The Hertz questions about how this affects resident hunters & Nonresident spending is a perfect example of of a planted question. It only serves to further the supporter's narrative and isn't indicative of an honest approach wanting to know an answer
Non-resident outfitter license (MT) Bill is up for hearing 2/2/2021 (SB 143)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
Yep, plainly seen.
Addicting
Well-known member
5 to 1 needs to be actually accounted, the Charlie Daniels of the key board has some work for the next step if it makes it.
Marshian
Well-known member
Cheers to Senator Cohenour. The guy she just asked was awesome
chuckchili
Well-known member
I wondered that myself. Is that just the cost of using an outfitter? I would think a guided NR hunter would pay 10 times as much as a NR DIY hunter or even more. But that money doesn’t necessarily benefit the state of Montana, it benefits the outfitter only.
I thought the gentleman who was a NR large ranch owner who questioned if he had to hire an outfitter to hunt his own land was an effective point.
Judging by his last name, I am guessing that is Jim Posewitz’s son?
Marshian
Well-known member
So now that the hearing is over, what’s the next step? Modify the bill and do another hearing? When’s the vote?
They brought up that a guided hunter has 7 points of contact, thus spending more. I don't get that though. Other than paying for an outfitter, they go to less places during a trip than a DIY. They come in town, go off to the lodge or camp, and then leave.
There's some funny number crunching going on somewhere.
Bullshot
Well-known member
Watched the entirety. My takeaway is the false premise that the legislature needs to codify the “historical” allocation to outfitters. Outfitters have acheived that ratio under the current rules. Good for them. But this is either a bill that does nothing, or sets the FLOOR for future asks. Or demands. Which do you think it is? Once done, this will NEVER be undone. Prices of guided hunts will skyrocket. Leasing of lands will skyrocket. Commercialization of game will reign. It’s a trojan horse. Its not making outfitters AVAIlABLE to compete for clients who want them. Seems 40-45 % already are. Its REQUIRING hunters to use them regardless of the price, methods, ethics, or anything else.
Sorry for the caps, but unitended consequences here are not being discussed.
Also someone needs to scrutinize that 40-45% number. Seems WAY high.
Sorry for the caps, but unitended consequences here are not being discussed.
Also someone needs to scrutinize that 40-45% number. Seems WAY high.
Last edited:
MTelkHuntress
Well-known member
I was on board with the point until he said essentially "my elk on my land". Public resource on private land. But the point he made was understandable about having to have an outfitter and that he would sell his property before he paid for an outfitter on his own land.
7 Republicans, 4 Democrats.
It will take a few days for amendments to get drawn up. I would expect executive action as soon as Thursdy.
Last edited:
Just a point here, because I've seen other folks say this. The bill does not require 60% of NR combo lisence holders to hire an outfitter. It reserves 60% of the NR B10 & B11 combos for outfitter sponsored clients, so in effect, if you have an outfitter, you have a tag, so it just eliminates the democratic allocation of the resource for those who can purchase their way to the front of the line.
But it does not force 60% of the B10 & B11 license holders to use an outfitter. Any licenses leftover after the outfitter welfare tags are gone will go back into the pool for the poor schlubs to take.
There is still a lot of confusion on how this would work with Limited Draw areas.
Lol can we get them to use this language in the amended bill?
As a non resident to MT I don’t have a great grasp on things, but these are just the general tags correct? Is there a chance that outfitters in certain units may see clients not getting tags because a d different outfitters clients in the the same unit drew thus not leaving a tag available in the 60% outfitter pool?
Bullshot
Well-known member
If unused outfitter quota returns to the pool, I would agree that at least in theory put some limits on egregious outfitter misbehavior. would like a way for the masses to vote with their feet and wallet. But that would require truthful references, truthful advertising, and a lack of first timer idiots with more money than sense. Not holding my breath. The way things are going, there will be no leftovers, no accountability, and the state will be sponsoring a cartel. Even if that cartel includes some nice, hardworking individuals.
by the way, for those needed to see definition of a “cartel”
“an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition”
by the way, for those needed to see definition of a “cartel”
“an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition”
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounded like the outfitters were complaining that they had to tell clients that they didn't draw a tag, not that they didn't have enough clients. If they have more tags available to guided clients, they will get more clients, correct?
I would imagine that there won't be many leftover tags, so in essence, this does take away tags from NR DIY'ers.
- Status
