Montana Alternates List Changes

[ericthered]

F the outfitters if they did that. Never ever would I hunt with one after they pull these stunts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve hunted Montana 10 years straight. My outfitter lives in town, has never lied to me that I know of and I’ve taken 1 bull over 300” which is what he advertises. To be fair, I hunted MT in the early 2000s with a different guy and his operation was sketch. That’s why I switched.

 

[FrankAbagnale]

Remember tags are turned in right up to opening day so as these tags come available, folks on the list will be called. I’ll bet 1000 elk and big game combination tags combined will be turned back. That’s about 7% of tags issued. But with virus spikes could be higher.

Yeah good point.

 

[100percent]

If that's true, just another reason to never hunt with an outfitter.

I also find it pretty tough to believe that outfitters clients would stimulate the economy any more than DIY guys. In many cases the outfitters aren't even residents of Montana, neither are the guides. They take their wages back home...loss of revenue and economy stimulation.

Plus, if its a fully outfitted deal, the local restaurants, hotels, etc. don't make a plug nickel off the guided hunters. The clients fly in, shoot their critter and leave...spending next to nothing in a local economy.

DIY guys buy all kinds of things. Have tires fixed, stay at hotels, buy $50 worth of junk food at the local gas station every morning, fuel, eat at restaurants, etc. etc. etc.

Outfitters lie about the positive economic impacts they bring to a state about like they lie about the average "score" of the animals their clients kill....both grossly exaggerated.

What a load of anecdotal socialist bullshit!!

caveat:
I hunt both ways and see it clearly both ways! There is a large percentage of private land in mt that is controlled by outfitters. Owner/operators and lease type operations that will NEVER go public no matter how many block programs and other gimmicks are in play! 100’s of thousands of acres in some situations. Those guys can stimulate the economy in a big way with outfitter tags while having little impact on public resources. You have to consider everyone in America, not just yourself.

for kicks and giggles...
Using the customary 50% upfront deposit.... let’s say an avg deer hunt cost cost $5000 (some much higher). $2500 spent already. Likely that guy will come to hunt and spend the other $2500 plus tips and most of the other stuff a DIY guy will spend ‘in MT“

the diy guy can turn his tag back in for a full or majority credit if his wife or boss puts the squeeze on him last minute and leave the state with little economic impact. The tag may be repurposed (if not too late) but, same story... how much would he or she really spend??? $1500-2500 tops on pork skins, snickers, steaks, blown out tires, flashlight batteries, fidget spinners, hotels, etc....????

With just this in mind, You expect a human being with avg intelligence to believe that a diy guy will make an equal impact to the economy? If, as you say, “many” of the MT outfitters are not residents, how many would it take in the resident category to offset this arguable submission.
Go pet your wolves, Buzz!!!

 

[Deadfall]

Holy moly. So much oufitter bashing....lmao....yall mistaking MOGA for outfitters. Most outfitters around dont even like MOGA. Lmao....
People are crazy

 

[BuzzH]

What a load of anecdotal socialist bullshit!!

caveat:
I hunt both ways and see it clearly both ways! There is a large percentage of private land in mt that is controlled by outfitters. Owner/operators and lease type operations that will NEVER go public no matter how many block programs and other gimmicks are in play! 100’s of thousands of acres in some situations. Those guys can stimulate the economy in a big way with outfitter tags while having little impact on public resources. You have to consider everyone in America, not just yourself.

for kicks and giggles...
Using the customary 50% upfront deposit.... let’s say an avg deer hunt cost cost $5000 (some much higher). $2500 spent already. Likely that guy will come to hunt and spend the other $2500 plus tips and most of the other stuff a DIY guy will spend ‘in MT“

the diy guy can turn his tag back in for a full or majority credit if his wife or boss puts the squeeze on him last minute and leave the state with little economic impact. The tag may be repurposed (if not too late) but, same story... how much would he or she really spend??? $1500-2500 tops on pork skins, snickers, steaks, blown out tires, flashlight batteries, fidget spinners, hotels, etc....????

With just this in mind, You expect a human being with avg intelligence to believe that a diy guy will make an equal impact to the economy? If, as you say, “many” of the MT outfitters are not residents, how many would it take in the resident category to offset this arguable submission.
Go pet your wolves, Buzz!!!

Its not socialist bullshit for an industry to try to take a state asset/resource for themselves to profit from? Did you read what the outfitters proposed? Only their clients should get the returned tags? The DIY guys can just pound sand? You aren't short on nerve when you accuse others of "only thinking about themselves", unless you were talking about the outfitters only looking out for themselves with their welfare "proposal".

You're also full of crap...for starters, there's no guarantee an outfitter or their guides are even Residents in the state they work in (Montana in this case). Some are, but not all of them. Guess where they don't spend their paychecks?

How much do the local motels make from an outfitted deal when they have a spike camp? A lodge/cabin/bunkhouse to put their clients up for the night? How much do the local restaurants make when the outfitters provide all the meals via a cook?

A DIY hunter spends money the entire way from where they come from, all the way to Montana, and back again...providing economic benefit to a whole host of businesses that the average guided client simply does not, in many cases.

Plenty of room for both types of hunters, but for an industry to look for welfare from the State (all returned tags going to their clients ONLY) to bolster their business at the expense of DIY hunters is flat wrong, on all kinds of levels.

Try using some common sense...and look up the definition of "socialist" while you're at it, before you use words you don't understand.

 

[100percent]

Cute! Unfortunately, you didn’t read much of my post. Socialist in that history shows YOU have little respect for private landownership and or capitalism. You just submit more of the same.... The idea was suggested in the spirit of tax revenue under less than ideal travel environment/restrictions. Did it benefit private interests, sure but, the tax base would be bolstered by the revenue It provided in excess of what the average joe might spend on a diy trip, if he came at all... I’m not for or against but, see both sides. You on the other hand.... Well, enough said!

 

[BuzzH]

Cute! Unfortunately, you didn’t read much of my post. You just submit more of the same.... it was suggested in the spirit of tax revenue under less than ideal travel environment/restrictions. I’m not for or against but, see both sides. You on the other hand.... Well, enough said!

Yeah, its a real character flaw looking out for the hunters of average means and all the businesses they support.

It was a greedy suggestion by an industry with a business model that makes its money from a State asset/resource paid for by everyone but them. Why should they be surprised when the people paying the freight for the management, and the trustees of that resource, don't think its a good idea to prop up said business at the expense of everyone but their clients and their for profit businesses?

It would be one thing if outfitters paid for the management of the resource...they don't. They want to socialize the costs/expenses to manage the State's wildlife, then privatize the profits they make from those assets everyone else but them pay for.

Yeah, rail on about "capitalism"...may want to look up that word too...

 

[FrankAbagnale]

Well that escalated quickly.

 

[Deadfall]

Yeah, its a real character flaw looking out for the hunters of average means and all the businesses they support.

It was a greedy suggestion by an industry with a business model that makes its money from a State asset/resource paid for by everyone but them. Why should they be surprised when the people paying the freight for the management, and the trustees of that resource, don't think its a good idea to prop up said business at the expense of everyone but their clients and their for profit businesses?

It would be one thing if outfitters paid for the management of the resource...they don't. They want to socialize the costs/expenses to manage the State's wildlife, then privatize the profits they make from those assets everyone else but them pay for.

Yeah, rail on about "capitalism"...may want to look up that word too...

Dude....you in way over your head "bro"....you have any idea what legit outfitters pay in fees....fees that go too the resource....no yu don't. All you got is a pie hole.....

Maybe you talkin about the scabs...noone likes them. Either way, you should consider keeping track of your own nose

 

[BluMtn]

Last year I started off on the alt list at about 1700. I received an email about a week before season that ask if I was interested in a tag. if you keep refreshing the website you will see your current number.

 

[FrankAbagnale]

Last year I started off on the alt list at about 1700. I received an email about a week before season that ask if I was interested in a tag. if you keep refreshing the website you will see your current number.

That’s good to know.

 

[BuzzH]

Yo dude, you ever worked for a legit outfitter? If not, bugger off. Montana used to have a good system that kept guys hunting with outfitters and the do it yourselfers separated. Wasn't perfect but was dang sure better then this mess. Under that system the guided guys paid more then diy....but a bunch of asshats had to come along and fix a wheel that wasn't even squeaky. Why, because to many cry babies running around. You sir are the problem. You wanna point fingers there jackwgaon, well there's 4 pointed back at ya. There maybe you can digest that since its on your level, you f ing dog violator.....
Be just fine with the rest of us here in montana if bleeding cunts such as yourself stayed away. I suppose this will probably just infuriate the shitvoutvof your tender little sensibilities...

I see you're still sored up over I-161...you related to Mac Minard?

It was really something watching the outfitters file lawsuits to stop a citizen ballot initiative to get rid of their welfare, spend a pile of money on that, but contribute exactly ZERO to the MTFWP and wildlife management.

The only people that benefited under the outfitter sponsored licenses were the outfitters. Their clients took it on the chin having to pay more. A bunch of lousy outfitters were assured business strictly because of the control they had on the sponsored licenses. I'm sure it was a real inconvenience for outfitters to actually have to do some work to book clients, too bad, welcome to the real world.

I've gathered signatures for 2 ballot initiatives in my life, this one I-161, and also I-143, to stop "hunting" on game farms in Montana...both passed handily.

Not sure how you figure when a person gets what they want they would be "infuriated"...happy would be the word you're looking for.

Happy that the OSL's went the way of the dinosaur and happy the lame outfitter attempt to get back the welfare they lost through I-161 flopped this year too. The returned tags need to be available to ALL hunters, not just clients...and rightfully so.

 

[BuzzH]

Dude....you in way over your head "bro"....you have any idea what legit outfitters pay in fees....fees that go too the resource....no yu don't. All you got is a pie hole.....

Maybe you talkin about the scabs...noone likes them. Either way, you should consider keeping track of your own nose

Yes I do know what they pay in fees to the agency responsible for managing the States Wildlife Resources, the MTFWP...that would be ZERO. Before you get out over your ski's...their clients pay all the license fees, outfitters pay NOTHING, no percentage of what they charge a client goes back to the MTFWP.

Since leaving Montana, I've paid over $10K directly to the MTFWP in license fees as a NR hunter.

Prove me wrong...tuffie.

 

[Deadfall]

I see you're still sored up over I-161...you related to Mac Minard?

It was really something watching the outfitters file lawsuits to stop a citizen ballot initiative to get rid of their welfare, spend a pile of money on that, but contribute exactly ZERO to the MTFWP and wildlife management.

The only people that benefited under the outfitter sponsored licenses were the outfitters. Their clients took it on the chin having to pay more. A bunch of lousy outfitters were assured business strictly because of the control they had on the sponsored licenses. I'm sure it was a real inconvenience for outfitters to actually have to do some work to book clients, too bad, welcome to the real world.

I've gathered signatures for 2 ballot initiatives in my life, this one I-161, and also I-143, to stop "hunting" on game farms in Montana...both passed handily.

Not sure how you figure when a person gets what they want they would be "infuriated"...happy would be the word you're looking for.

Happy that the OSL's went the way of the dinosaur and happy the lame outfitter attempt to get back the welfare they lost through I-161 flopped this year too. The returned tags need to be available to ALL hunters, not just clients...and rightfully so.

Lmao. That bill dropped license prices for the guys going with outfitters. Helped the outfitter. The folks I work for never batted an eye. Business is steadily picking up for them. All that bill did was throw everyone in the same pool instead of having 2 separate pools.

 

[BuzzH]

Lmao. That bill dropped license prices for the guys going with outfitters. Helped the outfitter. The folks I work for never batted an eye. Business is steadily picking up for them. All that bill did was throw everyone in the same pool instead of having 2 separate pools.

...and increased total revenue to the MTFWP as well as allowing more DIY hunters to draw.

Plus it made the outfitters actually have to work for clients, cleaned up some of the "scab" operators to use your words, who simply had clients due to the OSL's.

Nothing to report back on regarding what percentage of the fees charged by outfitters in Montana goes back to the managing agency (MTFWP) to pay for wildlife management?

Its an easy number to find...

BTW, if that bill was going to "help" outfitters why did Minard and MOGA file a lawsuit to stop it?

Doesn't make sense to spend a bunch of money trying to stop a bill that would benefit them...does it?

 

[Deadfall]

Yes I do know what they pay in fees to the agency responsible for managing the States Wildlife Resources, the MTFWP...that would be ZERO. Before you get out over your ski's...their clients pay all the license fees, outfitters pay NOTHING, no percentage of what they charge a client goes back to the MTFWP.

Since leaving Montana, I've paid over $10K directly to the MTFWP in license fees as a NR hunter.

Prove me wrong...tuffie.

Allright home. On top of taxes, there are land use fees. Grazing fees, client fees, camp site fees to just name a few. On forest they have to pay a day use fee per hunter. Private land, those guys pay the landowner directly which is the guy caring for the resources.
Myself, I'm a public land guy. When hunt for myself. Its always OTC tags for me. The private land hunters for sure get a better experience as they get too hunt real wild animal. They are low pressure which allows the animal to behave as normally would.

Pressured wildlife on public land isn't living a normal life. They behave different.

Outfitters are held to higher standard. They are responsible for the actions of clients. Their forest/wilderness camps are inspected constantly. They have to be set up the same every year. They clear and maintain trails in conjunction with FS.
The clients are obligated to behave respectfully to the environment and animals.

They spend an extraordinary amount of time with predator depredation and other preserving stuff.

DIY guys not so much. They can do whatever they want. We all know those yahoos make life hard on everyone. I have piles of examples. Just as I'm sure you have piles of examples of shitty outfitters.

I'm not denying there are some real shit show outfits out there. We call them scabs. Unfortunately they have migrated into MOGA. Noone that is legit has one ounce of respect for that bunch.

Just as no self respecting DIY has one ounce of respect for the DIY bumbs of the world.

You wanna lump all outfitters together, fine. Then you best lump yourself in the same category as the DIY guys leaving shit everywhere, killing stock, wounding animals and not bothering to look for 3 minutes before moving on. flock shooting, trespassing, poaching.

Until Trump got the economy banging licenses never sold out here. Now that lucenses are selling out...the next thing going to happen is prices are gonna go up.
Everyone thought the bill would hurt the outfitters. Just cutting our own throats. Spite always backfires. That was a very shortsighted bill.

 

[Deadfall]

you wanna get fired up about something. Go do some research into the big box gear stores. People shopping thosr joints aiding in own demise.

 

[Deadfall]

...and increased total revenue to the MTFWP as well as allowing more DIY hunters to draw.

Plus it made the outfitters actually have to work for clients, cleaned up some of the "scab" operators to use your words, who simply had clients due to the OSL's.

Nothing to report back on regarding what percentage of the fees charged by outfitters in Montana goes back to the managing agency (MTFWP) to pay for wildlife management?

Its an easy number to find...

BTW, if that bill was going to "help" outfitters why did Minard and MOGA file a lawsuit to stop it?

Doesn't make sense to stop a bill that would benefit them...does it?

Because that bill was short sighted. The NR guys going to find that out when prices start climbing. Now that other states have caught up to montana price wise, the price is going to go up and up and up. The higher outfitter priced tags kept yalls price lower. That was the trade off. Nobody had everything they wanted, but everyone got something. Now....well...guess we will see

 

[Deadfall]

Because that bill was short sighted. The NR guys going to find that out when prices start climbing. Now that other states have caught up to montana price wise, the price is going to go up and up and up. The higher outfitter priced tags kept yalls price lower. That was the trade off. Nobody had everything they wanted, but everyone got something. Now....well...guess we will see

That bill didn't get rid of one single solitary scab. They more rampant then ever, now there's no oversight at all....

 

[Ryan Avery]

Good Debate is encouraged, cussing at people is not.