SB 275 proposed changes to MOGA board

[TwistedSage]

Montana senators consider bill that would restructure board of outfitters

Montana senators on Thursday heard testimony on a bill that would restructure the Montana Board of Outfitters and reduce regulations impacting outfitting businesses.

www.fairfieldsuntimes.com

Proposed change
The current seven-member outfitter board, which is a unit of the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, regulates all guides and outfitters in the state. Four spots on the board are reserved for fishing and hunting outfitters, two are reserved for sportspeople and one is reserved for a person representing the public.

SB 275 would remove the positions on the board reserved for sportspeople, meaning the board would only have five members. It would also introduce a requirement that the lone public representative be “a Montana-based business owner” who is “reliant on the local outdoor recreation industry.”

MOGA collaborated with lawmakers as the legislation was drafted... how did that go down, let me help you help us, don't worry about that pesky ol public.

Besides the impact to the resource and access to it, what worries me about about this blitz of wildlife for profit legislation in MT is I fear that if they taste success it will spread. Carpetbagging politicians cashing in on the new cash crop.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

SB 275 would also eliminate a requirement that outfitters in the state file annual client logs with the state. The logs include information like the clients’ names, license numbers and dates they were guided. If the bill passes, the data still could be gathered through affidavits or other board-approved methods, according to members of the outfitters and guides association.

This is one way of making it easier to exceed your NCHU allocation.

 

[Big Shooter]

Un-goddamn-believable!! Make sure you break this one down on Sunday when you are playing bridge with the rest of the women that are in the church choir! We will still be responsible for reporting and will have to show such report upon request. Maybe if they used all of our records for more than just something to stand on to change a light bulb it would make more sense. This will have ZERO affect on you.....ZERO!

 

[Straight Arrow]

This will have ZERO affect on you.....ZERO!

No effect on sportsmen and women of Montana, zero effect ... only until it does.
Predictable influence on such decisions as those regarding crowding, resource depletion, and problems on over used streams and rivers, as well as potential lopsided decisions regarding hunting. Zero effect? That's a narrow, shortsighted statement, IMO.
Yes, it is merely a regulatory board but it is a piece of a larger puzzle. it's all connected by influence and recreational politics.

 

[TwistedSage]

Un-goddamn-believable!! Make sure you break this one down on Sunday when you are playing bridge with the rest of the women that are in the church choir! We will still be responsible for reporting and will have to show such report upon request. Maybe if they used all of our records for more than just something to stand on to change a light bulb it would make more sense. This will have ZERO affect on you.....ZERO!

If your industry revolves around the consumption of a public resource and you remove all public influence on the regulatory board, that doesn't send a good signal. Compiled with the other bills from this session it shows the industry profiting off of the sale of wildlife has the lawmakers in their pockets, to the extent of pushing for guaranteed business. Do you see how your diy hunter or fishermen starts to feel like the public resource is being funneled into private interests by the very people that are supposed to be holding it in the public trust?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This is absolutely hilarious. The board of outfitters hasn’t done shit for an outfitter violation in years, so I guess that makes big shooters point of why the hell does anyone care in the first place. Just do away with all regulation and don’t worry about it right?

 

[Wildabeest]

 

[Wildabeest]

Un-goddamn-believable!! Make sure you break this one down on Sunday when you are playing bridge with the rest of the women that are in the church choir! We will still be responsible for reporting and will have to show such report upon request. Maybe if they used all of our records for more than just something to stand on to change a light bulb it would make more sense. This will have ZERO affect on you.....ZERO!

@Big Shooter, can you please then explain the rationale behind this bill? Why would the board be looking to exclude all sportsman and public input into oversight of your exploitation of a public resource? Only reason that I can think of is obvious. Would love to hear how you guys are spinning it though.

 

[Eric Albus]

First, thing first, we are not "selling wildlife". Now onto said bill. It accomplishes a few things.

1. Double adjudication: removes the duplicative legal process created when administrative jurisdiction was transferred from FWP to Dept. Labor&Industry.

2. Board construction, Reduce the size and amend the composition of the board to be consistent w/ State licensed boards and to accurately reflect lines of business/license endorsements in practice.

3. Reporting: Eliminate all UNNECESSARY procedures, forms and reporting that does not achieve a specific objective for licensure purposes and place the responsibility back with the BoO(board of outfitters) to adopt rules related to reporting requirements. Right now we are required to report things that nobody uses for any reason, or probably even looks at. IF(big IF) we had to report useful information I would be all for it, however the reporting we are required to do is only used for punitive measures. Like if a guide forgets to write down a deer hunting client incidentally harvested a sharptail grouse we can be fined for this.

4. Amendments to outfitter statutes to remove inconsistency between existing BoO statutes and the MT Rec. Providers Protection Act passed in 2015.

Twisted,
I have been involved with the outfitting industry over 30 years. I have know several of the outfitter members on the BoO's over the years. The public members on the board have been far more lenient than those holding an outfitters license.

 

[Big Shooter]

Thanks Eric! I just got back in the house and I see you handled that issue. Well done!

 

[Carnage2011]

First, thing first, we are not "selling wildlife". Now onto said bill. It accomplishes a few things.

1. Double adjudication: removes the duplicative legal process created when administrative jurisdiction was transferred from FWP to Dept. Labor&Industry.

2. Board construction, Reduce the size and amend the composition of the board to be consistent w/ State licensed boards and to accurately reflect lines of business/license endorsements in practice.

3. Reporting: Eliminate all UNNECESSARY procedures, forms and reporting that does not achieve a specific objective for licensure purposes and place the responsibility back with the BoO(board of outfitters) to adopt rules related to reporting requirements. Right now we are required to report things that nobody uses for any reason, or probably even looks at. IF(big IF) we had to report useful information I would be all for it, however the reporting we are required to do is only used for punitive measures. Like if a guide forgets to write down a deer hunting client incidentally harvested a sharptail grouse we can be fined for this.

4. Amendments to outfitter statutes to remove inconsistency between existing BoO statutes and the MT Rec. Providers Protection Act passed in 2015.

Twisted,
I have been involved with the outfitting industry over 30 years. I have know several of the outfitter members on the BoO's over the years. The public members on the board have been far more lenient than those holding an outfitters license.

I personally don’t have a ton of heartache with outfitters being the only people on the BoO. My thought is that as long as good outfitters are on the board they will be more likely to hold shitty outfitters accountable as not to have a bunch of negative press. I can see where this could get abused and outfitters could get a slap on the wrist when more punishment is necessary, but that would be a bad look and a quick way to cause more people to view outfitters in a negative light.

 

[mtmuley]

MOGA won't stop until they run Montana FWP. mtmuley

 

[Walkalot]

Can we get a bill that would allow public land hunters or enthusiasts to run outfitters or ranchers. Promise we wont effect your way of life

 

[Eric Albus]

Walk, the public couldn’t run a ranch, most of the public doesn’t want to work.

 

[sneakypete]

Wondering why outfitters are on the board/committee anyway!

 

[Straight Arrow]

most of the public doesn’t want to work.

There it is; the elitist attitude. "Nobody other than a rancher has ever put in a full day's work" is the common belief.
Arrogance? Egotism? Ignorance? Foolish pride? That and much more. Sadly it's not uncommon among the ilk.

 

[huntin24/7]

Walk, the public couldn’t run a ranch, most of the public doesn’t want to work.

One of the dumber things I’ve heard recently. I know plenty of ranchers who can’t run a ranch either. I know a lot of good ones too.

 

[TOGIE]

i used to really admire and sort of hold ranchers and outfitters in really high regard.... until i started hunting and paying attention to the politics of hunting. seems every commission meeting in every state i hear an outfitter say something that just spits on everyone who doesn't own a ranch.

the responses by the outfitters on this thread just reinforce my new feelings

i'm at the point of extremes where i wouldn't even feel bad, sorry, or give any two chits anywhere anyhow if outfitting just ceased to exist.

i know not all outfitters are like this. but i think a lot outfitters need to change their attitudes, including the one in colorado i'm familiar with personally, because the force of the public that outnumbers you can be powerful down the road...