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

[25orSo]

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.

Thanks. At least it is a little bit of "not bad" news.

Gonna have to wait and see how many tags get set aside for outfitters to see what my odds will be, and then what land is left open as well.

I'll wait and see how this all plays out. If a lot of this stuff goes through, I'm not sure that I would want to contribute my revenue to them. Montana may very well become an exclusive country club for the rich and famous. If so, I'll take my grounds keeper wages somewhere else.

It sure doesn't sound like they are managing the public's assets for everyone's best interest.

I really hate seeing the big money commercialization of hunting. It is gonna kill the sport for the common person and it is going to erase opportunity for young hunters as well.

It sure has to suck to have this happening in your back yard.

 

[NDGuy]

It sure has to suck to have this happening in your back yard.

It's happening everywhere. The slow slide downward has been going on for awhile now.

 

[Sanchez]

I am a non resident who hunts Montana DIY when I can get an elk/deer tag. I have zero interest in hunting with an outfitter.

Money has little to do with it for me. I currently spend a lot of money hunting Montana DIY including a summer "scouting" trip with the family. The family scouting/camping trip is actually much expensive than my fall hunting trip. Overall, I spend more money as a Montana tourist than it would cost me to go on a guided or outfitter supported hunt.

My tourist dollars will go to states (or provinces) other than Montana if a version of this bill setting nonresident tags aside for outfitters passes, . A wide variety of Montana tourist dependent businesses will lose.

I will send a letter to appropriate Montana politicians explaining this.

 

[NDGuy]

Overall, I spend more money as a Montana tourist than it would cost me to go on a guided or outfitter supported hunt.

Thing is truthfully, sure maybe people going outfitted pay a certain % more than the average DIY guy.

BUT usually all of it goes to the outfitter. It doesn't go to the restaurants, bars, stores, gas stations etc.

It's a welfare funnel, guaranteeing customers by government mandate.

 

[MT257]

Thing is truthfully, sure maybe people going outfitted pay a certain % more than the average DIY guy.

BUT usually all of it goes to the outfitter. It doesn't go to the restaurants, bars, stores, gas stations etc.

It's a welfare funnel, guaranteeing customers by government mandate.

So the money these outfitters make doesn’t go towards the food bill in camp? Servicing vehicles? Paying camp cooks, packers, guides? Where do they get their groceries those aren’t free by any means. I’m sure there are insurance costs associated with running an outfit as well. How about having to pay for those leases they hold I am by no means in favor of this bill but let’s be real these outfitters aren’t just magically not having to pay for stuff.

 

[hutty]

Listened to the podcast with Randy Newberg and head of MOGA and it was a fair, decent, respectful and presented both sides of an issue without tweets, insults and threats. Quite refreshing. Interesting to see the amendments/modifications to the bill. Good legislation is where both sides walk away a bit angry.

 

[sneaky]

So the money these outfitters make doesn’t go towards the food bill in camp? Servicing vehicles? Paying camp cooks, packers, guides? Where do they get their groceries those aren’t free by any means. I’m sure there are insurance costs associated with running an outfit as well. How about having to pay for those leases they hold I am by no means in favor of this bill but let’s be real these outfitters aren’t just magically not having to pay for stuff.

You completely missed his point. Hotels and motels make zero off of guys going with an outfitter. Small town restaurants and gas stations don't either. The outfitters pay a pittance for the public ground they use, let's be real. Their insurance isn't a million dollars a year either. It's all of the small town businesses that lose with this bill. Sure, the outfitters will buy food at the grocery store, once a week. But all those stores and businesses that make money off of DIY guys being in town will suffer. This bill is bullshit from top to bottom.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Listened to the podcast with Randy Newberg and head of MOGA and it was a fair, decent, respectful and presented both sides of an issue without tweets, insults and threats. Quite refreshing. Interesting to see the amendments/modifications to the bill. Good legislation is where both sides walk away a bit angry.

You mean the one where Randy got him to admit it was a tag grab for outfitters? That guy was so unprepared and Randy systematically tore his case apart. Randy came out on top in that conversation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[hutty]

You mean the one where Randy got him to admit it was a tag grab for outfitters? That guy was so unprepared and Randy systematically tore his case apart. Randy came out on top in that conversation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That is the podcast. Randy did his homework and being a CPA had the numbers worked out.

 

[MT257]

You completely missed his point. Hotels and motels make zero off of guys going with an outfitter. Small town restaurants and gas stations don't either. The outfitters pay a pittance for the public ground they use, let's be real. Their insurance isn't a million dollars a year either. It's all of the small town businesses that lose with this bill. Sure, the outfitters will buy food at the grocery store, once a week. But all those stores and businesses that make money off of DIY guys being in town will suffer. This bill is bullshit from top to bottom.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This is false to some extent. I know there is an outfitter who does have his client stay at a motel in eastern Montana. I know this because the owner of the motel told me it’s how it worked. So therefore they did in fact eat in town and spend money in the community. Yes there were others in this community who do what you claimed. So each business or outfitter approaches it differently. You can’t just blanket statement the entire industry unless you ask all of them and get the same answer from each of them.

 

[NDGuy]

This is false to some extent. I know there is an outfitter who does have his client stay at a motel in eastern Montana. I know this because the owner of the motel told me it’s how it worked. So therefore they did in fact eat in town and spend money in the community. Yes there were others in this community who do what you claimed. So each business or outfitter approaches it differently. You can’t just blanket statement the entire industry unless you ask all of them and get the same answer from each of them.

Obviously there are exceptions. But I don't believe most people who go hunting with an outfitter stay in a hotel, or pay for gas besides to make it to the location of the hunt. And meals are nearly always included.

Shit people fly in and get picked up by the outfitter so you eliminate that as well haha

Forgive me though for the blanket statement, I know it doesn't apply to all cases. But from what I see those are the minority. I feel most would agree with me as well.

 

[MT257]

Obviously there are exceptions. But I don't believe most people who go hunting with an outfitter stay in a hotel, or pay for gas besides to make it to the location of the hunt. And meals are nearly always included.

Shit people fly in and get picked up by the outfitter so you eliminate that as well haha

Forgive me though for the blanket statement, I know it doesn't apply to all cases. But from what I see those are the minority. I feel most would agree with me as well.

I get where your coming from, but I do honestly think more money than "most" think that the outfitter gets paid from a client does get put back into the community. I mean its just in different avenues than we think. The local fuel supply company, might be before season starts but I'd guess the outfitter buy x amount of gallons of fuel to be delievered-thats local money being spent. How many out of staters hit Walmart up in the last major city to get their necessities before getting to their location? None of the money spent at Walmart is local.

 

[NDGuy]

None of the money spent at Walmart is local.

Well buying from Walmart in itself is a contributing problem lol

I hear you, it's just not enough for me to be okay with any of what's proposed.

 

[MT257]

Well buying from Walmart in itself is a contributing problem lol

I hear you, it's just not enough for me to be okay with any of what's proposed.

I agree 143 isn't great, but I hope that there is just as much uproar for hb417, becasue in my opinion if 417 passes there goes a bunch of quality hunting for NR folks.

 

[NDGuy]

I agree 143 isn't great, but I hope that there is just as much uproar for hb417, becasue in my opinion if 417 passes there goes a bunch of quality hunting for NR folks.

Haha they are all shit, everyone on hunttalk is causing a ruckus and there have been more posted on here as well.

Alarms have been raised for sure.

 

[OkayestHNTR]

You mean the one where Randy got him to admit it was a tag grab for outfitters? That guy was so unprepared and Randy systematically tore his case apart. Randy came out on top in that conversation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Another note was Mac from MOGA mentioned they wanted 60% so they never came close to the top end of the allocated tags, however, when Sen. Ellsworth presented the bill he indicated the 60% was a stand in pending previous years guide numbers.

 

[MT257]

Haha they are all shit, everyone on hunttalk is causing a ruckus and there have been more posted on here as well.

Alarms have been raised for sure.

Yes they are all shit, but SB 143 in current state or initial state doesn't look so damn bad compared to HB417 or the bill that Galt introduced.

 

[Tony8108]

Any updates on where this is at?

 

[Scoot]

Yes they are all shit, but SB 143 in current state or initial state doesn't look so damn bad compared to HB417 or the bill that Galt introduced.

That's exactly their goal- initial proposal is ridiculous so it doesn't seem so terrible when they propose what they were initially shooting for (which would have caused an uproar if they had started with it). Very commonly used tactic.