If You're Wanting to Come Hunt in Montana.....

[Mtslackcountry]

Can someone please explain this to me.... About 15 years ago here in Montana we had the outfitter preference tags and the world did not end. Land seemed to be leased less for hunting than it is now and there was a hell of alot less out of state hunters. I for one would not shed a tear if there were less Washington plates in my neck of the woods next hunting season.

 

[FLAK]

Outfitter Welfare, plain and simple.

 

[Legend]

When are they supposed to vote in this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It will first be read and discussed in the sub committee. This has not been scheduled yet. The committee chair could sit on it for a couple weeks or it could come up with little to no notice.

 

[MT257]

It will first be read and discussed in the sub committee. This has not been scheduled yet. The committee chair could sit on it for a couple weeks or it could come up with little to no notice.

It will be presented to the Senate Game and Fish Committee on 02/02/2021.

 

[Legend]

It will be presented to the Senate Game and Fish Committee on 02/02/2021.

You are correct it is scheduled. My bad

 

[dreamingbig]

Can someone please explain this to me.... About 15 years ago here in Montana we had the outfitter preference tags and the world did not end. Land seemed to be leased less for hunting than it is now and there was a hell of alot less out of state hunters. I for one would not shed a tear if there were less Washington plates in my neck of the woods next hunting season.

The non resident tag quota has been fixed for quite some time. We are all non residents in 49 states. Maybe you don’t hunt out of state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chordeiles]

You may want to contact the Senate Fish & Game Committee and ask them to oppose this bill. SB143 https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/SB0143.pdf

It's hard to sort through the draft language but from what I gather this would reinstate the guaranteed outfitter licenses that were done away with through a citizens ballot initiative. It looks like this would give 60% of deer and elk permits to people hunting with outfitters. This bill is bad for residents and DIY non-residents.

Here is the contact info for the committee members:

SEN. STEVE HINEBAUCH - SD18
CHAIR
[email protected]
(406) 365-7967
(406) 989-1372

SEN. BOB BROWN - SD7
VICE CHAIR
[email protected]
(406) 242-0141

SEN. TOM JACOBSON - SD11
VICE CHAIR
[email protected]
(406) 868-9814

SEN. MARK BLASDEL - SD4
[email protected]
(406) 261-3269

SEN. JILL COHENOUR - SD 42
[email protected]
(406) 227-1144

SEN. JASON ELLSWORTH (R) - SD43
[email protected]
(406) 360-0009

SEN. PAT FLOWERS (D) - SD32
[email protected]
(406) 580-0035

SEN. GREG HERTZ (R) - SD6
[email protected]
(406) 253-9505

SEN. DAVID HOWARD (R) - SD29
[email protected]
(406) 633-2762

SEN. BOB KEENAN (R) - SD5
[email protected]
(406) 250-4111

SEN. EDIE MCCLAFFERTY (D) - SD38
[email protected]
(406) 490-5873

I sent them each an email. Thanks.
This is some first class B.S.

 

[Wapiti1]

If anyone wants to do some research it was Montana I-161 that did away with the outfitter guaranteed tags the first time. That was 2010. That added 5500 tags to the non-resident quota, which I believe at the time was 11000 (might be off on this).

That initiative put those tags into the non-res quota and increased the tag fees substantially. The result was a significant drop off in non-resident participation and for several years leftover tags.

Block Management has remained roughly the same at between 7 and 8 million acres enrolled. It fluctuates, and in 2013 an audit found they weren't counting the acreage very well. My experience has been better access since I-161 passed. I can say that I saw access in several areas improve due to new enrollment in the BMA program.

Did it increase competition on public lands? Probably. Far more hunters will DIY it than can go outfitted. I can go DIY two or three years in a row for the cost of one guided hunt. YMMV on how you value those two hunts. I have enjoyed both (in other states, I've never gone guided in my home state of MT)

Just a little history. Since the changes were made in 2010, and we are living with them today, you should weigh if the new proposed bill is fair or not.

Jeremy

 

[Mt Al]

I for one would not shed a tear if there were less Washington plates in my neck of the woods next hunting season.

I agree on loving it seeing fewer out of state plates, my problem is more outfitter welfare on principle. My 2 cents on the hoards in Eastern MT/Western part of the state is to limit the number of opportunities by region, don't limit the opportunity to come hunt, just spread them out. Now I'm off topic.

 

[PablitoPescador]

As a resident I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. One challenge we’re having is a giant influx of people moving here and more “residents” with county 6 plates on the landscape during hunting season. Every year the resource gets spread thinner and thinner. I feel like something needs to change but I’m not sure this is a good solution

 

[wind gypsy]

As a resident I’m not sure how I feel about this yet. One challenge we’re having is a giant influx of people moving here and more “residents” with county 6 plates on the landscape during hunting season. Every year the resource gets spread thinner and thinner. I feel like something needs to change but I’m not sure this is a good solution

Definitely get that. It seems like a major problem is the elk being "over objective" but all of the pressure and harvest focused on a public land where there aren't many elk.

I like the idea of stricter management by zone and population and possibly having Private Land Only tags if the bulk of the elk population in "over objective" units reside on private land. That could still make it easier for outfitters to get their clients tags and ease some of the concentrated pressure on the public land elk resource. However, that probably isn't the welfare outfitters want.

 

[prm]

Is the outfitter included in the cost of the license? No? So then what will an elk hunt cost a non-res?
This will completely F-over the availability of licenses in other western states as the regular blue collar DIY hunters switch away from MT to other states. I make a decent living, but I cannot afford a guided MT elk hunt.

 

[S.Clancy]

Many people I know (residents) are pissed off about this. There's a lot of letters getting sent in.

 

[Packer9037]

Sent my email in opposition...for me, it's straight dollars and sense. If you're financially able to do so (and so inclined) nothing prevents you from hiring an outfitter. I would like to see that same option remain for those of us who either choose not to hire an outfitter and/or cannot afford one. It would also severely hurt my chances of being able to take my daughter on her first elk hunt in a couple year due to the additional cost of the outfitter.

 

[PumaR]

Sent my email in opposition...for me, it's straight dollars and sense. If you're financially able to do so (and so inclined) nothing prevents you from hiring an outfitter. I would like to see that same option remain for those of us who either choose not to hire an outfitter and/or cannot afford one. It would also severely hurt my chances of being able to take my daughter on her first elk hunt in a couple year due to the additional cost of the outfitter.

Amen, if we want we can, if we don't want then we don't have to. Keep it America, freedom to choose

 

[Redarrow]

Email sent. Makes zero sense why outfitters should be treated better than anyone else.

If someone wants to use an outfitter, go ahead. Just don’t force nonresidents to pay for an outfitter.

 

[Scoot]

E-mail, call, contact them!!! This is important! If you know any MT residents, have them contact them too.

 

[Wvroach]

I don't understand the sentiment that supports this, it is public land most of it owned federally. I understand it is in your home state but Why do residents bash so frequently on the NRs out west?

Seems like a lot of "public land owners" truly think that means you own the public land and are more entitled to it by virtue of zip code then others are.

I understand not helping out with spots and such let the NR do their own footwork. No reason to be asinine about it though. I have no problem having non-residents in my state and a few of my honey holes I won't show but if someone stumbles upon them why be upset? They pay good revenue to the DNR and support the local businesses when they come in, if anything it makes it more challenging of a hunt to get further in to have solitude.

Understand being upset if I see something unethical being done, but no more upset than if it was a resident doing the same thing.

 

[UpNorth89]

Outfitter welfare is bogus plain and simple. If you're a good reputable outfitter you shouldn't have a problem having plenty of clients, especially with general tags.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Deadfall]

I keep seeing all this stuff about mom and pop stores loosing revenue if less NR hunters come in. From what I see and hear most are shopping big box anyway. Stop at cabelas or wherever on way. Buying food from Walmart or Sam's.

What little businesses are benefitting? Bars. Maybe stop and have a couple dinners somewhere. Woo.....hoo....

Someone asked on the other post if hunting another state if I'm ok having to go with someone else. Yap I am. Hunting in Wyoming I have too have a resident of some form with me to hunt wilderness. Guess if I dont like wyoming rules I dont have too hunt in Wyoming.
Same is true in this.