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

[VikingsGuy]

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.

Not sure if capitalized "H"unt "C"lub has special meaning in MT, but if it is just land owners selling access fees in a more orderly manner than folks knocking on their doors, what's the problem? If 10 different guys can knock on a ranchers farm and hand him $500 to hunt, why can't the rancher make his life simpler by having a lease group of 10 guys pay him $5,000 up front. It's just an easy and predictable way to rent property. Now, maybe there is something more onerous specific to MT "HC" that I don't know about, but in general it seems like free/efficient market working. Whereas, the outfitter would say you had to buy $7,500 of additional services you don't want to hunt that same land - how is that better? Again, for some they want the red carpet service and that is fine I have no objection to folks hiring outfitters, but what outfitters are doing in the curent situation is tying - something that is illegal in many parts of our economy, to bad it isn't in this one.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Those 2200 DIY NR deer hunters are just ruining everything in MT, don't ya know. #biggesteyerollever

One thing we don't take into account enough is B tag availability in Montana which is largely driven by landowners, many of them outfitted or leased, who want to make $$$ off the bucks and bulls but don't want anything to do with the game populations after general season ends. The F&G commissioner who said (And I'm paraphrasing) "he couldn't understand how an animal could be worth $13,000 one week and treated like a rat the next" was spot on.
I was way back into a large BLM section east of Miles City last year and ran into a California hunter that had a harvested a MD doe. He'd driven all the way up here to shoot a couple does because he didn't draw the NR deer combo. At first I was a little disgruntled to have worked hard to get into an area on public land that might hold a decent buck and have to share it with a lowly doe hunter. Then I realized how spoiled us Residents are to be able hunt 90+% of the state with an over-the-counter tag. Even if the DIY NR hunter has a harder time drawing a general license if this bill passes, there's a lot of NRs who will continue to buy widely available over-the-counter B tags and want to harvest a few animals. If MOGA truly wants to help with public land pressure they can have a conversation with landowners about B tags. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Nobody is saying that, but the hypocrisy of you complaining about something your industry does because you don't get the windfall is pretty epic.

Eric, any day, I'd take that invite up.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

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??

Nope, never said that.

 

[idahohuntr]

When we kicked the door open and walked into the room naked and asked for 60%, that was quite bold on our part

Bold or stupid...probably more of the latter. It's unfortunate there can't be a little more cooperation. At this rate, I look forward to seeing the next initiative text. Rather than just going back to what was passed in 2010 I suspect the MOGA will need a retaliatory slap to the face. The demographics of Montana (and most western states), and the huge numbers people moving to them - I really think it is beyond stupid to attack DIY outdoor enthusiasts. I simply cannot wait to see the initiative and every outdoor recreation based business and outdoors group in Missoula, Bozeman, etc. drumming up signatures and voters. MOGA might win this battle, but they are setup to lose the war in a way that will hopefully be a major wakeup call to outfitters across the country.

 

[Big Shooter]

JLS....I never said you did. You have more valid points in here than most of your team members.
Vikingsguy....I apologize for my lack in professional writing, but at the end of the day, “hunt clubs” are a way bigger problem than many of you are aware of. With that being said....there is a possibility that many of you on here are members of said “hunt clubs” and this bill may affect your chances of receiving a tag. Just saying.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

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!

I don't think anyone has disputed that the lion's share of the money stays in Montana, have they? If so, please point it out because I don't remember it.

Also, I don't think anyone would dispute that outfitting brings in more dollars per hunter than a DIY party. It's simple economics, they have to. I think there are likely trends in WHERE that money goes relative to DIY vs. outfitted hunters, and I am willing to bet it differs to a certain extent. The question there is why do outfitters and their preferred merchants receive top priority for out of state dollars with respect to hunters?

Some of us aren't in opposition to this because of economics. It's because it's a contradiction to the North American Model and a continued step towards the egalitarian evolution of non-resident hunting across the west.

I'm not sure what a stringy haired assclown has to do with the conversation? I guess maybe it lends itself to good hyperbole and drama....

 

[Brad W]

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:

View attachment 172689

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.

I touched on this back in post 768, but I would argue that the most vibrant and innovative outfitting community is in Arizona. Outfitters get no special consideration, Tag numbers are tiny compared to MT, draw odds are grim for residents and non-residents, competition is fierce and most of the best hunting is on accessible public land. Despite these challenges the industry there seems to be thriving. They have done an exceptional job of presenting a value proposition that appeals to new people every year. With the odds the way they are it is probably rare for mule deer and elk outfitters in AZ to hunt with the same people more than a couple of times in their life (excluding OTC archery). They have overcome this by starting application services, creating innovative payment structures like Steve Chappell’s “zero hunt fees”, and utilizing modern media channels to promote AZ and their value.

 

[Big Shooter]

JLS...not promoting drama on the “gray, stringy haired thing” just stating facts. If you watched the hearing you will pick up what I’m putting down! Just saying.

 

[VikingsGuy]

JLS....I never said you did. You have more valid points in here than most of your team members.
Vikingsguy....I apologize for my lack in professional writing, but at the end of the day, “hunt clubs” are a way bigger problem than many of you are aware of. With that being said....there is a possibility that many of you on here are members of said “hunt clubs” and this bill may affect your chances of receiving a tag. Just saying.

Not a criticism of typing, just thought you were emphasizing it as something unique to MT.

FWIW - I am not a member of big game hunt club so I am not applying this to my particular situation.

More importantly, can you explain to us why serving the hunters who would like to have an easy way to access private land without any need for or interest in the high level of additional and costly services of an outfitter is a problem? That is not rhetorical, it is a sincere question. I understand why outfitters don't like it, as tying access to land to the more expensive outfitting services give outfitters a huge economic advantage. But why should anyone else care? The land is already private and off the map for public land hunters, so how does this hurt the public land hunter?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Some of us aren't in opposition to this because of economics. It's because it's a contradiction to the North American Model and a continued step towards the egalitarian evolution of non-resident hunting across the west.

Well stated.

The idea there exists higher principles in wildlife management than pimping out the privilege of shooting a buck or a bull for profit seems to be lost on the rank and file professionals who testified in favor of this bill.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The land is already private and off the map for public land hunters, so how does this hurt the public land hunter?

Because it's another avenue of competition for public access via Block Management. In addition, Big Shooter is correct in that folks who do hunt as part of a leased club aren't limited to said leased grounds. They can hunt public ground, Block Management, etc. However, if everyone is on the same level playing field for attaining a license, the impact is lessened.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

JLS...not promoting drama on the “gray, stringy haired thing” just stating facts. If you watched the hearing you will pick up what I’m putting down! Just saying.

Nope, I didn't watch the hearing. I was busy working to pay for my DIY hunt

 

[MTGomer]

I touched on this back in post 768, but I would argue that the most vibrant and innovative outfitting community is in Arizona.

True and Worth reading a few times.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Because it's another avenue of competition for public access via Block Management. In addition, Big Shooter is correct in that folks who do hunt as part of a leased club aren't limited to said leased grounds. They can hunt public ground, Block Management, etc. However, if everyone is on the same level playing field for attaining a license, the impact is lessened.

Thanks for clarifying.

If a government entity wants to access private property it should do so at market prices. I should not artificially suppress demand/activity in a way to make its purchase cheaper. Land owners should get market value for hunting access to their property whether by tresspass fee, lease group, Block Management or via outfitters. I don't think government should ever be allowed to drive down property/access values just to make it cheaper for the public - that is market manipulation and is another form of government picking winners and losers. The solution is that if the public values the access the public can spend its funds for access - the public (through their governments) have much more money to spend than any individual buyer.

A liquid efficient fair market for land access also solves the "land owner tag" issue, as a robust access market will make land owners whole for costs associated with carrying big game on their land. I believe tags should be distributed to the public in a non-discriminatory manner in all cases (I leave to others to argue about the "how" of lottery vs preference points vs bonus points). No land owner tags (I am a land owner and I expect nothing special in this regard), no govenors tags, no OneShot tags, no outfitter tags.

What lease clubs solve for is the outfitter's addition of mulitiples of true market value by tying land access to service purchase - something I object to in all areas of our economy.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

As Big Fin's preference-point post and this post highlight, is it fair to say the issue is not about an outfitter's ability to plan/book any clients for an upcoming season, but the ability to plan/book REPEAT clients every year? I can at least understand the former -- though I still disagree with how 143 goes about addressing it -- but the latter is truly focused on catering to the rich, and I'm not sure why they'd need preferential treatment.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As Big Fin's preference-point post and this post highlight, is it fair to say the issue is not about an outfitter's ability to plan/book any clients for an upcoming season, but the ability to plan/book REPEAT clients every year? I can at least understand the former -- though I still disagree with how 143 goes about addressing it -- but the latter is truly focused on catering to the rich, and I'm not sure why they'd need preferential treatment.

In a rationed market (e.g., limited quota hunting) why is guarenteeing repeat customer opportunity a public good? It just means the 55yo with their foot in the door gets preferred hunting every year for the next 20 years and the 35yo who is just starting can go pound sand while they wait for the 55yo to die.

 

[Badger_55]

Not a criticism of typing, just thought you were emphasizing it as something unique to MT.

FWIW - I am not a member of big game hunt club so I am not applying this to my particular situation.

More importantly, can you explain to us why serving the hunters who would like to have an easy way to access private land without any need for or interest in the high level of additional and costly services of an outfitter is a problem? That is not rhetorical, it is a sincer question. I understand why outfitters don't like it, as tying access to land to the more expensive outfitting services give outfitters a huge economic advantage. But why should anyone else care? The land is already private and off the map for public land hunters, so how does this hurt the public land hunter?

Then those non res outfitter tags should be limited to private land only. Let the rich boys spend their money.

 

[idahohuntr]

Thanks for clarifying.

If a government entity wants to access private property it should do so at market prices. I should not artificially suppress demand/activity in a way to make its purchase cheaper. Land owners should get market value for hunting access to their property whether by tresspass fee, lease group, Block Management or via outfitters. I don't think government should ever be allowed to drive down property/access values just to make it cheaper for the public - that is market manipulation and is another form of government pick winners and losers. The solution is that if the public values the access the public can spend its funds for access - the public (through their governments) have much more money to spend than any individual buyer.

A liquid efficient fair market for land access also solves the "land owner tag" issue, as a robust access market will make land owners whole for costs associated with carrying big game on their land. I believe tags should be distributed to the public in a non-discriminatory manner (I leave to others to argue about lottery vs preference points vs bonus points) in all cases. No land owner tags (I am a land owner and I expect nothing special in this regard), no govenors tags, no OneShot tags, no outfitter tags.

What lease clubs solve for is the outfitter's addition of mulitiples of true market value by tying land access to service purchase - something I object to in all areas of our economy.

Well said. I think implicit is the other side as well...a bill limiting the governments ability to lease access should not be suppressed. While it would be great for an outfitter leasing private lands to know that the most the government can pay is capped at $15k...a bill that does this is not supportive of free market principles.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Then those non res outfitter tags should be limited to private land only. Let the rich boys spend their money.

There should be no special tags what so ever. I reject the premise (as JLS said better in post #810). Arguing amount and scope of these tags just feeds into the acceptance that they are ok in the first place - they are not. There should be no preferential tags, therefore scope is an irrelevant consideration.