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

[Nemont]

Your not totally correct. MOGA didn‘t put the $300 on, that was part of the amendment. Originally it was $200. And how many DIY hunters will pay the extra $300......? Probably plenty, especially Hunt Club members as well as rich out of state landowners.

Is the "rich" out of state hunters spending $300 more a bad thing in your opinion?

Would knowing who drew a license and who did not earlier hurt or help Outfitters?

Is MOGA opposed to land acquisition using Habitat Montana as the vehicle?

Just trying to figure out what MOGA is thinking in regards to the position taken on the amended bill.

Nemont

 

[Schaaf]

Keep running your lips pal.

 

[Big Shooter]

View attachment 178489

Your maturity level is truly something.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

View attachment 178489

I’ll take 10.

 

[antlerradar]

Your not totally correct. MOGA didn‘t put the $300 on, that was part of the amendment. Originally it was $200. And how many DIY hunters will pay the extra $300......? Probably plenty, especially Hunt Club members as well as rich out of state landowners.

I have never understood why many of the sportsman's groups are dead set against special outfitter licenses, are more willing to back plans that help Hunt Clubs and rich out of state landowners. I have no use for special outfitter licenses, but when it comes hunters being displaced to public land, outfitters are the far lesser of two evils. I can think of outfitter leased properties that are hunted hard by the outfitter than they ever were before they were leased. This is almost never the case with a hunt club.

 

[Schaaf]

Your maturity level is truly something.

I’m just trying to sell some bumper stickers

 

[tjones]

I’m just trying to sell some bumper stickers

Can you "set aside" 5 for me?

 

[Nemont]

I have never understood why many of the sportsman's groups are dead set against special outfitter licenses, are more willing to back plans that help Hunt Clubs and rich out of state landowners. I have no use for special outfitter licenses, but when it comes hunters being displaced to public land, outfitter are the far lesser of two evils. I can think of outfitter leased properties that are hunted hard by the outfitter than they ever were before they were leased. This is almost never the case with a hunt club.

The license is for a chance to harvest an animal owned in trust for all Montanans, so that is a separate issue from access. As of today the average Joe has an equal opportunity to pony of his or her cash, right next to rich guy/gal, the out of state land owner and the outfitted client and see who draws for an opportunity to come to Montana and hunt. It is equal opportunity to draw a tag regardless of your bank account. What land you have access can absolutely be determined by your bank account. That seems like a fair deal to me IMO, your opinion may differ. Once the tag is drawn the "lucky" hunter then can choose whether he/she wants to tough it out on public/BMA lands, pay a trespass fee, hire an outfitter or buy into a hunting club. Seems like a free market for access which is based on private property rights and public trust doctrine for the opportunity to draw a tag based on the public trust doctrine of wildlife ownership.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can you "set aside" 5 for me?

I'll sponsor you, boo.

 

[SAJ-99]

I was curious about this hunt club situation so I inquired on a FB group advertisement for a MT hunting lease. It was a 45,000 acre ranch in 580. They claimed to have killed multiple giant bulls including two over 400". The lease was for access during archery elk season only with another group leasing during rifle season. The asking price was $1.25/acre or $56,000. It looks like the hunters that lease the rifle season were residents and trying to market the archery season to non-residents to recoup costs. Not sure if thats a typical situation or not

That is a big ranch. I doubt there is any "typical" situation, but when you are maxed out on Block Mgmt at $15,000, the math is pretty obvious for the landowner. The $ is why a lot of hunters don't like outfitters. But in defense of outfitters, not all outfitters operate in a legit fashion and most of the leasing is not done by them. They can't take the blame for everything...only for asking for a handout every couple of years.

 

[X13]

That is a big ranch. I doubt there is any "typical" situation

It seemed less relevant after I posted it so I deleted it even before your reply. Carry on

 

[SAJ-99]

It seemed less relevant after I posted it so I deleted it even before your reply. Carry on

No worries. Think it is relevant. Just shows the complexity of the situation. Bottom line is that the sport is turning toward $$$ and leases. I know a lot of residents who would pay for a lease under the right circumstances. That one is out of my price range.

 

[theat]

I have never understood why many of the sportsman's groups are dead set against special outfitter licenses, are more willing to back plans that help Hunt Clubs and rich out of state landowners. I have no use for special outfitter licenses, but when it comes hunters being displaced to public land, outfitter are the far lesser of two evils. I can think of outfitter leased properties that are hunted hard by the outfitter than they ever were before they were leased. This is almost never the case with a hunt club.

I keep hearing this argument from outfitters and other proponents for this bill. This is absolutely not the case in the part of Montana where I live.

The outfitters here almost exclusively operate on forest service lands. I wanted to be accurate in how many different outfitters have commercial use permits in my local ranger district so I talked with the district ranger just now, but he doesn't have an exact number available and will get back to me. I had previously heard numerous times that it was 12 different outfitters hunting the same area and the ranger would only say that it is between 8 and 20 until he can confirm an exact number. No matter if it is 8 or 20, either way that is way too many outfitters competing against each other, local hunters, and the plethora of out of county and out of state hunters that come here every fall and spring.

I am always curious as to why out of state hunters pick this steep, thick and low big game population area to hunt. Whenever I encounter a non res hunter I ask them "why pick here to hunt?" I haven't kept records of these conversations, but off the top of my head I would guess that somewhere between 70-80% of them first hunted this area with an outfitter and now come back with their buddies on their own. In this part of Montana (and yes, western Montana is just as much the "real" Montana as the eastern half) I would not hesitate to say that outfitters are responsible for the majority of non residents that "displace" us locals that hunt the public land in this county.

 

[SAJ-99]

That is a big ranch. I doubt there is any "typical" situation, but when you are maxed out on Block Mgmt at $15,000, the math is pretty obvious for the landowner. The $ is why a lot of hunters don't like outfitters. But in defense of outfitters, not all outfitters operate in a legit fashion and most of the leasing is not done by them. They can't take the blame for everything...only for asking for a handout every couple of years.

Looks like HB 637 ups Block Management max cap to $25,000. That is good news.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

I keep hearing this argument from outfitters and other proponents for this bill. This is absolutely not the case in the part of Montana where I live.

The outfitters here almost exclusively operate on forest service lands. I wanted to be accurate in how many different outfitters have commercial use permits in my local ranger district so I talked with the district ranger just now, but he doesn't have an exact number available and will get back to me. I had previously heard numerous times that it was 12 different outfitters hunting the same area and the ranger would only say that it is between 8 and 20 until he can confirm an exact number. No matter if it is 8 or 20, either way that is way too many outfitters competing against each other, local hunters, and the plethora of out of county and out of state hunters that come here every fall and spring.

I am always curious as to why out of state hunters pick this steep, thick and low big game population area to hunt. Whenever I encounter a non res hunter I ask them "why pick here to hunt?" I haven't kept records of these conversations, but off the top of my head I would guess that somewhere between 70-80% of them first hunted this area with an outfitter and now come back with their buddies on their own. In this part of Montana (and yes, western Montana is just as much the "real" Montana as the eastern half) I would not hesitate to say that outfitters are responsible for the majority of non residents that "displace" us locals that hunt the public land in this county.

Spot On! I couldn't agree more with @theat's above assessment.....

 

[Oak]

I keep hearing this argument from outfitters and other proponents for this bill. This is absolutely not the case in the part of Montana where I live.

The outfitters here almost exclusively operate on forest service lands. I wanted to be accurate in how many different outfitters have commercial use permits in my local ranger district so I talked with the district ranger just now, but he doesn't have an exact number available and will get back to me. I had previously heard numerous times that it was 12 different outfitters hunting the same area and the ranger would only say that it is between 8 and 20 until he can confirm an exact number. No matter if it is 8 or 20, either way that is way too many outfitters competing against each other, local hunters, and the plethora of out of county and out of state hunters that come here every fall and spring.

I am always curious as to why out of state hunters pick this steep, thick and low big game population area to hunt. Whenever I encounter a non res hunter I ask them "why pick here to hunt?" I haven't kept records of these conversations, but off the top of my head I would guess that somewhere between 70-80% of them first hunted this area with an outfitter and now come back with their buddies on their own. In this part of Montana (and yes, western Montana is just as much the "real" Montana as the eastern half) I would not hesitate to say that outfitters are responsible for the majority of non residents that "displace" us locals that hunt the public land in this county.

Next time you talk to him, ask if he has heard about an effort underway to expand outfitting on USFS lands. My hand-scribbled notes from a meeting about a month ago:
Forest Service moving forward with an EA to expand outfitters and guides on national forests. MT source said FS was close to releasing an EA that would dramatically increase outfitters on NFS lands.

 

[theat]

Next time you talk to him, ask if he has heard about an effort underway to expand outfitting on USFS lands. My hand-scribbled notes from a meeting about a month ago:
Forest Service moving forward with an EA to expand outfitters and guides on national forests. MT source said FS was close to releasing an EA that would dramatically increase outfitters on NFS lands.

Yikes!! I hope that your source is wrong or that idea gets scuttled with the new administration. He is supposed to call me back next week and I will definitely ask him about that.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Next time you talk to him, ask if he has heard about an effort underway to expand outfitting on USFS lands. My hand-scribbled notes from a meeting about a month ago:
Forest Service moving forward with an EA to expand outfitters and guides on national forests. MT source said FS was close to releasing an EA that would dramatically increase outfitters on NFS lands.

WHT? That does not sound good!

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m just trying to sell some bumper stickers

You speak nice now boy, or you ain’t gonna get to shoot no does off the ranch this fall. You hear me now?

 

[antlerradar]

The license is for a chance to harvest an animal owned in trust for all Montanans, so that is a separate issue from access. As of today the average Joe has an equal opportunity to pony of his or her cash, right next to rich guy/gal, the out of state land owner and the outfitted client and see who draws for an opportunity to come to Montana and hunt. It is equal opportunity to draw a tag regardless of your bank account. What land you have access can absolutely be determined by your bank account. That seems like a fair deal to me IMO, your opinion may differ. Once the tag is drawn the "lucky" hunter then can choose whether he/she wants to tough it out on public/BMA lands, pay a trespass fee, hire an outfitter or buy into a hunting club. Seems like a free market for access which is based on private property rights and public trust doctrine for the opportunity to draw a tag based on the public trust doctrine of wildlife ownership.

Nemont

Nemont, I agree with everything you wrote. If I was king this is exactly how things would operate.

My problem is that every time the outfitter unequal opportunity tag issue comes up the solution is to raise the nonresident license price. Effectively pricing many of the average joe's competing with the outfitter clients and hunt club members out of the market. This makes getting a tag more dependent on ones bank account than in the past. In other words, only equal opportunity if you have a thick wallet.
This is what happened with I-161 and for nearly 10 years the quantity of tags demanded in the draw at the price offered was fewer than the number of tags offered. Club members were able to get all the tags they wanted at a price of less than they were willing to pay. They no longer had to find an outfitter to provide a guaranteed license. A twisting of the intent of the outfitter sponsored licenses in my opinion. Hunt clubs were the big winners of I-161. Outfitters and their clients won in that they still had a guaranteed tag but also lost in that many of them now had to compete with hunt clubs for the best properties. The big loser was the average joe of modest means who was priced out of the market and stayed home or hunted Montana less frequently.
Now it seams that we are going down the same path with 143 that we did with I-161. I expect the hunt club members to come out the winners again and the loser will be the DYI nonresident that is unwilling to pay the extra 300 dollars.