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

[hobbes]

It appears that you can watch discussion on the Montana Senate Fish and Game hearing webcast today, February 2, 2021 from 3-6 PM "Montana" time. (5-8 PM EST).

I'm planning to listen in to some of it once out of a work meeting. The hearings can be really painful to listen to. You'd be shocked how ignorant some of the members of the various committees can be. If you listen to many of them you'll scratch your head and wonder how in the hell they were appointed to their respective committee.

 

[hobbes]

I cant see how this will not benefit residents. The whole BMA thing is bogus. Outfitters are not all of a sudden going to be rich and able to lease up large swaths of land. Outfitting does not make a man rich! Less out of state plates is fine with me.

Short term, maybe they won't, but there is no way this doesn't turn out bad in the long run. Im not terribly fond of piles of NR plates either, but this isn't the answer in my opinion.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

I cant see how this will not benefit residents. The whole BMA thing is bogus. Outfitters are not all of a sudden going to be rich and able to lease up large swaths of land. Outfitting does not make a man rich! Less out of state plates is fine with me. Since the pandemic, our state has had a huge influx of people moving in. This is hammering the natural resources. If this passes I will take it as a huge win as less hunters is in my best interest.

NR that want to belly ache can hunt another state or move here like everyone else seems to be doing.

 

[hobbes]

I cant see how this will not benefit residents. The whole BMA thing is bogus. Outfitters are not all of a sudden going to be rich and able to lease up large swaths of land. Outfitting does not make a man rich! Less out of state plates is fine with me. Since the pandemic, our state has had a huge influx of people moving in. This is hammering the natural resources. If this passes I will take it as a huge win as less hunters is in my best interest.

NR that want to belly ache can hunt another state or move here like everyone else seems to be doing.

I definitely won't deny that there's been an increase in folks moving here. I moved here 10 years ago. It's too bad that so many of the folks moving here will turn it into what they are fleeing.

I've no doubt that no one gets rich outfitting. If a guy can afford to lease 10 sections with 10 clients, he can probably afford to lease another 10 sections with 60 clients. It's a given that they'll need more area to put more people. If not they'll be cramming folks on and giving them a public land experience.

I don't have any other argument besides I think it's flat out wrong to guarantee outfitters that many tags. The folks of MT squashed this once before.

 

[bsnedeker]

I cant see how this will not benefit residents. The whole BMA thing is bogus. Outfitters are not all of a sudden going to be rich and able to lease up large swaths of land. Outfitting does not make a man rich! Less out of state plates is fine with me. Since the pandemic, our state has had a huge influx of people moving in. This is hammering the natural resources. If this passes I will take it as a huge win as less hunters is in my best interest.

NR that want to belly ache can hunt another state or move here like everyone else seems to be doing.

This is not going to decrease the number of out of state hunters. It is going to increase the number of out of state hunters who use outfitters.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

This is not going to decrease the number of out of state hunters. It is going to increase the number of out of state hunters who use outfitters.

The forest service isnt going to start giving outfitters more areas to hunt because of this. The leased land and private ranches are places that Residents cannot hunt anyways. This will absolutely decrease the amount of out of state hunters. Up until recently (2-3 years ago) you could buy NR surplus tags. There were more tags then hunters. You could get a tag easily and go with whoever you wanted. With this proposal there are less DIY tags, and less people will be able to afford going with an outfitter which will lead to less hunters. No way this doesnt decrease NR hunters. Hard to believe it will happen as the state would lose alot of tag revenue. If it does Ill celebrate!

 

[fatlander]

The forest service isnt going to start giving outfitters more areas to hunt because of this. The leased land and private ranches are places that Residents cannot hunt anyways. This will absolutely decrease the amount of out of state hunters. Up until recently (2-3 years ago) you could buy NR surplus tags. There were more tags then hunters. You could get a tag easily and go with whoever you wanted. With this proposal there are less DIY tags, and less people will be able to afford going with an outfitter which will lead to less hunters. No way this doesnt decrease NR hunters. Hard to believe it will happen as the state would lose alot of tag revenue. If it does Ill celebrate!

You realize that language in this bill has the ones that don’t go in the outfitted pool still go in a general draw. 17,000 combo tags are going to be sold every year. This isn’t changing that. All this is going to make everything worse for all parties involved, except outfitters.

NM has introduced a bill to cut their outfitter welfare pool...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bojo34]

Just curious.....anyone heard form any outfitters regarding this? Can't think of a reason they wouldn't be in favor but several I know are also residents and avid hunters that wish to fill their own tags each year. They must be somewhat conflicted, no?

 

[dreamingbig]

The forest service isnt going to start giving outfitters more areas to hunt because of this. The leased land and private ranches are places that Residents cannot hunt anyways. This will absolutely decrease the amount of out of state hunters. Up until recently (2-3 years ago) you could buy NR surplus tags. There were more tags then hunters. You could get a tag easily and go with whoever you wanted. With this proposal there are less DIY tags, and less people will be able to afford going with an outfitter which will lead to less hunters. No way this doesnt decrease NR hunters. Hard to believe it will happen as the state would lose alot of tag revenue. If it does Ill celebrate!

You clearly haven’t read the bill. Oh and if you ever want to hunt out of state (the other 49) you might think differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bärenjäger]

Just curious.....anyone heard form any outfitters regarding this? Can't think of a reason they wouldn't be in favor but several I know are also residents and avid hunters that wish to fill their own tags each year. They must be somewhat conflicted, no?

Could they not "guide" themselves? Or two guides swap guiding services for free? Sorry if this seems like an ignorant question. I don't know the laws and etiquette surrounding outfitting businesses.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Bojo34]

I am a non resident but been on two MT outfitted hunts. In those cases, the guides work for the outfitter guiding clients on leased private lands but are on their own for their personally hunting, most of which is done on public, general untis. The two I was with also like to hunt in other states whenever season don't overlap with their work schedule.

 

[fatlander]

Just curious.....anyone heard form any outfitters regarding this? Can't think of a reason they wouldn't be in favor but several I know are also residents and avid hunters that wish to fill their own tags each year. They must be somewhat conflicted, no?

Good outfitters (business owners) don’t need the government to prop them up, but they’re not going to turn it down. Ultimately, the free market should decide who makes it and who doesn’t.

All this is going to do in the long run is lead to fly by night “outfitters” charging guys extra money for a “semi guided” hunt. That semi guided hunt will be a 1000 dollar map with some circles on it that he sent everyone that got there before you to as well. Happens in NM every year.

This is shaping up to be one of the countless instances where more government equates to more problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jbwright]

I sent emails earlier this week, and actually got a short response from one on the list. Thanks all for the support!

 

[Bojo34]

@fatlander...Excellent point. Additionally, I can tell you that most of the good outfitters are oversubscribed and difficult to book. With more "outfitter" tags available, certainly plenty of hucksters out there willing to fill that demand.

 

[bigsky2]

or m

I cant see how this will not benefit residents. The whole BMA thing is bogus. Outfitters are not all of a sudden going to be rich and able to lease up large swaths of land. Outfitting does not make a man rich! Less out of state plates is fine with me. Since the pandemic, our state has had a huge influx of people moving in. This is hammering the natural resources. If this passes I will take it as a huge win as less hunters is in my best interest.

NR that want to belly ache can hunt another state or move here like everyone else seems to be doing.

Its landowner welfare, subsidizing a private industry with a public resource. Whether it will lighten pressure on public lands or not, it sets a really bad precedent.

 

[Two Roads]

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.

You may be right about some but not all. My wife and I DIY hunt and spent $1000 for hotel, COVID did impact our willingness to eat out but we hit Albertsons nightly. And we did shop local but no big box ever. Guessing w donuts and butcher, all in $800 more. Not cheap, Had a blast.
This fall looking at Wyoming guided pack-in, that is quite a different bill, +/- $15k w/o tips, extra hotel, damn well hope to eat out. Yup, huge cost but not Wyoming residents so.......
You underestimate impact and spend.
BUT we do not like MT change for outfitters at all. Enough competition already.

 

[Mike Islander]

Has anyone started a petition? It worked for CA bear hunting ban.

 

[Erict]

You can watch the whole recording at this LINK (Bill 143 discussion starts at 15:50:50).

For what its worth if you want to read a bit. I watched most of this testimony online. Yes, this is rambling, but I was typing this as it happened.

Sorry, but this is about as formal as a local town board meeting. Being from out east, it is odd to see so many people in a room without masks. Senator Ellsworth introducing the bill started with an overview of the bill using what is obviously very one-sided facts about public land access. Harped about how NR use of BMA has gone from 16% to a whopping 22% in the past 10 years and what a big deal this is. Then he got into how NR tags for those hunting with outfitters would be "early bird" tags (first come, first serve) and how they would be an EXTRA $200!! Then he touted how all of this extra money is going to help increase land access for RESIDENTS and, oh yeah, he almost forgot, non-residents. Not sure how much I can watch his bull. Amazingly, the chair, Senator Hinebauch, started the meeting off by letting everyone know they would be limiting comments to 2 minutes per person - obviously catching everyone there unprepared to shorten their speeches. It is amazing how people being told they only have 2 minutes waste the first 45 seconds kissing azz and mentioning irrelevant stuff. Then there are the "slow talkers".....

The proponents were up first - they packed the house and had many outfitters speak. No big surprises, "this will not affect the number of NR tags available" "this will not decrease public land opportunity" "I need more security in planning my fall outfitting business". The biggest thing I learned from them speaking is that the late draw date is probably as big a problem as anything. If Montana had an earlier draw then the outfitters would be able to plan earlier and/or advertise for those who drew a tag.

There were significantly less opponents in the crowd, and few from "organizations". Most were poorly prepared and gave less than impressive speeches. A few mentioned that this should be put to the voters instead of being decided by a handful of representatives. Montana Wildlife Foundation was the one exception with a well spoken speech, including "it is not the job of the state to guarantee any business customers". Montana Sportsmen's Alliance also gave a good presentation in their 2 minutes. Had an interesting guy who is a NR but owns land and a business in Montana talking about how if passed it might force people like him to consider hiring an outfitter in order to hunt his own land - said he'd sell his land and leave the state if that happened - he advocated for making Montana the earliest lottery date in the west. Montana Backcountry and Anglers gave more testimony about privatizing wildlife resources and depriving the common man from an opportunity to hunt by giving those who can afford a guide increased opportunity simply based on means. Montana Audubon spoke on commercialization of wildlife. Another guy asked what happens to the mainstreet businesses who get a lot of their income from non-guided NR hunters. President of Montana Bowhunters Association expressed how this is an attempt to override a prior voter ballot intiative (161) and was very short with the rest of his speech.

It was a little agitating to have the chair keep speeding the meeting up towards the end, as if he had a plane to catch.

Then they went to "informational witnesses". Montana Fish and Wildlife had several on hand if there were questions from the committee. Senator Ellsworth then kept talking about "there is no 60%, it would be based on historical averages that guides had for the last 3 years, or maybe more..." Another Senator called him out on his claim that 60% is indeed in the language of the law. Ellsworth said it might be more like 40% or 45%. Another informational witness then stated that preference point process may be impacted by this bill. Another Senator asked Ellsworth if there is precedent where other businesses/industries are guaranteed by the state of business. Another asked how would the state know that they are actually booked with the outfitter. Another asked what happens if the outfitters complain that they are not allotted enough % - do they go back and ask for a higher % in a few years?

I have never met Sen. Ellsworth but based solely on what I saw today I do not like him. He seemed to be rather shifty when called out on his own bill. Liked to deflect the topic or cherry pick his info. Not sure if someone is greasing his palm rather well or has some dirt on him but he is obviously "all in" on this one. In his closing, he reiterated that they will go back, look at the data from the guides, and take the average number of hunters served by guides for the past X years, then use the average to determine how many tags would be "set aside" for NR hunters using guides. It would NOT be 60% according to him, likely a smaller number like 40 or 45%. Finally "I will have amendments, substantial amendments, when we return."

I did not get the impression that anyone has made up their mind yet on this. The meeting ended at 8:04 PM EST (after 10 Montana time), which I find rather astonishing that they do in person business that late.

 

[hobbes]

Opposition is still up

I didn't get to hear more than a second or two of the last guy that was for it and it was clear that he was an outfitter looking for guaranteed clientele.

MWF, BHA, and MBA have all spoken against as far as organizations go. I've had some interruptions so maybe others. Several individuals also.

 

[hobbes]

Some of you will love this. They are about to ask Cody Carr a question. At least it's been brought up.

Apparently that didn't happen.

This sponsor is so full of shit. He should be ashamed of how he's portraying this bill.