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

[Shangobango]

Emails sent.

I basically explained that my group spent several thousand dollars if you include tags, the money spent in the small towns of Broadus and Ashland that were close to the area I hunted, and also on my 2 trips back and forth to Billings while I was there, and that the money that I and others like me spend would be lost if this passes.

Hope it helps.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Except in New Section 3, Sub 3 B where the resident landowner sponsored tag gets used when there is oversubscription to the welfare tags you're looking for.

(b) If enough reserved licenses are not available to allow each resident landowner who owns 640
4 contiguous acres to sponsor one applicant, the department shall conduct a drawing for the resident-sponsored
5 licenses. However, a resident sponsor of a Class B-11 license may submit no more than 15 certificates of
6 sponsorship in any license year.

 

[Eric Albus]

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

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Nice partisan infusion Eric.

 

[mtmiller]

Thanks Obama.
DOW Jones

 

[MThuntr]

Now the outfitting community is seeking a way to stabilize business by having a license

Is that not subsidy?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I see we omitted a convenient fact. The reason outfitters didn’t run amuck after I 161 is because hunters realized outfitters were no longer necessary. @antlerradar has already hit upon this. Private leases became much more feasible when NR hunters didn’t have to rely on an outfitter for a tag.

 

[Lyfter1013]

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

So at the end of the day you are ok with setting the standard that hunting for Non Residents should be only reserved for those who are able and willing to pay for a guide/outfitter? That’s really a precedent that you are ok with setting just because it benefits you and your high priced clients? Is that really a good look and direction we want our hunting community to work towards? That’s the kind of thing that will kill hunting over time.

these are welfare tags when the government steps in to set aside tags that only benefits the outfitters to stay in business or “stabilize business” your words btw. How about if your business needs help from the government you need to rethink your business model and make changes or choose another business. Sorry to sound harsh but that’s how it is in the business world. If you can’t turn a steady profit it’s time to look elsewhere and reevaluate your business decisions.

 

[Eric Albus]

Mthntr, no it is not a subsidy.

JLS...What? Convenient fact? Come on. Private leased acreage declined after the audit performed by Board of Outfitters(do not confuse with MOGA), the BoO is state regulated and run, MOGA is business association privately funded and run(just to remind some of you).
Private leases did not become "much more feasible" to NR hunters or anyone else. Montana residents are leasing more hunting in the state than the outfitting community is by leaps and bounds.

 

[MThuntr]

Mthntr, no it is not a subsidy.

JLS...What? Convenient fact? Come on. Private leased acreage declined after the audit performed by Board of Outfitters(do not confuse with MOGA), the BoO is state regulated and run, MOGA is business association privately funded and run(just to remind some of you).
Private leases did not become "much more feasible" to NR hunters or anyone else. Montana residents are leasing more hunting in the state than the outfitting community is by leaps and bounds.

actually it isn't it's welfare...diverting (forcing) state resources to benefit a single industry for profit to a single industry.

 

[sneakypete]

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

Eric,
You may have many friends who don’t do what we do. My partner and I have spent between 25-30k on our property! In cities from Great Falls to Lewistown. We will continue to do so in the years ahead! As for the outfitting tags they’re has to be a better way, but this isn’t it! As far as your comment about paying trespass fee’s to land owners we’ll Never agree to that or allow on our property! As I stated earlier Montana has vast amounts of Public land and a great program Block Management.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

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.

100%

I have spent 2-3 weeks hunting each year for the last 6 years in montana on a general tag. I also typically come for a scouting/backpacking trip in the summer and now bring my wife along. The economic benefit i provide in 3 or 4 trips is much greater than what it would be booking with an outfitter.

 

[sneakypete]

100%

I have spent 2-3 weeks hunting each year for the last 6 years in montana on a general tag. I also typically come for a scouting/backpacking trip in the summer and now bring my wife along. The economic benefit i provide in 3 or 4 trips is much greater than what it would be booking with an outfitter.

Email the Reps! I’ve heard back from three this am already!

 

[Big Shooter]

So......attemping to stabilize a business that brings in, roughly, about $350 million dollars a year to the state of Montana in the form of tourism is a bad thing? Studies have been done recently that puts outfitting #4 in non-resident tourism dollars generated to the state of Montana, only behind food, fuel and lodging. Not sure that figure resonates with some of you that are independently wealthy....but that’s a huge figure in my opinion. I had to laugh at an earlier post when someone stated that the outfitter just puts his profits in his bank account. Well, very true fact....but it also goes out in the form of paying expenses, paying employees in the form of guides, cooks as well as landowner, who oddly enough, reside in Montana as well, and also pump that same money into the pipeline. As far as the argument about “non-resident” outfitters goes, great point....but that number is very minute and.....most of that money STILL stays in small communities in rural Montana.

 

[MThuntr]

So......attemping to stabilize a business that brings in, roughly, about $350 million dollars a year to the state of Montana in the form of tourism is a bad thing? Studies have been done recently that puts outfitting #4 in non-resident tourism dollars generated to the state of Montana, only behind food, fuel and lodging. Not sure that figure resonates with some of you that are independently wealthy....but that’s a huge figure in my opinion. I had to laugh at an earlier post when someone stated that the outfitter just puts his profits in his bank account. Well, very true fact....but it also goes out in the form of paying expenses, paying employees in the form of guides, cooks as well as landowner, who oddly enough, reside in Montana as well, and also pump that same money into the pipeline. As far as the argument about “non-resident” outfitters goes, great point....but that number is very minute and.....most of that money STILL stays in small communities in rural Montana.

Seems like a @350 million dollar industry is doing well enough without taking 60% of tags?

 

[Ben Lamb]

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




Signed,
Eric Albus, landowner/sportsman/outfitter

Yes, what you just wrote is truly revisionist history.

It's welfare, Eric. The outfitting industry is asking Montanans to give outfitters 60% of the resource so you can make a buck. I guess socialism is good for something, after all, right?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So......attemping to stabilize a business that brings in, roughly, about $350 million dollars a year to the state of Montana in the form of tourism is a bad thing? Studies have been done recently that puts outfitting #4 in non-resident tourism dollars generated to the state of Montana, only behind food, fuel and lodging. Not sure that figure resonates with some of you that are independently wealthy....but that’s a huge figure in my opinion. I had to laugh at an earlier post when someone stated that the outfitter just puts his profits in his bank account. Well, very true fact....but it also goes out in the form of paying expenses, paying employees in the form of guides, cooks as well as landowner, who oddly enough, reside in Montana as well, and also pump that same money into the pipeline. As far as the argument about “non-resident” outfitters goes, great point....but that number is very minute and.....most of that money STILL stays in small communities in rural Montana.

Name one other business where the gov't guarantees a customer base.

The only one I can think of is the insurance industry.

 

[MTLabrador]

Yes, what you just wrote is truly revisionist history.

It's welfare, Eric. The outfitting industry is asking Montanans to give outfitters 60% of the resource so you can make a buck. I guess socialism is good for something, after all, right?

Rule number one, it’s only welfare if the other guy gets it and you don’t.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Rule number one, it’s only welfare if then other guy gets it and you don’t.

Imma get a bill dropped that says if you want to lobby the legislature, you must hire an independent contractor to lobby. I'll be generous though, and say only 60% of those who want to be represented need to hire a contractor rather than do that themselves.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Name one other business where the gov't guarantees a customer base.

The only one I can think of is the insurance industry.

Tax accountants.