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

[sneakypete]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it. But as written now it will only lead to an expansion of outfitting, more private land being leased up, etc.

Agreed. Nonresidents and RESIDENTS need to be limited. The demand is higher than the resource, this bill is not the way to do it. People are going to have to sacrifice some aspect of opportunity.

The demand is bigger than the supply you say, yet Montana has shoulder seasons the run from sept thru January, hmmm. Also most units FWP says are near or over objective.

 

[WIbiggame]

@BWALKER77 ok so you say 17000 NR elk tags are to many? But yet would be ok with shifting 60% (10200) tags to outfitters for NR's to use as long as they went with an outfitter? Am I correct so far?

If I am correct in my above assumption than your theory or argument or opinion about the elk not being sustainable would be even more in question. If someone pays an outfitter to hunt most likely private land or camps that are scouted by people who live in the area than wouldn't the harvest rate increase thus making your already unsustainable resource even less so?

 

[BWALKER77]

The demand is bigger than the supply you say, yet Montana has shoulder seasons the run from sept thru January, hmmm. Also most units FWP says are near or over objective.

The EMP objectives are non sense and the shoulder seasons are a knee jerk response to all the havoc caused by the elk being pushed off public land and BM properties.

 

[BWALKER77]

@BWALKER77 ok so you say 17000 NR elk tags are to many? But yet would be ok with shifting 60% (10200) tags to outfitters for NR's to use as long as they went with an outfitter? Am I correct so far?

If I am correct in my above assumption than your theory or argument or opinion about the elk not being sustainable would be even more in question. If someone pays an outfitter to hunt most likely private land or camps that are scouted by people who live in the area than wouldn't the harvest rate increase thus making your already unsustainable resource even less so?

No, your not correct so far. For starters I never said I supported this bill

 

[timmy]

The demand is bigger than the supply you say, yet Montana has shoulder seasons the run from sept thru January, hmmm. Also most units FWP says are near or over objective.

Absolutely, the sooner that hunters realize they won’t get to hunt private land the better. Sure there might be elk/deer on private but the public land hunter will never get to hunt those animals (besides shoulder seasons). I don’t want to get this thread off track but you have to look at private land as not huntable. That is not going to change and this bill doesn’t address that. If you change season dates then we could start talking about screwing the outfitter, but until people realize you can’t rut hunt muleys every year with no consequences nothing is going to change and this bill has nothing to do with this, so back on track about the bill. Outfitters bad public hunters that expect to rut hunt muleys every year good.

 

[Carnage2011]

Poor choice of words. NR should not be limited as it pertains to using public lands, but they should absolutely be limited in harvest the states game. 17000/4600 permits is way to many IMO. Given Montana's preference for "Opportunity " it's just not sustainable IMO. To deal with the funding shortfall double the price of NR tags.
We simply cant go on pounding every inch of public and block management into the dirt, driving most of the game onto private lands. That benefits no one.

Double the price of the tag? Jesus we are trying to keep hunting affordable and you want 2k elk tags in MT? I agree we need less pressure on our elk and deer, but I’d be more in favor of doubling resident licenses than NR.

 

[WIbiggame]

In my opinion something must be done to limit NR use of public lands. If this bill also put a cap on outfitter client days ai would probaly support it.

This is you saying you would probably support it correct? As long as more restrictions got put on NR using public lands?

 

[BWALKER77]

Double the price of the tag? Jesus we are trying to keep hunting affordable and you want 2k elk tags in MT? I agree we need less pressure on our elk and deer, but I’d be more in favor of doubling resident licenses than NR.

Absolutely. I'd be fine with increasing the price of resident tags as well.

 

[WIbiggame]

Absolutely. I'd be fine with increasing the price of resident tags as well.

Not only are you against NR using the public land we all have a right to use but you are for privatization of a resource. Ok true colors are showing thank you.

 

[BWALKER77]

This is you saying you would probably support it correct? As long as more restrictions got put on NR using public lands?

I said that I would PROBABLY support it if outfitter client days were capped at current levels. Essentially you would force NR off public and onto private and limit further increases in lands being leased out for outfitting. And net more dollars for the economy of the state.

 

[BWALKER77]

Not only are you against NR using the public land we all have a right to use but you are for privatization of a resource. Ok true colors are showing thank you.

Use public land all you like, but the game is regulated by the state as we see fit. You have zero "rights" to harvest game as a NR.

 

[WIbiggame]

Use public land all you like, but the game is regulated by the state as we see fit.

Pretty sure the people of your great state spoke on this a few years ago and overwhelming made their voices heard.

 

[BWALKER77]

Pretty sure the people of your great state spoke on this a few years ago and overwhelming made their voices heard.

And how has that worked out?

 

[Eric Albus]

Subsidy (noun) a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Some of you must think that an outfitters service would be lowered or more competitive priced by having a license?

It is easy to cast stones when hidden behind an anonymous moniker on the internet.

I will agree that we have to many resident and NR sportsmen on accessible lands. Something does need to be done to limit the pressure on a finite resource.

 

[WIbiggame]

Seems to be working just fine. You now have more people applying than you do tags. So I'm not a business man but I think its a good think when demand is more than supply on something like licenses?

 

[BWALKER77]

Not only are you against NR using the public land we all have a right to use but you are for privatization of a resource. Ok true colors are showing thank you.

I am for limiting privatization, which already exists and for limiting over exploitation of public lands.
If you dont like the rules imposed on you as a NR how about moving here? Simple solution.

 

[WIbiggame]

I am for limiting privatization, which already exists and for limiting over exploitation of public lands.
If you dont like the rules imposed on you as a NR how about moving here? Simple solution.

Working on it and to put your words back to outfitters wanting this if they want "Guaranteed" tags why don't they just move to Idaho or New Mexico?

 

[BWALKER77]

Seems to be working just fine. You now have more people applying than you do tags. So I'm not a business man but I think its a good think when demand is more than supply on something like licenses?

When dealing with finite resources if demand out strips supply then you need to raise your prices.. as a business man.

 

[mtmuley]

Working on it

And then you will bitch and moan about non-residents. mtmuley

 

[WIbiggame]

And then you will bitch and moan about non-residents. mtmuley

I live in WI where we have a couple hundred thousand non residents come for 9 days every year to deer hunt. Trust me I wouldn't be complaining 21000 on the amount of public land you all have is absolutely nothing.