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

[BlazerBeam]

I'm curious about the 2 preference points, was talking to JM77 this morning and we wonder if there is anything in the Montana Constitution that this 2 preference points per NR outfitted hunter is even constitutional?

Seems that legislation to favor one person over another may be a violation...might be worth a thunk and lawsuit if so.

yes, seems like something might be valid there. Also I don't understand how rigging a PUBLIC system for PRIVATE business benefit is kosher either?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm curious about the 2 preference points, was talking to JM77 this morning and we wonder if there is anything in the Montana Constitution that this 2 preference points per NR outfitted hunter is even constitutional?

Seems that legislation to favor one person over another may be a violation...might be worth a thunk and lawsuit if so.

I would doubt it. The management & regulation of wildlife is pretty broad and there exists case law that indicates that states can run their draws as they see fit. Example: NV, CO, UT, WY, etc.

While the right to harvest is guaranteed under the MT Constitution, the right to NR equality is not.

 

[BuzzH]

I would doubt it. The management & regulation of wildlife is pretty broad and there exists case law that indicates that states can run their draws as they see fit. Example: NV, CO, UT, WY, etc.

While the right to harvest is guaranteed under the MT Constitution, the right to NR equality is not.

That shit wouldn't fly here...I can assure you.

The way the one shot allocation used to work was unconstitutional until they fixed it.

Its against the State Constitution here to pass legislation to favor a specific person or group of people.

I think it would be worth looking at.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That shit wouldn't fly here...I can assure you.

The way the one shot allocation used to work was unconstitutional until they fixed it.

Its against the State Constitution here to pass legislation to favor a specific person or group of people.

I think it would be worth looking at.

Wilderness outfitter law.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I would doubt it. The management & regulation of wildlife is pretty broad and there exists case law that indicates that states can run their draws as they see fit. Example: NV, CO, UT, WY, etc.

While the right to harvest is guaranteed under the MT Constitution, the right to NR equality is not.

In 2005 there was that Taulman USO lawsuit regarding Non-resident licensing which disrupted the AZ draw, there was no cap on nonresidents that year I believe. I ended up with a deer permit on the AZ strip, with not that many bonus points.

 

[BuzzH]

Wilderness outfitter law.

It applies to ALL Non Residents...not just those from specific states.

If the legislation would have been the Wilderness guide law only applies to NR hunters from Kentucky, Florida, and Michigan...that would have been unconstitutional under WY law.

Exactly the same with Statute that set aside tags for a specific group (one shot). LSO realized they were in violation of the State Constitution and took the specific groups out of Statute. Now, the statute doesn't specify who the tags go to...only says 2 pronghorn hunting events with up to 80 tags each. The tags are up for grabs every 3 years to any group that would want them.

Then in regulation, once the group(s) are chosen, its set for the 3 year period.

Trust me, Jeff and I did our homework...

I don't know the ins-and-outs of the Montana Constitution, but that legislation is clearly favoring an outfitted NR client over every other NR hunter in Montana.

It would be worth looking at.

 

[idahohuntr]

I see no legal challenge being successful against this legislation and any attempt to do so would be a wasted effort that distracts from better avenues (initiative, elections, etc.). The state has wide discretion and outfitted vs. non-outfitted is not going to raise any equal protection or discrimination issues...any NR who wants to hire an outfitter is eligible to do so.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It applies to ALL Non Residents...not just those from specific states.

If the legislation would have been the Wilderness guide law only applies to NR hunters from Kentucky, Florida, and Michigan...that would have been unconstitutional under WY law.

Exactly the same with Statute that set aside tags for a specific group (one shot). LSO realized they were in violation of the State Constitution and took the specific groups out of Statute. Now, the statute doesn't specify who the tags go to...only says 2 pronghorn hunting events with up to 80 tags each. The tags are up for grabs every 3 years to any group that would want them.

Then in regulation, once the group(s) are chosen, its set for the 3 year period.

Trust me, Jeff and I did our homework...

I don't know the ins-and-outs of the Montana Constitution, but that legislation is clearly favoring an outfitted NR client over every other NR hunter in Montana.

It would be worth looking at.

Good points. Def. worth looking into.

 

[WIbiggame]

any NR who wants to hire an outfitter is eligible to do so.

You are correct but that decision shouldn't have any bearing on how many preference points you get thus drastically increasing your chance to draw a tag over someone else.

 

[Redside]

I believe the NR outfitter clients must have had their hunt booked by April 1 (not say some backdating won't happen though) and purchase the license by Aug 30

I think for 2022 everything goes back to normal with the exception that outfitted clients are allowed to purchase 2 preference points...amendment kept the rule no applicant can have more than 3 points.

It won't take long for a lot of NR clients to hit max points and then you can guarantee they'll be back with their hands extended pleading for more hypocritical socialism handouts

So basically outfitters get their welfare this year, then the clients they don't take this year will have points to go next year, then in 2023 we'll get another bill that tries for handouts again, sweet.


Screen shot of the messaging, unbelievable.

 

[idahohuntr]

You are correct but that decision shouldn't have any bearing on how many preference points you get thus drastically increasing your chance to draw a tag over someone else.

I hate the legislation too. My only point is I see zero chance of a legal challenge being successful. Nothing in the Montana or US Constitution I'm aware of that would give solid footing. Also, think of NRs who use come home to hunt and landowner licenses and college student licenses...

 

[BuzzH]

I see no legal challenge being successful against this legislation and any attempt to do so would be a wasted effort that distracts from better avenues (initiative, elections, etc.). The state has wide discretion and outfitted vs. non-outfitted is not going to raise any equal protection or discrimination issues...any NR who wants to hire an outfitter is eligible to do so.

Serious question, are you an attorney familiar with Montana law?

 

[BuzzH]

I hate the legislation too. My only point is I see zero chance of a legal challenge being successful. Nothing in the Montana or US Constitution I'm aware of that would give solid footing. Also, think of NRs who use come home to hunt and landowner licenses and college student licenses...

Totally different...we aren't singling out sub-sets of any of them.

Again, we're not saying that landowners from Blaine county, Missoula county, and Meagher county can not get landowner licenses.

We're not saying that if you're a college student from Oregon or California then you don't get a college student license.

You may be right, and I agree it many not be the path forward, but worth a look, IMO/E.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Totally different...we aren't singling out sub-sets of any of them.

Again, we're not saying that landowners from Blaine county, Missoula county, and Meagher county can not get landowner licenses.

We're not saying that if you're a college student from Oregon or California then you don't get a college student license.

You may be right, and I agree it many not be the path forward, but worth a look, IMO/E.

the outfitter set asides were never questioned as unconstitutional, so I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole (after widening it to get my badger-sized frame down it a little bit).

 

[sacountry]

As a resident of Montana, I never imagined that NR preference points would be of consequence to me.....but this HB637 with it's amendments sets a precedent, a precedent we were trying to avoid in bills like HB505, and that's the legislative manipulation of our point system. We have to figure out how to stop this kind of legislative manipulation if we are going to protect the fairness of the system.

 

[Gevock]

If I read this right it’s not illegal to herd game with a truck?

No Tony, that language was put back into the bill, in section 13. It was just moved.

 

[Gevock]

This bill blows the cap off 17,000 non-resident tags and permanently screws up the preference point system. It shows that the voice of Montana residents and do-it-yourself nonresident hunters means less to Legislators than outfitters. This action ignores the will of Montana voters who rejected special interest tags. MWF will be requesting a veto on this terrible bill.

Late amendment adds one-time guaranteed hunting licenses for outfitted nonresidents

Legislative staff estimated that 3,000 prospective nonresident hunters could be eligible guaranteed licenses, but the amendment does not provide a cap on the one-time licenses.

helenair.com

 

[idahohuntr]

Totally different...we aren't singling out sub-sets of any of them.

Again, we're not saying that landowners from Blaine county, Missoula county, and Meagher county can not get landowner licenses.

We're not saying that if you're a college student from Oregon or California then you don't get a college student license.

You may be right, and I agree it many not be the path forward, but worth a look, IMO/E.

No, I am not an attorney. I agree, if the legislation did specify NR's from (insert state here) would be treated differently than NR's from (insert state here) there would be something to a legal challenge...but a blanket 'any NR who hires an outfitter' I'm just not seeing it. Either way, what a cluster this legislation is...

 

[RobG]

There is 18 months between now and the next legislature. If folks took 1/2 the time they did during the session to reach out and talk with those electeds, build relationships & develop trust, you'd be surprised how things could turn around.

In every state. Not just MT. Apathy is a politicians best friend. We need a coordinated effort to build those relationships across the US so that politicians stop hearing from just the orgs who can put on whiskey & cheese events or special shooting events. Those large groups do some good work, but they take a walk when things get difficult, because they're protecting their organization first, and not the resource.

In 1936, thousands of Americans met in Washington D.C. at the first North American Wildlife Conference. Out of that, a major movement was created that got us scientific management of wildlife and abundant populations to boot. That effect lasted for 90 years. It's time to bring back the heat from those efforts.

At least that weed you are smoking is now legal here... These ass clowns could invade the Capitol and still get elected. Now you will have to excuse me while I prepare to have a Senator from Maryland that wants to make America great again.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

I have also sent notes to the electeds wondering where the hotel/restaurant folks are? This is 15,000 nights (3000 tags x 5 night stays) that won't be using hotels and 45,000 meals (15,000 x 3 squares a day) that won't occur in small town Montana hotels/vrbos and small town restaurants/grocery stores because they will be forced to stay in "elk camp". I'm ok with the added tags, just not that the government is picking outfitters/guides over hotels/restaurants. I thought the free market was supposed to pick winners and losers..........