birdseye
Active member
We're almost into 2026....isn't it time to get the parasitic outfitting industry off our public domain? Their "fees" amount to pennies with an almost free leveraging of our wildlife.
Outfitting on Public lands
- Thread starter birdseye
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Not an outfitter, nor ever hired one, as a lifelong older Montana DIY hunter and wildlife advocate, I have to acknowledge the positive impact to the hunting legacy, to wildlife management, and to acquisition and enhancement of wildlife habitat by the outfitting industry in Montana.
What apparently is viewed negatively regarding outfitters in "parts unknown" where you are located may be of interest ... so please explain your opposition to outfitting on "public domain". Thanks.
What apparently is viewed negatively regarding outfitters in "parts unknown" where you are located may be of interest ... so please explain your opposition to outfitting on "public domain". Thanks.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Why stop at money. Money is just a convenient way to measure and trade value. When I pick up a shed, shoot a buck or just enjoy the view, I am making making money off of public land.
Salmonchaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,854
Not sure where you’re getting your numbers, sure as hell wasn’t pennies for me up in Alaska, shit just in regards to bird hunts I had to pay 100.00 fee per dog. Didn’t matter if pointer or retriever.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,217
Id prefer that the outftting industry do it on public lands and limited/capped, the way it is.
Outfitting and leasing of private land, especially that locks the public out, is more of my heartburn.
2rocky
Well-known member
Have fun clearing trail in the wilderness yourself. Trail crews are not in the budget anymore....
While you are at it why don't you pack in the bridge materials for the trail to where you want to hunt, or pack in the biologists that are monitoring the endangered species in the wilderness. Not to mention supplies for fire fighting crews.
Oh you didn't want to pack your bull elk of a lifetime out 20 miles to the trailhead on your back?
Oh so you are 75 years old and want to spend the money you spent 30 years saving for a dream hunt? Sorry no wilderness experience for you, you should have spent the net present value of $6,145.45 dollars on points plus all the gear and stock.
Remember National parks are Public lands too....All campgrounds, lodges, tours, restaurants, souvenir shops, etc are operated by concessionaires aka "outfitters" people or companies that pay a fee to the government to offer a service to the public...
Sorry you are going to have to buy your own snowmobile to see Yellowstone in the winter, or dog team if you prefer.
If it wasn't for outfitters, there would not be an outdoor industry. So much of the infrastructure for the public to access and enjoy public land depends on the symbiosis of private industry and public agencies. It's like saying people cant deliver products by vehicle on Public roads, or that private companies can't get government contracts.
Perhaps your goal was to state something so ridiculous to prove your point...if so I've fallen in your trap...Bravo.
While you are at it why don't you pack in the bridge materials for the trail to where you want to hunt, or pack in the biologists that are monitoring the endangered species in the wilderness. Not to mention supplies for fire fighting crews.
Oh you didn't want to pack your bull elk of a lifetime out 20 miles to the trailhead on your back?
Oh so you are 75 years old and want to spend the money you spent 30 years saving for a dream hunt? Sorry no wilderness experience for you, you should have spent the net present value of $6,145.45 dollars on points plus all the gear and stock.
Remember National parks are Public lands too....All campgrounds, lodges, tours, restaurants, souvenir shops, etc are operated by concessionaires aka "outfitters" people or companies that pay a fee to the government to offer a service to the public...
Sorry you are going to have to buy your own snowmobile to see Yellowstone in the winter, or dog team if you prefer.
If it wasn't for outfitters, there would not be an outdoor industry. So much of the infrastructure for the public to access and enjoy public land depends on the symbiosis of private industry and public agencies. It's like saying people cant deliver products by vehicle on Public roads, or that private companies can't get government contracts.
Perhaps your goal was to state something so ridiculous to prove your point...if so I've fallen in your trap...Bravo.
I have a pretty negative view of the outfitting industry overall. Mostly because of their political lobbbying and the douchebaggery outfits like A3, Mossback, Lemon etc.
That said I’ve guided some people to some sheep with their once in a lifetime tags. People that would have either never killed a ram or killed a small immature ram without help.
That said I’ve guided some people to some sheep with their once in a lifetime tags. People that would have either never killed a ram or killed a small immature ram without help.
2rocky
Well-known member
Ever wonder why there was a market that made those outfits behave like that?
You would think if they had such an advantage, then everyone would become a licensed outfitter to take advantage of the system. Kinda like how everyone has their Real Estate license now? (I will admit there have been some well to do folks who do operate on that model to finance their own hunting dreams)
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,793
Birdseed,
I’m still for sale, for the right price you can be making 1000’s for pennies.
I’m easy to find, seeing as do not hide behind anonymous internet monikers(means I use my given name).
I’ll be waiting for your call.
I’m still for sale, for the right price you can be making 1000’s for pennies.
I’m easy to find, seeing as do not hide behind anonymous internet monikers(means I use my given name).
I’ll be waiting for your call.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,455
I think I’m okay with outfitting on the public lands as long as it’s regulated properly. Some people want/need the help and in theory it’s a state issued tag that hopefully is set off wildlife management. I could see where it might get pretty irritating when it’s a free for all with guides and their clients everywhere on the public lands. I hear stories about Arizona and New Mexico being like that in a few spots but I would assume they would still be needing to apply and obtain a permit on the public lands? I have no experience in Arizona and New Mexico so complete hearsay
antlerradar
Well-known member
There are plenty of places where hiring an outfitter is the most practical and cheapest way to go for most people.
I am NOT ok with Outfitters on public land. I have experienced, on one occasion, and know of others experiences, where an Outfitter staked out a small chunk of private ( legally accessed by a public route) and preceded to bully anyone that tried to access it by intimidation & lying telling all that it was private (no fences to mark the boundary, definitely a separate issue!) Multiple people just left because it wasn’t worth the fight while others (smaller percentage) stood their ground and hunted anyway. The hassle and drama BS is
The issue in my opinion is 2 fold:
1- If the Outfitter is willing to lie & intimidate about this, then what else are they doing that is marginal?
2- Why aren’t they on their leased lands where there is no access for the public? If an Outfitter has leased land then they must stay on leased land. Full stop!
Hunters (not commercial, for profit enterprises) pay for public land access through their tags so in a sense we have leased the public with those fees. We should get the same privilege as an Outfitter who has leased lands. They can’t access ours since we can’t access theirs.
IMO- If an Outfitters paying clients want to hunt public land legally accessed by all, then the Outfitters should not be allowed to be with the client either as an Outfitter, Guide, friend or whatever while the clients approach and hunt the public land. This takes the bully out of the unnecessary fight in that moment.
Lastly-
Nobody (that I know ) wakes up in the morning of their hunt and can’t wait to go argue their way on some public property that is their legal right to hunt. It’s deflating & unneeded drama.
I recognize there a lot of details in here to which one can argue against so more than anything this is just a rant by me on an annoying subject!
The issue in my opinion is 2 fold:
1- If the Outfitter is willing to lie & intimidate about this, then what else are they doing that is marginal?
2- Why aren’t they on their leased lands where there is no access for the public? If an Outfitter has leased land then they must stay on leased land. Full stop!
Hunters (not commercial, for profit enterprises) pay for public land access through their tags so in a sense we have leased the public with those fees. We should get the same privilege as an Outfitter who has leased lands. They can’t access ours since we can’t access theirs.
IMO- If an Outfitters paying clients want to hunt public land legally accessed by all, then the Outfitters should not be allowed to be with the client either as an Outfitter, Guide, friend or whatever while the clients approach and hunt the public land. This takes the bully out of the unnecessary fight in that moment.
Lastly-
Nobody (that I know ) wakes up in the morning of their hunt and can’t wait to go argue their way on some public property that is their legal right to hunt. It’s deflating & unneeded drama.
I recognize there a lot of details in here to which one can argue against so more than anything this is just a rant by me on an annoying subject!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Certainly understand your rant and the reasons thereof. However, that does not reflect the attitude and M.O. of most outfitters.
As to the "2 fold":
1. "Marginal" behavior may be the M.O. of the outfitter you cite, but most outfitters don't operate that way.
2. Realize that the public land to which you refer as "our land" is also the outfitter's land and the outfitter's client's land. (It's not helpful to perpetuate the divisiveness.)
The unprofessional intimidating outfitter you described should be reported to the respective land management agency.
As to the "2 fold":
1. "Marginal" behavior may be the M.O. of the outfitter you cite, but most outfitters don't operate that way.
2. Realize that the public land to which you refer as "our land" is also the outfitter's land and the outfitter's client's land. (It's not helpful to perpetuate the divisiveness.)
The unprofessional intimidating outfitter you described should be reported to the respective land management agency.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Absolutely agree to the fullest. I am 10,000% against outfitters on public land. The value of OUR wildlife goes up as wildlife and access become harder to find. These outfitters get paid big money for access/wildlife on pristine private ground, run amok on that ground and then go right onto public and do it there too, knowing all the animals will just escape back down to the leased private. I’ve seen it, you cannot change my mind. Nobody wants their business to fail and anyone running a business is willing to get a little cutthroat to make it competitive and profitable. Oddly, the competition isn’t with the other “business owners” (other outfitters)
It’s with us small time consumers….
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,217
How much better off would landowners be - considering they can commodify access in Montana without a protectionist industry? With Landtrust, infinity outdoors, etc - I am shocked that landowners are even friendly to outfitting. The clients that would pay for that access are swallowed up by folks trying to cut the line of NR via the preference point subsidy - it really is too bad for landowners in my mind. They should be pissed.
I think its hilarious you could build a deck 15' off the ground for someone in Montana with way less certification than you'd need to be paid to bait their hook. So much for the pro business "free market" governent we have at the legislature and govenor.
I think its hilarious you could build a deck 15' off the ground for someone in Montana with way less certification than you'd need to be paid to bait their hook. So much for the pro business "free market" governent we have at the legislature and govenor.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,217
The issue is that hiring an outfitter shouldnt cut you to the front of the line in terms of tag allocation and speed the process up.
In theory - it takes pressure of public land - but that same theory would be wholly applicable if those folks who can justify paying for access did so directly with the landowner without an industry protected by government. Its simply a raw deal for NR DIY hunters and landowners.
elkduds
Well-known member
Just charge market rate for permission to conduct business on our public lands: grazing, extraction/harvest, outfitting. Stop subsidizing these industries at the expense of public land owners. Use full rate lease fees to improve, regulate and manage public lands.
