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

[dreamingbig]

I listened. Seems like a done deal to me. Montana hunting is now for sale. Open to the highest bidder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreamingbig]

Ellsworth is not competent on this subject. Clearly bought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreamingbig]

I loved that they were annoyed by out of state emails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

Will these number be in effect for 2021?
Will they reimburse me for my now worthless preference points?
Least I'm not to invested in Montana before they moved the goal post

 

[dreamingbig]

2022 I believe but don’t quote me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hobbes]

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.

It's after 6 here. We are two hours behind Eastern Time

 

[hobbes]

It is not a done deal. The committee does not make it law.

 

[Deadfall]

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.

Right on. I dont know anyone who likes change. Everything changes all the time. Recon if this goes through diy folks gonna be butt hurt awhile. And then in a few years it'll change again and the outfitters will be butt hurt. Then back the other wayyy. Guess its called ebb and flow.

I get it. Sucks having stuff taken away or made harder. Who knows how it shakes out. One thing for sure itll change again.

 

[Deadfall]

That’s been exactly my experience. I go with the same group every year. If we get something, that’s great. If not, nobody cares, and within 2 weeks of getting home we’re already planning next year. I’d rather hang out with my buddies for 10 days and not even see an elk than spend a few days camping with a stranger and kill a monster.

Outfitter i worked for was over 90 percent repeat business. Some groups been coming over 20 yrs. So there's that... recon every coin got 2 sides

 

[dreamingbig]

The real run is that outfitters clients aren’t guaranteed to draw any more. They want their cake. They don’t care about anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Two Roads]

We listened to it all. Amazed by the lack of clear detail by the sponsor side and definitely can’t “thank a teacher” for those math skills. 80 head in the herd and you move 40 thru a gate, what percentage would that be? Bill sponsor would need to look at historical average, use a formula and spin a wheel 5,000 times to answer “maybe 40-45%, potentially 35%”.
Started out open minded enough to listen thru and ended up at the outfitters require the welfare of guaranteed tags to survive?
And can’t answer how tags are distributed among themselves. No clue. Random draw?
I respect and admire the heritage of outfitters, it is hard work but this floats over the line. Every business is tough including hotels and diners. If you are good, word gets around and damn quick today.
Wonder if the fishing guides will be next with their hand out wanting guide only licenses?

 

[Deadfall]

We listened to it all. Amazed by the lack of clear detail by the sponsor side and definitely can’t “thank a teacher” for those math skills. 80 head in the herd and you move 40 thru a gate, what percentage would that be? Bill sponsor would need to look at historical average, use a formula and spin a wheel 5,000 times to answer “maybe 40-45%, potentially 35%”.
Started out open minded enough to listen thru and ended up at the outfitters require the welfare of guaranteed tags to survive?
And can’t answer how tags are distributed among themselves. No clue. Random draw?
I respect and admire the heritage of outfitters, it is hard work but this floats over the line. Every business is tough including hotels and diners. If you are good, word gets around and damn quick today.
Wonder if the fishing guides will be next with their hand out wanting guide only licenses?

Don't matter how good a outfitter is if the clients can't come because they don't draw.

Comparing outfitters to hotels and diners is apples and grapefruits.

 

[Bighorner]

In my eyes it's very clear the needle is moving from hunting as a heritage to hunting as a pursuit for the more well to do.

For the residents that dont care, I get it. I'm a native non resdient. I can see it cutting down on NRs in your neck of forest, but make no mistake it is selling access to game to the highest bidders and it's a slippery slope that ends with your access for sale too.

 

[Trumpkin The Dwarf]

Email, call, fax, telegram, whatever... make noise about this if you ever plan to hunt in Montana. This is nothing less than a forced reallocation of resources, a welfare handout to outfitters, and will serve to increase lease prices, and point creep.

 

[Deadfall]

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.

Maybe I do underestimate NR impact. One thing for sure, diy hunters totally and completely underestimate outfitter impact.

Guy I worked for was over a grand a week just in bread and meat, both bought from montana grown. 80 percent of clients spend atleast one night in hotel.
The fees he pays, just for his little business make ya shake your head. Compound that with all the others.

Personally I dont see why everyone can't compromise on this deal.

Seems everyone always wants it ALL and screw everyone else.

Sounds to like they are going to go retool the numbers and talk about it again. How this process is supposed to work.

Don't sound un fair to me. Take the last 3yrs or 5 yrs average for outfitter numbers. Theres the guaranteed tag quota. Everything over that goes to draw.
Increase NR draw numbers which is in the bill.

Honestly sounds like a win win.

Everyone acts like this bill is final. This was just the rough draft. Which is why there is open comment, a couple hearings, amendments, some more discussion and 2 or 3 votes.

Sounds to me like the process is actually freaking working for once.

Seems like everyone reads 2 sentences goes red and turns off, draws a line in the sand.

What if everyone read the dang bill and said this dont sound very fair. Maybe we could subtract this, add that and give everyone some of what they want.
Need more problem solving solutionists is what we need.

So I'm glad we have this process. Better then a stinking ballot initiative that is either pass or fail and someone getting screwed.

Atleast this has a chance of making things better for everyone.

Noone even thought of that. Instead of voicing staunch opposition. Why not suggest a couple changes.

 

[Deadfall]

Everyone looking at this wrong. This thing is still in rough draft. Still in committee for god sakes.

What if everyone started emailing with some suggestions to help everyone instead of just outright condemnation.

So they want to raise NR tag numbers. Thats a win for DIY. Giving 60 percent to outfitters a win for outfitters, but hurts BR diy.

State average for outfitted hunters is somewhere in 40 percent range.

Why not say increase NR tag numbers and give 40 or 45 percent to outfitters.

Which by the way is what usually goes with outfitters...

Seems like everyone would score a little win.

Try and wrap your minds around the fact tgat even without this bill, 40 to 45 percent of NR hunters are going with an outfitter. Give or take a few percent.

The last couple of years tags have sold out. So if giving outfitters some guaranteed tags also gets a raise in NR allocated draw well that seems like a little win for everyone. Noone gets it all. Everyone gets some

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

That's all you need is a push for a bunch more of us to live there and hunt every weekend + 3 weeks of the season rather than a week or two. But it'll be better if our plates say MT and we become more deadly with more local knowledge/experience..

 

[Deadfall]

That's all you need is a push for a bunch more of us to live there and hunt every weekend + 3 weeks of the season rather than a week or two. But it'll be better if our plates say MT and we become more deadly with more local knowledge/experience..

Eh. People moving in by droves...success rates aint changing much though...

 

[Deadfall]

I'm all for NR hunters. I'm not all for screwing over local businesses. Our outfitters are mostly local businesses.

Yes there are some turds. Also 2 sides of that coin.

I think everyone should take a breath and look at this as an opportunity to wok together for once.

 

[wind gypsy]

In my eyes it's very clear the needle is moving from hunting as a heritage to hunting as a pursuit for the more well to do.

For the residents that dont care, I get it. I'm a native non resdient. I can see it cutting down on NRs in your neck of forest, but make no mistake it is selling access to game to the highest bidders and it's a slippery slope that ends with your access for sale too.

That's my big rub on this.

I always got the impression that the wealthy landowners and MOGA influence in the MT legislature were a frequent impediment to the FWP being able to properly manage the big game. Pushing for more pie for NR clients, 5 month long elk massacre, endless opportunity, B tags on the public, etc. Seems kind of odd for DIY resident outdoorsman to think MOGA all of a sudden has their best interest at heart.