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

[BWALKER77]

At the end of the day, how much money a nonresident hunter spends in Montana should not be determinative of whether they should get a license. Their spending runs the gamut, from very little to quite a bit.

I do not as a resident feel any obligation to justify my hunting by spending money without a good reason. There are some trips where I buy fuel in town, go hunt and not spend a dime outside of my local area. Other trips, lasting longer, I might buy several restaurant meals, propane, groceries, hay and any miscellaneous item that was forgotten but needed.

How do you think it would go over if 30% of all resident hunters were mandated to use an outfitter? Outfitters are savvy enough to know that would be a bridge too far. The only reason this proposal is being made, is non residents can't vote, and they think resident hunters won't pay much attention.

Actually the only benifit to the residents of the State as it pertains to NR hunting is how much money NR hunters contribute. Other than that it's only negative.

 

[BWALKER77]

My money and time may go elsewhere.

Great! Take another 10k or so with you.

 

[Sasquatchewan]

It's funny because these people Big Fin is describing already have plenty of money to go on all sorts of wild hunts throughout the west, Alaska and Canada. A quick look at the IG of most of those guys and you will see tons of taxidermy for hunts you can easily pay 20,000 to 60,000$ (pictures from inside at 10,000 sq foot log house).

They are not contempt with that, they want to take away hunting opportunities for average Joes to hunt massive ranches with tons of protected animals while the rest fights on public for the remaining tags.

 

[hallywood 24-7]

If you wondered what kind of new bills would be pushed in the current Montana legislature, here is a sample. Reinstating the outfitter license that was done away with by citizens ballot initiative is back.

Full text of the bill is at this link - https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/SB0143.pdf

It is bad for residents and bad for self-guided non-residents.

Hearing the Senate Fish & Game Committee on February 2nd.

Here are the members of the Senate Fish & Game Committee:

Hinebauch, Steve (R) ‑ Chair
Brown, Bob (R) ‑ Vice Chair
Jacobson,Tom (D) ‑ Vice Chair
Blasdel, Mark (R)
Cohenour, Jill (D)
Ellsworth, Jason (R)
Flowers, Pat (D)
Hertz, Greg (R)
Howard, David (R)
Keenan, Bob (R)
McClafferty, Edie (D)

To find the email or phone number for your Senator, here is the link - https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/

I would strongly recommend you weigh in on this one.

Hey man so just going with your gut feeling which way do you think this bill will go?

 

[Eric Albus]

Drake those numbers are hunting outfitters, about half of which have fishing endorsement. I do not know the number of fishing outfitters, and I am not fishing endorsed(I would really hate myself if I guided fishermen all summer)

sneakypete, have to agree with you, our surveys in Montana do not amount to much. I was questioned about antelope and pheasants.

addicting, this will not make room for more outfitters. Outfitters are already limited by NCHU(net client hunting use) on private land, BLM, state lands, and FS special use permits(I don't outfit on FS) only so many days/permit holders/NCHU out there, limiting us. So there will not be any growth, as the fear mongers would have you believe.

highwild, this will not allow us to charge more. We've had no issue with clientele securing license since roughly 1993 when the VPL(guaranteed license) was created, and there was no rate great hike in pricing. The free market dictates what we can charge, Montana outfitters are in competition with every other state, Canadian province and Old Mexico to sell a hunt. The big difference is in Montana its a lottery for license. Most(not all) other states, provinces and Mx have a license to sell a prospective client.

In the aftermath of 161 outfitters had unlimited license, and could have expanded exponentially but did not. There will not be any expansion if this goes through. When we had huge undersells of license after 161, and I could have put up drop camps on private land next to BLM and turned a lot of hunters loose, unguided. I did not do this on account of caring about the resource. I can only see a downside to the NR DIY and absentee landowner if this passes. They will have a tougher draw on account of the percentage going to the outfitters. The upside see for the resident hunter is fewer NR on BMA's, BLM, CMR, and FS. More NR hunters go with outfitters the fewer resident hunters see in eastern Montana on accessible land.

The license is for guided hunts, not drop camps, one of the reasons after thinking about it last night I can support it.

After thinking about it and explaining what it does to my neighbor has come off the ledge as well and is only half pissed. His hunters get general draw license and hunt his ranch as well as all the BLM and BMA's in R6.

 

[tjones]

The license is for guided hunts, not drop camps, one of the reasons after thinking about it last night I can support it.

Shocking!

 

[Eric Albus]

Randy, you can prove that? Please do so, or is it just conjecture?

 

[Eric Albus]

Hope you didn't fall over from the shock TJONES

 

[406dn]

Actually the only benifit to the residents of the State as it pertains to NR hunting is how much money NR hunters contribute. Other than that it's only negative.

I don't think so.

Over the years my brother in law hunted elk with me a few times. That benefited this resident, if no one else. Also before my youngest brother moved out here, I hunted with him for something, most every year. So I have had direct benefit from non resident hunters coming to Montana.

I doubt that I am alone.

 

[Chad E]

In the aftermath of 161 outfitters had unlimited license, and could have expanded exponentially but did not. There will not be any expansion if this goes through. When we had huge undersells of license after 161, and I could have put up drop camps on private land next to BLM and turned a lot of hunters loose, unguided. I did not do this on account of caring about the resource.


I can only see a downside to the NR DIY and absentee landowner if this passes.

Lets be honest you didn't do this because their wasn't hunters to book these trips not because of some high and might concern for the resource. The reason tags went under sold in Montana is supply and demand. The price of tags was high, folks didn't have a lot of expendable income, and they didn't sell as well as they had previously. Trying to suggest that you could of easily sold drop camp hunts to people that weren't even buying the tag when it was available on surplus otc at Walmart is a pretty big stretch.

What about all the small businesses in Montana that currently make money from out of state DIY hunters? Do they not count because of the impact of the outfitters being all you care about? You continue to say that DIY guys don't spend much on out of state trips. I am one of those DIY guys that makes an emphasis to be frugal with my money by coming prepared, mostly camping out etc. I don't care how much you want to minimize it I still spend a good chunk of change a local businesses in Montana. From the obligatory stop in St Regis for huckleberry shakes gas and beer going both directions to the nights in the hotel because we were rained out of our primary area and needed to dry out and hit a wifi hot spot, to the "worlds best burger" at small town cafes and the untold dollars in beers at small town bars. I've never gone to Eastern Montana without stopping at the first major town in the area we are going(usually Miles City) and picking up all the things that we remembered we forgot in the course of the drive there. That's all coming from a group that again takes the frugal route. I know a whole lot of people that rent hotels or houses for their entire stay and eat out every meal. At least be honest with your arguments.

 

[WIbiggame]

Hope you didn't fall over from the shock TJONES

I saw this on another site and haven't seen it asked here and it wasn't answered there.
1) What happens to my license if I book with you pay my DP and then get my tag but cancel with you? Do I lose my license?
2) I book a hunt with you for a week dont get an animal and want to stay for another week diy do I lose my license?
3) I get a big game combo but only want to go outfitter for the deer part can I elk hunt diy?

 

[WIbiggame]

Actually the only benifit to the residents of the State as it pertains to NR hunting is how much money NR hunters contribute. Other than that it's only negative.

I think the resident friends i have made would argue with you. Believe it or not people still exist that find "benefit" in things other than the almighty dollar. Have met several people from MT while hunting a couple who have become great friends and hopefully soon will be coming to hunt deer on our farm in WI.

 

[Eric Albus]

I can see your point 406. After further study on this I don't know that this license will have much of a dent on the NR draw(been doing some draw odds figuring, I should have done this first, then I may not have made the claim it will hurt the DIY NR, or absentee landowner, not sure I like that but it is what it is).

These are not new license being created. These come out of the same NR pool. Outfitters have been enjoying a near 100% draw so odds will remain roughly the same. We are NOT going to get 60% of the take, I hear that it has already been lowered to 50% and we won't use that much(if we get this). If we do get 50% in an early draw the unsubscribed go into the general pool to the "unwashed masses" as Randy called them, keeping draw odds roughly the same. The biggest downside for the DIY NR is the CPI, 3% increase annually in license price. This will knock out the "unwashed masses" faster than anything. By 2025 B-11's will cost $1300+. This is what the pro 161 crowd asked for. Unintended consequence? Or very contrived?

 

[406dn]

Not that, if I was an attorney, would I want the cases, but it is easier to defend Wyoming's requirement for non resident hunters needing a guide in a wilderness area, than defending that a significant portion of nonresident tags are set aside for outfitters.

I think the movement to reverse the set aside licenses will commence before the ink is dry from Gianforte's pen, if that day ever comes.

 

[Eric Albus]

WI, If(and its a big IF) we get this, sideboards will be put on the thing later(were I in charge they'd already be in place). If this flies and you choose to go with an outfitter license you will have to hunt with an outfitter, and have a guided hunt. If you cancel with me you would have to hunt with another outfitter(although I don't know why anybody would not want to hunt with me, other than I am getting older, grouchier and crustier, so maybe I make the case to not hunt with me, those who do like me, but my wife can't figure out why). You would not be able to stay and DIY. The purpose of this is for guided hunts, and I can in no way see any upside for the R hunter, or NR DIY guy to turning someone loose with a license like this.

 

[WIbiggame]

I Outfitters have been enjoying a near 100% draw so odds will remain roughly the same. We are NOT going to get 60% of the take, I hear that it has already been lowered to 50% and we won't use that much(if we get this).

Than why do you need any????

 

[Eric Albus]

406 i have no doubt of that.

 

[406dn]

The biggest downside for the DIY NR is the CPI, 3% increase annually in license price. This will knock out the "unwashed masses" faster than anything. By 2025 B-11's will cost $1300+. This is what the pro 161 crowd asked for. Unintended consequence? Or very contrived?

If memory serves, part of the 161 pitch was that by clawing back the outfitter tags and the revenue they created for the BMA program, that the revenue would be made up with a price adjustment for all of the non resident tags.

Right or wrong, outfitters have a less than great relationship with resident hunters. My personal experience covers the spectrum from very positive to well, not too good.

There are reasons 161 passed, and they have not disappeared. It would not be the first or likely the last time the legislature nullified the will of the voters. Often it results in the voters again expressing their will.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, you can prove that? Please do so, or is it just conjecture?

Yes, I can prove it. In many ways. The activity of the last few days has made it very apparent, such that I am confident adding it to the discussion.

I'm not inclined to post emails, texts, or the notes of phone calls here on Hunt Talk any more than are the folks representing supporters of this bill who are making phone calls and face-to-face lobbying on behalf of their clients. So, even with your polite ask, I'm not inclined to post such. Those sources are 30 years of relationships and trust; trust I'm not inclined to violate.

If folks don't trust me and the relationships I have that confirm what goes on in Helena or DC, that's fine. I trust those sources and rely on them for how I position our platforms and our messaging. So far, so good.

One only has to look at who is contacting these Committee members and see who they represent in legislative and other business issues to see the connection. Those folks I refer to were well represented in the last week by their agents, beyond just phone calls.

And the fact that their agents are now weighing in, tells me how much pressure is being applied against this bill. This bill has a Senate, House, and Governor to get approval from. It will require a tremendous amount of political capital to overcome the huge grassroots effort that opposes this. Each group runs through their own political calculus of how they want to spend their capital and on what issues.

Nothing personal to you or Rod, as it seemed to be the last time the "fertilizer hit the ventilator" in 2013. Nothing personal to any of the other outfitters in Montana or across the west to whom I make many referrals each year. You've got a job to do and a position to advocate for. You've told us many times that your association is a business advocacy group. I get that.

My platforms have been built around a WHY of creating advocates for self-guided public land hunting, regardless of whether they are residents or non-residents. Every once in a while, our missions are at odds. This is one of them. I've learned my lesson from 2013. I won't ever again be that trusting, naive, and unprepared.

 

[Big Fin]

An email from one of the people who leads the trade industry group pushing this bill.

Thanks for sharing your message to Senator Moran with me.

While you are going to resist this notion at first, it is important to know that MOGA is likely your greatest advocate for non-resident hunting in Montana. This is a strange state politically and rest assured that those who have pushed their message to you do not have your best interest at heart.

I would agree 100% that access to our federal lands and the wildlife that they support is to be shared with all people. However, as a nonresident, the vary people who are resisting SB 143 the loudest, have made sure you are treated as a second-class citizen and MOGA has stood up countless times, often alone, arguing for non-resident opportunity for lions, deer and elk hunting opportunities. We have been the sole voce for non-resident hunting, and we have carried that message to Montana legislature and the FWP Commission. We are the ones that got removed from statue, derogatory assertions about nonresident hunters being the cause of litter, trespass and over harvest. We are the ones who have consistently argued that 10% of special harvest permits on federal lands is a slap in the efface to non-residents that account for 80% of the Fish and Game budget.

Public land outfitters are an important part of the Wilderness history in Montana. They do not seek to eliminate your access to Federal lands and nothing in SB 143 implies that. In fact, Wilderness outfitters are an exceptionally important part of connecting people with their national treasures. This is especially true for folks, unlike you, who do not have the equipment or skill to safely enjoy the backcountry we all treasure. In my 17 years of experience with MOGA it is my opinion the greatest threat to public lands access for any of us is Forest Service management and policies that are restricting our access. Closures of trailheads, trails and access roads. The poor timber management practices that have led to very unhealthy forest ecosystems and seem to burn out of control every summer. Please know that MOGA members treasure these lands as much as you do. We do not define seeing someone in the field as a competitor but as another person sharing those treasures with each other.

SB 143 is intended to provide stability to the Outfitting industry in a state where outfitted tourism is a very important part of the economy. Currently this industry is doing business by lottery, never knowing if they can hire people, borrow money for business, pay their bills, all because it is a lottery. SB 143 asks to have an early bite at the apple to create some certainty in booking. It is limited to up to 60% of the nonresident licenses by March 31. After that, all the surplus licenses go to a general draw. I don’t think the industry will use that many licenses. It has not grown in the last decade and on the Federal public lands it has declined due to decline in game populations. In all honesty, I do not believe you will see one percentage point change in your draw odds because for that to happen would require one of two things to happen, 1) the industry would have to grow in ways it has not done in the last 10 or 20 years, or 2) there is a massive and sustained influx in the number of non-resident hunters applying. Neither of these conditions are likely, at least in my view.

The largest threat to your NR hunting opportunity in Montana is that because of annual license fee increase by the Consumer Price Index (CIP) mandated by law you and many others will be priced out of the market. By 2025 the Montana non-resident elk deer combination license is projected to be priced at $1,131 without preference point purchase. SB 143 proposed to remove that CPI but the fiscal note came back as a loss of 2.7 million in revenue by 2025 so we had to abandon that. It would have made a big difference for all non-resident hunters.

When this is over, I suspect the 60% will get reduced and I know the CPI will be added back in. Ultimaly I do not think your fear of being excluded (beyond what nonresidents are now) will be a reality. I know you may not agree and that is fine. There is so much garbage and mis truth out there about this bill that I felt compelled to write to you personally and share my perspective.

Hope to see you in the woods someday.
Mac

Mac Minard
Executive Director
Montana Outfitters and Guides Association
5 Microwave Hill Road
Montana City, MT 59634