MT - SB143 Opposition to Special Guide Licenses - Trying to make this easy...

[Mt Al]

Resident response: I'm opposed, proud of MT for the residents voting it down in 2010. I don't wish any ill will on outfitters or landowners and don't blame them for trying to make their lives easier. Just not a fan of welfare and I understand it's a continuum from little gov't favors all the way to communism and this is more like a favor. Not being able to plan each fall is like, well, kind of, like every business that has to take risks for Pete's sake! I like that out of state hunters can actually choose if they want an outfitter or not rather than be forced/cajoled/encouraged by a majority Republican state gov't. Plus its fun to run into DIY hunters because they're mostly cool people. If the R's cave to the outfitters, they'll just shoot themselves in the foot like the almost always do in Montana. Just wait for them to screw up the State Land Board.

 

[GotDraw?]

OP-
I wrote to Senate Finance Committee and House F&W. Used your template and enhanced the language a bit... Thank you for the effort and commitment!

AS SENT:

Dear Senate and Finance Claims Committee Members & House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee Members,

I’m writing to urge you to Vote "NO" on SB143, the bill allocating exclusive licenses for outfitters and guides. I am an individual of modest means, like many long term, older hunters who grew up hunting on public land. I am not a trophy hunter, every public land bull is trophy in my book. The overwhelming majority of hunters I meet each year are individuals out enjoying an honest and challenging hunt. We do not have a PAC and we ask that you stop hunting from becoming an elitist, rich man's game, where federal and other public land hunts become controlled by a few expensive outfitters with PACs that benefit the few and exclude the overwhelming majority of common men and women who paid for and continue to pay for that land.

This issue was settled in 2010 when outfitter carve-outs were REJECTED by the voters of Montana via ballot initiative 161. The fact that a small, special interest group is now trying to use the legislature to reverse the will of the people is an affront to Montana voters. Not only that, by asking for special outfitter license allocation this special interest group is effectively demanding that the Montana legislature guarantee them customers and provide state resources for their businesses.

Hunting is already a difficult and expensive activity that gets more and more costly every year. If the Montana legislature gives special, carve-out licenses to the tiny percentage of the population that are outfitters then they will be giving special priority status to a relative handful of wealthy hunters who can afford the extremely high cost of hiring an outfitter. This will be done at the expense and detriment of the majority of working-class, blue-collar hunters such as myself and those like me who have grown up enjoying our public lands without restraint or favoritism.

I enjoy public land hunting on our federal lands and respectfully urge you to adhere to the will of the Montana voters, to not give in to special interests' demand for government handouts, and to keep hunting accessible for hunters of all means. Please Vote No on SB143. Please keep hunting accessible and affordable for the average men and women with average means. Federal and other public lands were not created so the very few wealthy and influential can wield a bully pulpit, favoritism and influence to exclude the many average citizens from enjoying their right to an affordable hunt.

Sincerely,

 

[Scooter90254]

This really is a shame. I support states rights when it comes to NR hunters and I’m also a big fan of outfitters and guides. I see them as allies. That being said this type of action is brutal.

Hunt Talk did a great podcast with Randy and the leader of MOGA. Randy did a phenomenal job of reducing Mac’s points to basically admitting its a grab for the industry. Randy’s to smart to mud sling so it’s not the exciting fight some were looking for but a great conversation none the less. We couldn’t have a better ambassador for the DIY community.

On this issue, in his home state he really but his money were his mouth is. I feel it’s important to give credit where credit is due.

 

[OkayestHNTR]

The great MOGAWA Act of 2021. Montana Outfitters and Guides Association Welfare Act. They are ignoring calls from residents, and nonresidents on this. Supposedly outfitters don't have enough time to plan out their season between April and Sept, or between April and late Oct for rifle. Sounds like there's some shitty outfitters if that's the case. Now they are pushing for a $300 fee early draw period from Dec 1 to Dec 31st and supposedly not making those who enter the early draw choose an outfitter. What will be even more interesting is to see how long it takes the WYOGA to respond with legislation in WY to push up their application dates so they don't lose out on potential clients who will get the jump on them by applying in December in MT.

Bill that would have guaranteed nonresident hunting licenses for outfitters amended

The full Senate approved the heavily amended bill 27-23. SB 143 needs to pass one more vote before being forwarded to the House for consideration.

billingsgazette.com

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Great points....

It reminds me of an old job where we got paid every other Friday. At some point it was learned that, on most weeks but not always, accounting actually received the checks on Thursday evening. There were a few guys who started to ask for their checks early "when things were tough", but eventually their pay day became Thursday. Two weeks is two weeks just the same twelve months is twelve months.

Had the same thought...when ID changed things up in December.

 

[100percent]

Fair point. I personally find it interesting how there was a statewide ballot initiative about this EXACT issue in 2010. The voters of MT killed it then. But now the guides are trying to revise history via the legislature. To me that speaks volumes.

First, MOGA played under the table in this deal, CLEARLY! I can see real concerns and opportunities on both sides of this bill but, i laugh (really loud) when popular vote is used as a qualifier. Damn... popular vote elected Jimmy Carter for God’s sake!

In reference to ballot initiave 161, do you think all voters had a real understanding of the issues in the whole? Many repercussions in the details that would need to be considered. Everyone in this country is entitled to their opinion but, rarely is opinion based on fact (or logic for that matter)! People generally vote on emotion. Would you want your electorate in your town/county/state voting on your personal livelihood?

Its a shame when these type decisions are not handled by the “experts” in game and fish. Encourage legislators to push this back to game and fish as, they are no more qualified to make this decision than Barney Fife! Allow the science and intimate knowledge of the situation be the guiding principle through the department. Let the department dictate policy! They usually know what needs to be done and how to do it with equanimity for all.

I wish MOGA would have taken this stance but, 161 pushed them in a corner.

IF this bill passes the revision for the early draw should satisfy most reputable outfitter concerns. We as a group can’t stand much more of this mess! It’s a shame when hunters are pitted against other hunters...

 

[25orSo]

It seams like most of the contributors to this thread are not residents of Montana who want to be able to continue to hunt here for (relatively) cheap.

Former resident. Would like to hunt there again. Not rich.

In reference to ballot initiave 161, do you think all voters had a real understanding of the issues in the whole?

I did my best to when I cast my vote in 2010. I still feel the way I voted.


One thing is for sure, if this passes, a lot more non-residents in my income bracket will not be spending what little bit we have in places like Montana.

I never thought a Montanian would want to be a rich guys butler.

 

[caesAR15]

First, MOGA played under the table in this deal, CLEARLY! I can see real concerns and opportunities on both sides of this bill but, i laugh (really loud) when popular vote is used as a qualifier. Damn... popular vote elected Jimmy Carter for God’s sake!

In reference to ballot initiave 161, do you think all voters had a real understanding of the issues in the whole? Many repercussions in the details that would need to be considered. Everyone in this country is entitled to their opinion but, rarely is opinion based on fact (or logic for that matter)! People generally vote on emotion. Would you want your electorate in your town/county/state voting on your personal livelihood?

Its a shame when these type decisions are not handled by the “experts” in game and fish. Encourage legislators to push this back to game and fish as, they are no more qualified to make this decision than Barney Fife! Allow the science and intimate knowledge of the situation be the guiding principle through the department. Let the department dictate policy! They usually know what needs to be done and how to do it with equanimity for all.

I wish MOGA would have taken this stance but, 161 pushed them in a corner.

IF this bill passes the revision for the early draw should satisfy most reputable outfitter concerns. We as a group can’t stand much more of this mess! It’s a shame when hunters are pitted against other hunters...

If the people of Montana in 2010 didn't understand what they were voting on -- who's fault was that? The voters' fault? Or MOGA, who failed to adequately make a case for why their members should be given special access to state resources?

I'll agree with you to a certain extent that we don't want mob rule. There's real value in having experts deciding how to manage these resources. But at the same time, I don't want unelected bureaucrats having the final say either. Thus the conundrum...

All that aside, I stand by my initial assertion. MOGA got beat on 161 in 2010. That's nobody's fault but their own. Now they're trying to circumvent the mandate that was given to them by going through the legislature. Personally, I don't like that, but I understand their arguments, and the guides have a right to advocate for their own personal interests. At the same time, DIY hunters have the exact same right to speak up and remind everyone of how this exact issue was settled not that long ago. That's politics.

 

[jmez]

I'll agree with you to a certain extent that we don't want mob rule. There's real value in having experts deciding how to manage these resources. But at the same time, I don't want unelected bureaucrats having the final say either. Thus the conundrum...

I fail to see any conundrum over management here. This isn't a discussion about management of resources or ballot box biology. The total number of tags is already being allocated by the Game and Fish. Dictating who those tags then go to isn't part of resource management.

 

[srfdmatty]

Thanks caesAR15 for keeping this up on our radars. Replied on one of the other threads and sent in a letter but will keep the pressure on.

Here is my simple take on this:
More tags will be set aside and guaranteed for those people who have the financial means to pay for a guided hunt. Those that don't have the financial means to pay an outfitter get a draw opportunity at a significantly reduced number of tags.
Seems like an American way of doing business and espouses the "fairness" hunters have long preached.
Non-hunters are not hunters worst enemies. Hunters are our own worst enemies when we allow ourselves to monetize the taking of game and allow those that have money control who gets access to game thus shutting the door on those that don't.
Lastly I firmly believe that residents of a state should have better access and increased odds for tags for their state but non-residents should be treated fairly as a group and the people of that group should have equal access compared to each other regardless of their income level.
Matt


Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[MtGomer]

OP-
I wrote to Senate Finance Committee and House F&W. Used your template and enhanced the language a bit... Thank you for the effort and commitment!

AS SENT:

Dear Senate and Finance Claims Committee Members & House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee Members,

I’m writing to urge you to Vote "NO" on SB143, the bill allocating exclusive licenses for outfitters and guides. I am an individual of modest means, like many long term, older hunters who grew up hunting on public land. I am not a trophy hunter, every public land bull is trophy in my book. The overwhelming majority of hunters I meet each year are individuals out enjoying an honest and challenging hunt. We do not have a PAC and we ask that you stop hunting from becoming an elitist, rich man's game, where federal and other public land hunts become controlled by a few expensive outfitters with PACs that benefit the few and exclude the overwhelming majority of common men and women who paid for and continue to pay for that land.

This issue was settled in 2010 when outfitter carve-outs were REJECTED by the voters of Montana via ballot initiative 161. The fact that a small, special interest group is now trying to use the legislature to reverse the will of the people is an affront to Montana voters. Not only that, by asking for special outfitter license allocation this special interest group is effectively demanding that the Montana legislature guarantee them customers and provide state resources for their businesses.

Hunting is already a difficult and expensive activity that gets more and more costly every year. If the Montana legislature gives special, carve-out licenses to the tiny percentage of the population that are outfitters then they will be giving special priority status to a relative handful of wealthy hunters who can afford the extremely high cost of hiring an outfitter. This will be done at the expense and detriment of the majority of working-class, blue-collar hunters such as myself and those like me who have grown up enjoying our public lands without restraint or favoritism.

I enjoy public land hunting on our federal lands and respectfully urge you to adhere to the will of the Montana voters, to not give in to special interests' demand for government handouts, and to keep hunting accessible for hunters of all means. Please Vote No on SB143. Please keep hunting accessible and affordable for the average men and women with average means. Federal and other public lands were not created so the very few wealthy and influential can wield a bully pulpit, favoritism and influence to exclude the many average citizens from enjoying their right to an affordable hunt.

Sincerely,

This would be a good message to the full senate or the wildlife committee in the house when the bill gets sent over there

the finance committee is only interested in comments pertaining to fiscal and monetary impacts- not to policy.

 

[NDGuy]

Another fun bill came about

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/lchtml/LC2343.htm

 

[hutty]

OP-
I wrote to Senate Finance Committee and House F&W. Used your template and enhanced the language a bit... Thank you for the effort and commitment!

AS SENT:

Dear Senate and Finance Claims Committee Members & House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee Members,

I’m writing to urge you to Vote "NO" on SB143, the bill allocating exclusive licenses for outfitters and guides. I am an individual of modest means, like many long term, older hunters who grew up hunting on public land. I am not a trophy hunter, every public land bull is trophy in my book. The overwhelming majority of hunters I meet each year are individuals out enjoying an honest and challenging hunt. We do not have a PAC and we ask that you stop hunting from becoming an elitist, rich man's game, where federal and other public land hunts become controlled by a few expensive outfitters with PACs that benefit the few and exclude the overwhelming majority of common men and women who paid for and continue to pay for that land.

This issue was settled in 2010 when outfitter carve-outs were REJECTED by the voters of Montana via ballot initiative 161. The fact that a small, special interest group is now trying to use the legislature to reverse the will of the people is an affront to Montana voters. Not only that, by asking for special outfitter license allocation this special interest group is effectively demanding that the Montana legislature guarantee them customers and provide state resources for their businesses.

Hunting is already a difficult and expensive activity that gets more and more costly every year. If the Montana legislature gives special, carve-out licenses to the tiny percentage of the population that are outfitters then they will be giving special priority status to a relative handful of wealthy hunters who can afford the extremely high cost of hiring an outfitter. This will be done at the expense and detriment of the majority of working-class, blue-collar hunters such as myself and those like me who have grown up enjoying our public lands without restraint or favoritism.

I enjoy public land hunting on our federal lands and respectfully urge you to adhere to the will of the Montana voters, to not give in to special interests' demand for government handouts, and to keep hunting accessible for hunters of all means. Please Vote No on SB143. Please keep hunting accessible and affordable for the average men and women with average means. Federal and other public lands were not created so the very few wealthy and influential can wield a bully pulpit, favoritism and influence to exclude the many average citizens from enjoying their right to an affordable hunt.

Sincerely,

Well written letter!

 

[25orSo]

but I understand their arguments, and the guides have a right to advocate for their own personal interests. At the same time, DIY hunters have the exact same right to speak up and remind everyone of how this exact issue was settled not that long ago. That's politics.

Lastly I firmly believe that residents of a state should have better access and increased odds for tags for their state but non-residents should be treated fairly as a group and the people of that group should have equal access compared to each other regardless of their income level.

Both in my opinion are very good responses.

I have an problem with a legislature overturning a issue that was decided by voters. If it is worthy, put it back on the ballot.

Now, as a non-resident, my costs to hunt there have increased, but with this bill, my odds of being able to afford to do it have decreased.

As it stood after 161, if I drew a tag, I could then shop for an outfitter/guide, and if you will I had a bit of a bargaining advantage. If this passes, the outfitters/guides will set the price and the odds of me being able to afford it are greatly diminished.

 

[dreamingbig]

As it stood after 161, if I drew a tag, I could then shop for an outfitter/guide, and if you will I had a bit of a bargaining advantage. If this passes, the outfitters/guides will set the price and the odds of me being able to afford it are greatly diminished.

Not true. The latest amendment has no requirement to use an outfitter. If you are willing to pay the extra $300 and apply you can still hunt DIY. I don’t like the additional fee but they did drop any tie to an outfitter. This appears to be the new Montana special draw much like Wyoming. Precedent is getting set for other states to follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NDGuy]

Not true. The latest amendment has no requirement to use an outfitter. If you are willing to pay the extra $300 and apply you can still hunt DIY. I don’t like the additional fee but they did drop any tie to an outfitter. This appears to be the new Montana special draw much like Wyoming. Precedent is getting set for other states to follow.

Better than the initial bill but we shouldn't be accepting a slightly less shit filled sandwich

 

[dreamingbig]

I agree. Keep the pressure on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DudeBro]

Latest version of the bill is available here: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/SB0199//SB0143_3.pdf

 

[NDGuy]

Latest version of the bill is available here: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/SB0199//SB0143_3.pdf

A 6"turd sandwich instead of the footlong one they tried to give us.

 

[MtGomer]

Worth noting that this is a long ways from a done deal. There will be a big push from one side to kill it and a big push from the other to restore the guide set aside.

no telling where it will end up.

 

[NDGuy]

no telling where it will end up.

Probably a nice middle-ground where 99% lose