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

[mlgc20]

Goes to show that if you're not organized and represented politically, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. In this case the guides assoc. are clearly organized and represented and thus have the ear of the legislature, whereas us DIYers are not and are now trying to play catchup.

You're absolutely right. Government is a racket now. On both sides of the aisle. I mean, if you can't get a republican senator from Montana to vote against what is essentially a form of welfare, then there isn't much hope for those of us that prefer a smaller government.

 

[downthepipe]

How many out of state tags are currently allocated? 0%?

What is the current percentage of non residents that use an outfitter?

is this only for deer and elk?

 

[NWoldschool]

I try to keep up on legislation that may affect me. This Montana bill, SB143, giving outfitters and guides 60% of the state's licenses seems especially... gross (the people of MT voted down this bill via ballot initiative in 2010).

I know there are others like me on this forum who oppose this measure. I also know many people who oppose these kinds of things don't take action. So, in an effort to provide a little value to this great forum I figure I'll do what I can to make it easy for you all to weigh in.

Below is the email I just sent to MT Senate Game and Fish Committee, I've even provided the email addresses. All you have to do open your email, copy and paste into the corresponding fields, add your name to the bottom, and hit SEND. It'll take you 60 seconds or less to do your good deed for the day.

I don't know how to make it any easier. If I could hit send for you, I would

Please spread the word!

TO:​

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]​

​

SUBJECT​

SB143 - Set aside outfitter licenses​

​

​

​

​

I’m writing to urge you to Vote No on SB143, the bill allocating exclusive licenses for outfitters and guides.​

​

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 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 outfitters it will be giving special priority status to wealthy hunters who can afford the extremely high cost of hiring an outfitter. This will be done at the expense of working-class, blue-collar hunters such as myself and those like me.​

​

I 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.​

​

​

Respectfully​

JOHN DOE​

I too have emailed and posted comments on this subject. Thanks for the information.

 

[Scoot]

Goes to show that if you're not organized and represented politically, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. In this case the guides assoc. are clearly organized and represented and thus have the ear of the legislature, whereas us DIYers are not and are now trying to play catchup.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[caesAR15]

Updated post number 2 on this thread to reflect who voted for and against this bill in the Montana Senate.

It appears the bill has been referred to the Senate Finance & Claims Committee who has a hearing on the bill scheduled for 2/18 at 1:30. It seems strange to me that they passed it through the Senate only to refer it back to a Senate Committee. I may very well be missing something, so if someone can explain I welcome a correction or some additional context.

Regardless, just for good measure, here's the email list for the Senate Finance and Claims Committee:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

 

[caesAR15]

If I had to guess this bill will have to pass through the House Fish Wildlife and Parks Committee. It hasn't been assigned there yet, but if this thing can be stopped I would argue that's the best chance we've got. We'd do well to start making our voices heard within that committee. It's an uphill climb, but it's about all we can do.

Here are their email addresses. If you feel compelled to speak up on behalf of DIY hunters (and you should), but lack the words, feel free to "borrow" from my initial post that kicked off this thread.


House Fish Wildlife and Parks Committee:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

 

[sneaky]

interesting concept to have nonresidents, dictate to resident legislators, what nonresidents want in a state they do not live in.
not saying i am for or against, just stating, interesting concept.

When they are providing 80% of MTFWP budget they should definitely have a say in these issues.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

How many out of state tags are currently allocated? 0%?

What is the current percentage of non residents that use an outfitter?

is this only for deer and elk?

Citizens of MT voted for a ballot initiative in 2010 that eliminated outfitter guaranteed tags.

Right around 40% of NR supposedly use an outfitter currently.

I think it's only for deer and elk, not sure.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

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

 

[Scoot]

Money grubbing, legalized criminals. This is simply DIY Hunter Screwjob Version 2.0

Maybe they should add into this bill no NRs on state owned land without a guide and allot more tags to special interest groups (instead of Joe hunter)!

 

[dreamingbig]

Pretty soon we are going to have to apply two years out! Make it stop. Idaho and Montana both in December of year prior now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Pretty soon we are going to have to apply two years out! Make it stop. Idaho and Montana both in December of year prior now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least in Idaho you know right away if you got your license, and you don't have to pay an extra $300.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Randy Newberg]

This bill is going to Finance & Claims where a lot of bills with budget ramifications die. This bill and the amended $300 early app fee that is earmarked for access has a very good chance of dying in that Senate F&C committee. Keep pressure on it.

 

[Geewhiz]

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. I have not familiarized myself enough with this proposition to know what stand to take, but what are some thoughts of Montana residents on this bill? Seams like there would be a lot more revenue coming into the state from out of staters.

Honest questions and not trying to tick anybody off.

 

[dreamingbig]

As a non resident in 49 states I can’t see how giving preferential treatment to a special group is helpful in the long run. The outfitters obviously wanted to guarantee repeat clients. They never said that publicly that I read or heard but it had to be the angle they were going for. Repeat clients are easier to manage and reduces need to sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pyrotechnic]

I'm a Montana resident, I strongly oppose this bill. Hunting opportunity shouldn't be something that's relegated to the wealthy, period.

This year was the first time I hunted out of state. I did it diy and it was an awesome experience. I would like to be able to pursue those adventures in the future, and want people to be able to do the same in my state.

 

[Elk97]

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. I have not familiarized myself enough with this proposition to know what stand to take, but what are some thoughts of Montana residents on this bill? Seams like there would be a lot more revenue coming into the state from out of staters.

Honest questions and not trying to tick anybody off.

I guess if you consider $1000 cheap you are right. I want to be able to hunt with my sons who live in MT like I've done for many years. If outfitters get 60% or 40%, of the fixed number of out of state licenses then my chance of getting to spend time with the boys decreases dramatically. MT sells out each year (17500 non resident big game tags) so unless they up the number the state isn't going to see any increase in revenue from this bill. It will mean that the outfitters will have ready access to the tags for their high paying clients and the rest of us will scratch for the rest.

Randy- glad to hear that there's a chance this will die in the Senate F&C committee

 

[Lawnboi]

I cannot go on a guided hunt yearly. Or every 5 years. Cant do it. Wife and I work full time. The thought of paying 10k for a hunt is disgusting to me.

 

[jmez]

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. I have not familiarized myself enough with this proposition to know what stand to take, but what are some thoughts of Montana residents on this bill? Seams like there would be a lot more revenue coming into the state from out of staters.

Honest questions and not trying to tick anybody off.

Chart I found from 2017, resident license $8.9 million, non-resident $21.5 million.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[MtGomer]

For those interested in Montana deer, elk and antelope special permit units... I started a new thread on HB 417 which would make the vast majority of permit elk units and some deer and elk units into general units.

Montana HB417 - ending special permits

HB 417 would end special deer, elk and antelope permits in hunting districts that are over objective pursuant to 87-1-323 note that 87-1-323 states “The department shall consider the specific concerns of private landowners when determining sustainable numbers” What this will effectively do is...

www.rokslide.com