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

[Ben Lamb]

I am not shocked and it was truly a good experiment when I brought out the fact that one of the “opponents” to this bill runs a Hunt Club in YOUR state, taking in hunters and charging for it.......but it appears you all turned a blind eye to it which did NOT shock me in the least bit. There are bigger demons out there that some of you fail to recognize and those are Hunt Clubs and illegal outfitters. if you think they don’t exist your could not be more wrong. When we kicked the door open and walked into the room naked and asked for 60%, that was quite bold on our part, but open your eyes to the fact that there are PLENTY of other things going on out there that affect you as much or more than this bill.

Wait, so this guy's business model deserves to be cratered in order to support yours?

I agree that the hunt clus, leasing by residents & NR's, etc is a huge problem. How does making access to animals MORE exclusive help that?

 

[rmyoung1]

So far this conversation has focused only on the effects of NR’s trying to draw a general tag. The effects don’t stop there. This bill will also have a negative impact on a DIY NR’s ability to draw a special permit for a limited area since a general tag is a prerequisite for being able to draw a permit.
Even though he can buy bonus points he will only have the possibility of drawing on years he draws a general license.
An outfitted hunter is going to have an advantage since he is guaranteed to be entered in the special permit draw every year since his prerequisite tags are guaranteed.

This is a really, really good point. Think of the benefits if the special permit application was decoupled from the general tag prerequisite (e.g. Wyoming). There are quite a few NRs every year, I’m sure, that just turn that general tag back in if they don’t get the limited permit they were hoping for. It would definitely free up those general tags for NRs of all persuasions (DIYers or guided folks), which would help the “stability” issue in the general tag draw, right? Obviously not to the extent MOGA is seeking, but it’s low-hanging fruit, for sure.

 

[Wildabeest]

I am not shocked and it was truly a good experiment when I brought out the fact that one of the “opponents” to this bill runs a Hunt Club in YOUR state, taking in hunters and charging for it.......but it appears you all turned a blind eye to it which did NOT shock me in the least bit. There are bigger demons out there that some of you fail to recognize and those are Hunt Clubs and illegal outfitters. if you think they don’t exist your could not be more wrong. When we kicked the door open and walked into the room naked and asked for 60%, that was quite bold on our part, but open your eyes to the fact that there are PLENTY of other things going on out there that affect you as much or more than this bill.

Deceive, distract and deflect. The strategy to deploy when you don’t have a defensible position. I guess writing that was much easier than defending your math.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Deceive, distract and deflect. The strategy to deploy when you don’t have a defensible position. I guess writing that was much easier than defending your math.

Like this:

Section 4. Section 87-1-295, MCA, is amended to read:

"87-1-295. Public access land agreement -- terms -- application fee. (1) A public access land agreement may be granted only to a landowner who is providing access across the landowner's land to public land that is leased by the landowner or to public land for which there is no leaseholder. An agreement may not include land for which the landowner is also compensated pursuant to 76-17-102 or 87-1-294.

(2) The department shall negotiate the terms of a proposed public access land agreement with the landowner. Negotiable terms include:

(a) the amount of compensation, not to exceed $15,000 annually, and the duration of the agreement;

(b) improvements to the land provided by the department that may facilitate public access;

(c) the location of the access and the transportation mode by which the public may use the access;

(d) time periods when the access may and may not be used; and

(e) penalties for trespassing on private land not covered by the agreement.

(3) The private land/public wildlife advisory committee appointed pursuant to 87-1-269 shall review proposed public access land agreements and make recommendations to the department. The department shall consider the recommendations when issuing agreements.

(4) The department may revoke a public access land agreement for a violation of the terms of the agreement.

(5) The restriction on liability of a landowner, agent, or tenant that is provided under 70-16-302(1) applies to a landowner who holds a public access land agreement.

(6) (a) A landowner who proposes a public access land agreement to the department shall pay a $5 application fee, which.

(b) All application fees must be deposited in the department's general limited outfitted Class B-10 and Class B-11 license account established in [section 2].

(7) The department may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this section."

This would actually chill the number of people who would go after PAL act agreements. When we wrote this in 2019 (MOGA signed off on this bill, btw) we wanted to use PAL as added incentive to landowners who may lease their land, but wanted to provide access to landlocked public land. The version of the bill that is current eliminates that incentive for landowners who lease to either outfitters, hunt clubs or individuals. This would severely limit those landowners who wish to allow access to public lands through the PAL act, and it reduces the number of incentives overall by eliminating the MTPLAN and Unlocking Public Lands programs from being allowed for PAL act agreements.

So if you're looking for that smoking gun of how it will hurt Resident opportunity - here it is. They're weakening PAL while putting more money into it at the same time.

 

[Badger_55]

Because the number of DYI public land hunters in certain areas is out of controll.

Than go hunt your state land so you don't have to deal with us. I agree sounds pretty selfish.

 

[Jwill]

Since the hearing is public record, I thought people might like to know the 46 folks who, forlorn and hat in hand, voiced their support for this bill at the first hearing. By order of appearance:

Jason Ellsworth - Senate District 43
Scott Kerns - House District 23
Chuck Rein - Montana Outfitters and Guides Association
Mac Minard - Montana Outfitters and Guides Association
Dusty Crary - 7 Lazy P Outfitters
Donna McDonald - Upper Canyon Outfitters
Eric Albus - Milk River Outfitters
Garrett Hanson - K Bar L Ranch
Richard Powell - Cody Carr's Hunting Adventures
Cris Gentry - Madison Foods & Madison Smokehouse, Ennis, MT
John Way - Montana Way Outfitters, The Tackle Shop, Ennis, MT, Montana Board of Outfitters
Raylee Honeycutt - Montana Stockgrowers Association
Roy Jacobs - [citizen whom I presume just hates non-residents]
Sandy Sallee - Black Mountain Outfitters
Amy Mills - Mills Wilderness Adventures
Charles Denowh - United Property Owners of Montana
Craig Neal - Broken Hart Adventures
Joseph Haas - A Lazy H Outfitters
Paul Ellis - Sunday Creek Outfitters
Rich Birdsell - Northern Rockies Outfitters
Scott Sallee - Black Mountain Outfitters
Cody Carr - Cody Carr's Hunting Adventures
James Whitescarver - Montana Rivers and Ridges Outfitter
Phillip Bowers - Lone Wolf Guide Service
Brett Landwehr - Landwehr Outfitters
Lanae Guyer - Dome Mountain Ranch
Dylan Johnson - 7 Lazy P Outfitters
Skip Halmes - Lepley Creek Outfitters
Kenny Low - K Lazy 3 Outfitters
Wes Sargent - Cayuse Hills Outfitters
Cameron Mayo - Absaroka-Beartooth Outfitters
Brian Mills - Mills Wilderness Adventures
Charlie Rein - Rein Anchor Ranch
Lydia Sargent - Cayuse Hills Outfitters
Lisa Leyo - Leyo Outfitting
Turk Mills - Mills Wilderness Adventures
Joel Leyo - Leyo Outfitting
Travis Barker - Ford Creek Ranch
Scott Vollmer - Scott Vollmer Outfitting LLC
Rod Paschke - Sizzlin’ S Outfitters
Michael Beattie - Big Racks of Montana [don’t google search for this on your work computer…]
Bruce “Butch” Galespie - Senate District 9
Wagner D Harmon - Montana River Ranch
Colter Heckman - Montana Safaris
Tim Linehan - Linehan Outfitters
Todd France - Blast N Cast Outfitters

I'd like to give a gold star to the following outfitters for having more than one person from the same outfitter show up to voice their support for the bill, but not back-to-back in the line of course, lest the committee members recognize the common last name or ranch brand on their shirt :

7 Lazy P Outfitters
Cody Carr's Hunting Adventures
Black Mountain Outfitters
Mills Wilderness Adventures
Cayuse Hills Outfitters
Leyo Outfitting

Not that they'll miss me, but guess I should cross that future family summer wilderness adventure with Mills of the wish list. Same with spending any cash at Madison Foods or the Tackle Shop next time I'm out...

 

[Big Fin]

I've always considered myself well versed in the western drawing processes. Maybe I am wrong to be confused when this bill is promoted based on the sponsor saying Montana's non-resident draw for the B-10/B-11 tags is a lottery. Or when many of the proponents claimed they have no predictability of who will draw and when.

Not sure I understand how a true preference point system is a lottery. A lottery is random and unpredictable. A preference point system is designed to remove the randomness and make it entirely predictable.

Through 2018, MT non-resident draw odds were 100% at all point levels. In 2019, everyone at 1+ point drew. In 2020, everyone at 2+ drew. And as a bonus, two-thirds of the those with less than 2 points drew in the second draw for returned tags. See below:



Only way that someone doesn't know if a client will draw is if they are ignoring the data and ignorant of how preference point systems work. It is not rocket science, it's not even fractions for long division. It requires being able to count to two (2).

It seem that if you want to book your clients, you work with client with enough points and you know they will draw. That is how PP systems are designed. There is nothing random about that. It is not a lottery, in spite of what this bill sponsor and some proponents testified.

Are outfitters not aware of how a preference point system works?

Or, are they just working with any client at any point level and now they are upset that only two-thirds of non-residents below that point level end up with a bonus by drawing a tag in the reallocation of returned tags?

The Wyoming outfitters have been dealing with non-resident preference point systems for 15 years. It works well for them. They must know how draw systems work. It is completely predictable based on point levels required to draw. And they don't even have the bonus of reallocating a ton of returned tags to the lower point holders.

Wyoming outfitters work with clients to make sure they are building points. If the client is a point short, they work with them to get another point and they will draw the following year. If the client is two points short, they work with them to keep building points and know they have a predictable client two years from now.

Maybe someone can explain the comments at the hearing that the MT draw is somehow a "lottery," when it is really a highly predictable process if one uses the information that is right in front of us.

Or, how is it that Wyoming outfitter like a preference point system and they use it to provide predictability and stability to their businesses; not just for this year, but for years ahead for clients they are helping build points?

Interested in comments as to how other outfitters in other states with non-resident preference point systems prosper, but in Montana that same system is so bad for outfitters that they think the legislature should overturn a ballot initiative passed by the citizens.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think I found a scenario where I am willing to support a guaranteed number of tags for outfitters.

It will be in a bill with language similar to this.
“ Outfitters shall be guaranteed 25% of NR licenses at the 2021 tag numbers available on a first come first serve basis. Outfitter sponsored licenses will not be valid for hunting without an outfitter. Hunting with an outfitter will only be allowed by hunters holding an outfitter sponsored license and outfitter sponsored licenses shall be limited to 25% of the total nonresident licenses available in 2021.”

There’s economic predictably for you.

 

[El Jason]

What exactly do you mean by hunt club?

Someone charging trespass fees or is there more to it than that?

That's the basic gist of it.

It's nothing new. It was going on in the late 90's with landowner sponsored deer tags. You could get sponsored so you got the deer tag, then you agreed to "rent the cabin" for the week so you could hunt.

It's no surprise that private hunt club arrangements increased after I-161. I'm not very often right in my predictions, but I did foresee that one as an unintended consequence because tag demand was low for several consecutive years and folks could by them OTC. How much was the impact on BMA enrollment? No idea, but I'm sure it was some.

Honestly, all of this mental masturbation about tag numbers and applicants and such is completely missing the bigger picture. It's too bad energy is being spent on this instead of really trying to figure out how to more effectively manage wildlife across public and private lands, and provide quality opportunity in the process.

 

[mtmiller]

I've always considered myself well versed in the western drawing processes.

Man I wish you were up for a few libations and we could have a truly "unfiltered" podcast. Just a little humor. I just want to see unprofessional Randy. Good thread and everyone is playing nice. Good info.

 

[El Jason]

There are bigger demons out there that some of you fail to recognize and those are Hunt Clubs and illegal outfitters.

There is a kernel of truth to this, in that it does create more strain/demand on a resource, which then ultimately affects everyone. In the bigger picture, however, it creates competition for outfitter services when they aren't protected and propped up by big government.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am not shocked and it was truly a good experiment when I brought out the fact that one of the “opponents” to this bill runs a Hunt Club in YOUR state, taking in hunters and charging for it.......but it appears you all turned a blind eye to it which did NOT shock me in the least bit. There are bigger demons out there that some of you fail to recognize and those are Hunt Clubs and illegal outfitters. if you think they don’t exist your could not be more wrong. When we kicked the door open and walked into the room naked and asked for 60%, that was quite bold on our part, but open your eyes to the fact that there are PLENTY of other things going on out there that affect you as much or more than this bill.

From my view there are 3 NR customer bases -- (1) those who for personal or financial reasons want a fully DIY public lands experience, (2) those who want/need the full service outfitted experience, and (3) those who want to reasonably and efficiently access private land but do not want the outfitter service - they want a DIY hunt but are willing to pay an appropriate fee for access.

That 3rd segment is the one most screwed by the advancement of an increase in outfitter activity. If an $8,000 guided hunt provides a wall tent or lodging (but you already have your own and don't want to use theirs) + a guide (but you don't want to spend your week with a stranger you just want to hunt with your son/daughter) + food (but you like the camp cooking experience that is part of the tradition) + private access. So most of what you are paying for you don't want/need. In fact it actually reduces your enjoyment of the activity. It's like if I wanted to buy an iPhone, but Apple would only sell me an $800 iPhone bundled with a $1200 ipad I didn't want and a $2,000 iMac I had no space for.

For this group, the outfitting trend increases cost of accessing private land dramatically and at the same time reduces the joy/value of the activity - it's lose-lose for this group. It is this group that drives the Hunt Club/group lease activity. And why is this 3rd group's preference any better or worse than those of the other two groups? They relieve pressure from public by diverting off a group of hunters, can still be advocates for good wildlife management and our public lands, bring $ into the local economy and pay the land owner for their use (and as a capitalist I have no probem with that), and have no advantage in drawing tags. The only folks that are negatively impacted are the outfitters who can't force their (for some) unwanted upsold services by tying them to land access.

Base on a general sense of fairness and public resource management, I object to the proposed bill. Based on my distaste for chrony capatilism and having goverments pick which businesses win and which lose, I object to the proposed bill. Based on the distraction from actual solutions to the problems facing modern hunting I object to the proposed bill. And, as someone who sometimes wants to do a DIY public hunt but sometimes would like to do a DIY private hunt, but never want to hunt with a stranger, I object that this bill will drive even more private land to become controlled by outfitters.

But as a MN resident my opinion counts zero. From an outsider's view, WY is still the best value in hunting and it appears MT is in a death spiral - would be good to work together to fix that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's nothing new. It was going on in the late 90's

The 1890's . . .

 

[Finnman]

Ben, I have been hunting Montana since 1991. Quality has dropped precipitously. Crowding on public land has increased precipitously. Something really should be done.

I'm the guy with 13 points and I've been hunting Montana since the 80's. Used to live in Boulder, Townsend and Roundup. Have relatives all over the state. But now I'm one of those dam NR's.

 

[Eric Albus]

I think the point big shooter was making with regards to the hunt club people testifying in opposition is this: Non-resident leases several small Montana ranches, charges people a fee to hunt said ranches when the club shoots the ranch out, "the hunt clubbers" go and compete with resident & NR DIY guys on accessible lands.

and here I was not going to comment further.

Greg, the 45% take is high in my estimation of what has ever been used by outfitters. Others in the organization come up with that number. I come up with a use level of 35% roughly, but this is with old data. I am hoping that BoO will come up with current use numbers. 60% was insane to ask for no question.


Ben, were I in charge we'd have sat down w/ the opposition and had a civil discussion. Unfortunately for all I am not King(I might be were it not for the Achilles heel, Miller Lite)

On a really happy note, Area 652 LE permits for mule deer have been upped!! 200 hunters can now participate this fall. This is an area with a 110:100 buck doe ratio according to FWP.

I would almost be willing to bet that there are not 200 md bucks in 652. A 110-100 buck doe ratio? Must be same math outfitters use.

 

[Big Shooter]

So.....you fellas are telling me that you SUPPORT Hunt Clubs, which at the end of the day lease private as well as operate on YOUR public ground?? I will guarantee that most of you on here are not familiar with the rules and regulations that pertain to outfitters, and I get that. I personally think there should be more as it will have ZERO affect on guys like Albus and myself and a lot of others that we call friends. But it amazes me that many of you support the ideologies of Hunt Clubs!! Unfortunately, Hunt Clubs are not considered illegal in our state, but should be because they don’t require the same stipulations that LICENSED outfitters do. But most of you think that’s fine!! Fair enough! When our clients pay the state for a tag, pay our price, tip our guides......that money stays right here within the borders of Montana.....(going to be transparent here) for the most part. Where do you suppose the money that Albus and I and all of the others, that we pay our landowners, guides, cooks, mechanics, bulk fuel providers, taxidermists....what not....the list goes on and on, goes at the end of the day?? Again.....stays within the borders of Montana versus going out of state and into the bank account of some long, stringy haired assclown from out of state!! I apologize for going off on this...but for shit sakes......pay attention here! Is this bill perfect? Hell no!! And Eric and I will agree with you on this, but at least we are held to a higher standard, in regards to reporting, than those jackasses.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think the point big shooter was making with regards to the hunt club people testifying in opposition is this: Non-resident leases several small Montana ranches, charges people a fee to hunt said ranches when the club shoots the ranch out, "the hunt clubbers" go and compete with resident & NR DIY guys on accessible lands.

Since they are pulling from the same limited license pool this doesn't make mathmatical sense. If the club didn't exist they would be hunting accessible from the start.

 

[Eric Albus]

bonus pt's are just like buying extra raffle tickes, problem is everyone else has same number of tickets for the cake or four wheeler.

 

[Ben Lamb]

bonus pt's are just like buying extra raffle tickes, problem is everyone else has same number of tickets for the cake or four wheeler.

MOGA was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of points.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Or, how is it that Wyoming outfitter like a preference point system and they use it to provide predictability and stability to their businesses; not just for this year, but for years ahead for clients they are helping build points?

Interested in comments as to how other outfitters in other states with non-resident preference point systems prosper, but in Montana that same system is so bad for outfitters that they think the legislature should overturn a ballot initiative passed by the citizens.

You may be giving WYOGA too much credit. Just a couple years ago WyOGA leadership and members approached the G&F commission asking that they increase the NR elk license quota. The justification from leadership was that it was taking too long for repeat clients to draw tags. There was no mention of them wanting to guide more hunters but rather that they wanted the repeats to be able to come back at an increased frequency. Wording to the Comm was that a few years ago they could have "their hunters" draw every year, now it can take "them" 2 or 3 years between hunts. This was for General Tags.