeting list. As a non resident property owner and hunter If this Bill passes drawing will be almost impossible. ive already heard from one of the reps thanking me for my interest on this matter!
Again thank you!

 

[sneakypete]

contact the committee and explain how it affects you as a non-resident DIY hunter...be sure to mention that you spend your money locally at multiple businesses vs just 1 outfitter benefitting doesn't guarantee the money will be spent locally.

I did to all reps, not only as a non hunter but property owner!

 

[Nameless Range]

The 2000 Landowner Sponsored tags have existed for many, many years. Nothing new is being created NOR is any cap being raised. Here is some simple math that should better explain it.

4600 deer only tags + 2000 Landowner tags (that have been in place for years) = 6600 total
6600 x 60% = 3960
6600 - 3960 = 2640

Feel free to correct me if my math is wrong.

That math helps.


It’s an egregious amount of welfare and a principle that the people of Montana by a margin of over 26,000 votes, have already made plain their position against.

 

[stealthy_bowman]

The other aspect that I am sure is being overlooked by the Senate Fish and Fame council is that us NR Montana big game hunters also make trips to Montana outside of the hunting season to familiarize ourselves with an area. This is real economic activity that would largely go away with this bill.
In my case alone, over the years I have taken multiple summer flights to Montana for scouting purposes, therein contributing even further to the local economy outside of hunting season. Having a predominant outfitter NR model, would make this aspect also go away.
Another point is that this bill isn't even a financial question for many of us. Most of us that hunt DIY, do it for the challenge, I would actually pay more to continue DIY hunting, but will never use an outfitter to hunt the lower 48, even if it meant not hunting at all. It's just not fun for me having someone else do the leg work, that to me is 99% of the fun that comes from hunting. The actual shooting part is really just ancillary.