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

[Shangobango]

Name another western state where nonresidents can draw a 5 week rut hunt nearly every year. It’s time for a change. Hunters nonresident and resident need to be limited.

It seems pretty apparent that the rifle rut hunt up there needs addressing for the sake of the deer herds. Literally every time I do any research on deer in Montana the issue comes up.

Steering more non resident pressure onto private ground, which it seems to me this bill may do, doesn’t seem like a great idea, especially since some of that private ground is the only sanctuary that the deer have.

 

[tjones]

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?

Why does the outfitting business need to be stabilized?

Better yet what caused or how did the outfitting business become unstable?




Don’t blame I161

 

[Bullbrl]

I heard Randy mention this on the podcast the other day...thanks for bringing this up. Besides sending emails or phone calls is there anything else us NR can do?

I hunted Montana for the first time 2 years ago and would love to come back soon but this really puts a wrench in those plans. I didn't read through all of these posts but correct me if I'm wrong but won't this mean it will take even more points for an NR to draw?

I'm sorry to say but this is a big crock of sh*t.

 

[Bullbrl]

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.

I just want to make sure I'm reading this right...you're saying the hunting outfitter business brings in $350 million dollars a year? Or is that all tourism combined?

I'd like to see the $$ difference to the state of Montana if this passes. Does 60% tags going to outfitters bring in more money versus keeping it the way it is? If the state makes more money with the allocation the way it is now, then the only logical reason to change it is somebody has called in a favor.

BTW, I've only hunted Montana once but for that one hunt we went over for 4 days of scouting, stayed in a motel, ate and drank at the local bar each night, bought our fuel, etc. etc. That was just our scouting trip. We bought all our food/beer/incidentals for our hunt in the local town and on our way out of town we stopped at Scheels in Great Falls and spent over $300 on crap we didn't need. I'm sure we're not the only NR's that do that and I would think money coming into the state would be important, but maybe not.

 

[Big Shooter]

TJones......it becomes unstable when an outfitted client cannot draw a license and therefore his/her nonresident tourism money does not get put in the pipeline that ultimately gets circulated through out community businesses in Montana.

BullBrl....the $350 million is just outfitting....that is correct.

 

[Bullbrl]

TJones......it becomes unstable when an outfitted client cannot draw a license and therefore his/her nonresident tourism money does not get put in the pipeline that ultimately gets circulated through out community businesses in Montana.

BullBrl....the $350 million is just outfitting....that is correct.

Outfitters for just hunting? From what I read, you're number encompasses all types of outfitters (hunting, fishing, rafting, horseback, etc). So, what is the number just for hunting?

Does an outfitted client add more to the "pipeline" under this bill or does the 20% reduction in non-outfitted offset that? Or does the 20% reduction in non-outfitted NR hunters result in a net loss in the pipeline?

The other thing I keep hearing is that there are less animals and land is getting overrun. If that's the case maybe Montana should take a hard look at all the tags they are issuing. If it's truly as bad as some on this thread make it out to be then maybe they should eliminate OTC tags and make the whole state draw for everyone.

 

[BWALKER77]

So wouldn't a really good start being mandatory harvest reporting? You and I have been talking about a finite resource yet neither of us really know how finite or not those resources are.

That is one of the weirdest things for me still is that I don't have to call in a harvest.

The state does a pretty decent job with post season surveys.

 

[Wayne_Brent]

Sent emails and kindly let them know that I think this is a crock of sh*t.

As a NR who has hunted Montana mulies, since the early 90s, I would be on board for changing season dates and reducing B tags for the betterment of the herd.

This bill has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with lining someone’s pockets.

 

[Hunting Wife]

TJones......it becomes unstable when an outfitted client cannot draw a license and therefore his/her nonresident tourism money does not get put in the pipeline that ultimately gets circulated through out community businesses in Montana.

BullBrl....the $350 million is just outfitting....that is correct.

Wait a minute...if they can’t draw a tag, it means other people drew all the tags and put their non-resident money into the pipeline and circulated it through community businesses instead. Money going into the pipeline is perfectly stable.

What this bill does is force the consumer to put their money into the pipeline through specific businesses, thereby guaranteeing clients for that industry. If you mean “stabilize” as in guarantee clients have to use your industry then yes I guess it does that.

Also, I assume you got the the $350 million figure from one of the annual reports out of U of M? As far as I can see, that figure includes all guide/outfitter services, not just hunting. So anyone who booked a guided whitewater rafting, snowmobile, wildlife viewing excursion would be lumped in as far as I can tell. I suspect the dollar figure for hunting outfitters would be much lower. The report also has no way of seeing how much unguided hunters brought into the state. Unless there’s a more detailed and specific report out there somewhere, it would be pretty difficult to make any meaningful comparisons from these data. If anyone has better data, please post it.

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=itrr_pubs

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I’m willing to bet a twelve pack of beer that NR fishing clients bring in far more money than do hunting clients.

The money is going into the pipeline regardless of outfitters.

 

[Whiskey3]

Randy, thanks for bringing this up. Gonna be a sad day for NR Hunters if this one passes.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Randy, thanks for bringing this up. Gonna be a sad day for NR Hunters if this one passes.

It’ll be a sad day for resident hunters as well. It’ll just take some of them years to recognize it.

 

[MTGomer]

The state does a pretty decent job with post season surveys.

This is sarcasm right?

I keep missing their call but they called me as recently as last week to ask about my elk hunting from last year.
I turned my tag in for a refund in late July.

 

[WIbiggame]

This is sarcasm right?

I am hoping it was too. I have hunted in MT 8 years been called 1 time. I hunt with the same 2 guys and between us 2 calls.

 

[tjones]

TJones......it becomes unstable when an outfitted client cannot draw a license and therefore his/her nonresident tourism money does not get put in the pipeline that ultimately gets circulated through out community businesses in Montana.

BullBrl....the $350 million is just outfitting....that is correct.

But the tags sell out anyway. So a NR hunter is still coming, still buying food and fuel. The only thing missing is him have to line the pockets of outfitters looking for the state to provide them with clients.


Seems to be a poor business model if it takes the state to provide the business with guaranteed clients to keep that business stable. Your words not mine.

 

[Ben Lamb]

But the tags sell out anyway. So a NR hunter is still coming, still buying food and fuel. The only thing missing is him have to line the pockets of outfitters looking for the state to provide them with clients.


Seems to be a poor business model if it takes the state to provide the business with guaranteed clients to keep that business stable. Your words not mine.

If a $350 million industry that prides itself on such economic activity can't make ends meet without getting gov't assistance, then perhaps we should be drug testing & means testing these outfitters so we know they're not pulling one over on the citizens of Montana.

 

[CUElk]

I am hoping it was too. I have hunted in MT 8 years been called 1 time. I hunt with the same 2 guys and between us 2 calls.

Yep. Been coming with the same group for 15 years, received 2 calls with a group of 4 for most years.

I agree the license program needs to change to improve elk and deer herd, but this is the wrong way.

In my opinion they need a complete overhaul and use Wyoming as a model.

 

[Eric Albus]

JLS, you have it figured right, NR fishing is a bigger business than hunting, as they take multiple many times the number of clients hunting outfitters take. Hunting alone is a 350 million dollar injection into Montana's economy. The university that did the study uses a multiplier of 7 to figure how many times that dollar is spent, so actual figure is 350 divided by 7. It fairly easy to figure out, there are about 8000 NR license holders booking hunts with outfitters, take this at a $6500 average and do the math and use the university multiplier of 7.
6500 is probably a little low when you figure total expenditure. The university lumped hunting clients into their study and did not do a stand alone.

Whomever made the comment(think is was walker?) "lets be honest, DIY NR's spend very little" you were very correct. I have talked with a lot of NR DIY guys and asked them how much they were spending on their trip to Mt. "Way to much" was the resounding comment, by the time we get home, counting license $1200(lowest) to $2200 (highest). Most brought all their gas/groceries/camper/tents from Wa. Mn. and so on. Thank you to those who do stay at local motels and eat at local diners and restaurants, we who live in Montana appreciate it.

If this passes the DIY NR is the loser as is the absentee NR landowner, I can see no downside to the resident hunter. Most(not all) of the hunters going with an outfitter are not competing with Mt. Resident hunters on accessible lands. That said there are still to many NR and Resident hunters pounding accessible land, and that needs addressed. The management of wildlife in Montana needs an overhaul.

If passed this bill will help to keep family business' viable. Most Montana outfitters are Montana born and raised. We have families and strong ties to our communities. We do give back, check out our Big Hearts Under the Big Sky program(feel free to make a donation). Montana outfitters donate hunts to every sportsman's group from DU to RMEF. I have personally donated many hunts to DU, MDF, SCI, PF, and several others over the last 20 years.

 

[Buffs35]

Bold strategy following New Mexico's lead. Let's see if it pays off.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If this passes the DIY NR is the loser as is the absentee NR landowner, I can see no downside to the resident hunter. Most(not all) of the hunters going with an outfitter are not competing with Mt. Resident hunters on accessible lands. That said there are still to many NR and Resident hunters pounding accessible land, and that needs addressed. The management of wildlife in Montana needs an overhaul.

If passed this bill will help to keep family business' viable. Most Montana outfitters are Montana born and raised. We have families and strong ties to our communities. We do give back, check out our Big Hearts Under the Big Sky program(feel free to make a donation). Montana outfitters donate hunts to every sportsman's group from DU to RMEF. I have personally donated many hunts to DU, MDF, SCI, PF, and several others over the last 20 years.

1.) Moving towards a privatized resource won't help wildlife mgt in MT. There are issues related directly to the outfitting industry that show increasing NR bull harvest just increases cow populations with no real way to manage the herd. This bill does nothing to address the inequity in elk hunting in MT, nor does it do one damned thing to manage elk properly. It only provides a handout to an industry that prides itself on rugged individualism. To claim that this will help wildlife mgt in Montana is either one of the most ignorant statements I've seen made (And that's not really who you are, Eric, as we've had a lot of these conversations about what actual mgt would look like) or it's a cheap ploy to tug at heartstrings.

2.) These family businesses are a $350 million industry, according to your studies. There are no other family businesses that are requiring a gov't mandated client base to do their job. I'm thankful you donated those hunts, and Big Hearts is a great program, but to try and lay all of that out as some kind of benevolence when it's really marketing & PR work is again a cheap ploy to pull at heartstrings. Are you going to tell us kids will starve next?

I've seen more new trucks and KUIU at a MOGA convention than at any BHA event. Perhaps if you guys didn't all own $75K trucks & $10K in camo, you'd have better financial stability.