Bowsite.com

Outfitters shouldn't be guaranteed tags. Just like 99% of us they should have to compete for business.

I think Randy put it in context correctly with something like....."we're all non-residents in 49 states".

I fired off an email to the legislators already. I sent this to the bro in Montana and my NR buds who hunt in MT. Courtesy of a commenter in the link, here is a copy/paste you can do with the email addresses to those legislators. Copy it and paste into your email's "To" line. I did it on outlook/hotmail and it worked.

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

I would also keep watch of Montana's position on the scoped and cocked crossbow. Remember, the roll out begins with permits for the seniors and those with disabilities. It blossoms from there. The issue is coming to light right now in Montana.

This is almost the exact model and result in the north-central CO units where every ranch is leased to outfitters. Bull-cow ratio way out of whack, herds way over objective, huge herds roaming the ranches and very low success rate on super-crowded public land.

Other than that I agree with everything you said. If an outfitter is good he will have clients.

You figure???

Resident hunters need to be heard. This will end the block management system. It will gut the access they enjoy as well. It will do exactly what has happened in Colorado.

Everytime someone mentions the cost of a NR elk tag 75% of guys say "it's inline with what other states charge". I gave up explaining how silly that was. If you are dumb enough to use that logic then you would never understand how stupid that logic is.

Lemmings.....

All states will increase NR fees and app costs. Why not?

Just talk to anyone who lives in New Mexico. It’s a terrible place to be a resident because of the guide draw and the landowner tags

Sent my emails today as well. If you commented here but didn’t email the reps please do so

I realize that the number of guided hunters would probably go up since it basically becomes OTC for anyone who is willing to fork over the cash. But I’m curious what us diy guys would be losing if the guided folks bought up 60% of the licenses.

I can’t imagine that number of 60% flying. MOGA probably figured shoot for the stars and see where it lands. But we’re talking politics here so nothing would surprise me.

Something to consider......when they took the guaranteed tags away from the outfitters there were some great pieces of land that had been leased up that they had to let go since they couldn't guarantee a tag. ( which I don't get because we have so damn many tags available) Anyways, the outfitters gave up these leases. A few were picked up by some locals but most went un hunted. Guess what? More elk stayed on the unhunted private lands and didn't get pushed into the public like before when they were being hunted. I used to complain out of jealousy about those guys getting to hunt that land but now I see I benefited by them being hunted as they generally were moving elk around. Something to think about. I want those guys hunting that ground. Used to be 10% tags went to the outfitters, I still think that's reasonable. They could tell clients to put in and if they don't draw they would have a handful of tags to distribute. 60% is way to high PLUS they wanted to increase the overall amount of tags by 10%. Thats ridiculous. We already over hunt everything here. We need to decrease some tags or install some apr's for adults in my opinion. There are of lot of guys from other states that could benefit from using an outfitter and having a better hunt. Many can afford it and it may free up some public and move the critters around. I understand the fear of losing some BMA's and that would be a bad deal for sure. Thats a great program but I don't think 10% guaranteed tags would effect it much. Those guys are already using an outfitter anyways. Just my two cents, I know I'm in the minority here but I also think some of you are missing some pieces to the story.

Can you point me to which pary of the bill guarantees anyone an income? Not to pick on you, but people keep throwing out hyperbolic comments about this but I do no believe they are supportable.

Even though the bill would allocate a large portion of tags to outfitters, there are still market conditions that exist within that pool.

I never said it didn’t tags away from DIY hunters, did I? My post wasn’t missing the point others made in the thread at all nor did I express my opinion on the matter other than the tag concept doesn’t guarantee outfitters business and income over the long term. If they’re bad at their business they’ll eventually fail, regardless. The good ones will find a way to deal with the fact clients who book with them might not be able to hunt. I don’t support the concept, I’m merely pushing back against incomplete arguments that guaranteed tags guarantee business.

As a NV resident who can only hunt elk in my home state every 15 - 20 years, waiting a couple of years to be able to hunt MT or any other state really doesn’t bother me much....

I sure hope that this is still a vocal minority and that others in MT remember the problems that the previous 10% set aside was causing, but the NR hatred in MT runs very deep for some people so who knows.

Thanks, Terry L. Zink Zink's Big Sky Archery Targets

Also disheartening, in 2010 the outfitter welfare was overturned by popular demand essentially voted out by Montana citizens. This has to be a slap in the face to the voters of Montana.

Very similar type of situation that we face in NM. However the problem with NM is there is a bunch of liberal fluff attached to SB 132.

Newberg and Jacobson will have a podcast where they talk about the politics taking place in the west regarding issues we as hunters and stewards of the land and game face.

He said something I’ve spoke with my friend JP aka Mrelite about. And that is as hunters, we are unorganized. We don’t have the money to buy these politicians like the Outfitters, guides, sheep and cattle growers and big landowners. Make no mistake, these politicians are being bought by these groups. It is a strategic play by these groups to get the policy making out of the hands of the game departments, and into the hands of politicians where policy can be bought.

The 501c organizations had some influence with game departments because they could push and make an argument on sound management. Now that policy is increasingly being legislated, instead of implemented by the game departments, the politicians are out of reach of these 501c groups. And here’s why. It’s against the law to pay off these politicians and they’d lose that 501c status. But these other groups are free to lobby through payoff without consequence.

Can’t wait to see this upcoming Elktalk podcast. Eye opening stuff!

As I see it, we made our own bed, and now we have to sleep in it. Horn porn at any expense, and by any method, is what is driving legislation like this. Just look at how the vast majority of this community has praised expensive outfitted hunts, like Pat's annual canned corn hunts in Kansas, for years. Is it any surprise that legislators, landowners, and outfitters are banding together to capitalize on MT hunting?

Anyway, hearing this legislation will likely pass saddens me. States like Colorado, that still manage for opportunity, will now see even more pressure, and the quality of hunting will continue to decline. Meanwhile, the small minority of hunters with $100 bills falling out of their pockets will be the only ones who will be able to afford a quality hunt.

Matt

What I do believe is that this bill will pass on party lines. I also believe it will cause more private land to be locked up to leases, and increase harboring of elk. I also believe there will be another voter initiative to remove this in a year or two, hopefully this time with enough teeth to prevent it from happening again.

If you are a Montana resident and your representative/senator is a republican let them know what you think of this bill. Mine are both democrats and have already assured me they will vote against it.

DG

The chart shows what happens when we carve away 39% for the outfitter pool and 2,000 deer tags for the landowner pool. That leaves 2,026 for the non-residents not sponsored by either a landowner or outfitter.

The math is the math. With a fixed number of tags, if one part of a population sample is given 100% draw odds, the remainder of that population sample is going to see a reduction in their draw odds. To argue against that math is laugh out loud material.

This same principle applies to the elk and elk-deer combo tags.

For reference, in 2020, the non-resident draw rate across all application pools for deer was 73%. Under this bill, it could go as low as 31%.

We have an increasing trend of demand for these licenses as neighboring states have increased their prices dramatically, while MT has continued to use their CPI adjustments. Given that trend, demand will likely continue on the same incline. As that demand increases, it only impacts the non-guided pool, making the 51% draw odds likely to get even lower as demand increases.

BTW - Randy great podcast on your Hunt Talk forum. Your guest obviously is only looking at the MOGA point of view based on the conversation.

Thanks Big Fin for all you're doing!

A lot of you have emailed, called, or otherwise contacted these folks. It has been invaluable to have that support. I know we all have a lot better things to do than to be drawn into political morass that pits hunters against hunters. But, if we can kill this bill, it hopefully sends a message that the many other terrible bills on the docket should not even be introduced.

Appreciate all of you taking an interest in this topic. Those who benefit from pitting hunters against hunters know that the legislative option is where they stand a better chance of winning, due to hunters' dislike for engaging in politics, due to our organizations being 501(c)(3) groups with political activity restricted by their charitable status, and they know hunters are not organized as are the industry lobby groups. Expect a lot more of our issues to be settled in state legislatures, not less of our issues.

Thanks again.

This stinks!! A red flag is waving in my speculative mind. I wonder if any of that early $300 app money go back to the outfitter properties for habitat improvement or any other benefits-in-kind to them? I hope there are no hidden or disguised kick-backs taking place here going to any special interest group. So unless an NR wants to pay $300 just to play in the early draw, they are stuck competing in the general draw with only 60% (or down to 50%) of the tags and maybe any leftovers from the special draw. It appears the $300 is just an early pay to play and those NR's still have to pay the $1000+ for the big game combo or $800+ for the elk combo. "If" none of these NR tags are directed toward the outfitters....then they're out of the picture. That raises the obvious question....why even mess with the current system??? Is it now a another opportunity for a money grab the state/FWP??

SECTION 1. Section 87-2-511, MCA, is amended to read: 22 "87-2-511. Sale and use of Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses. (1) The department shall offer the 23 Class B-10 and Class B-11 licenses for sale through an early drawing and a general drawing as follows: 24 (A) (I) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (1)(A)(III), 40% OF THE CLASS B-10 AND CLASS B-11 LICENSES 25 MADE AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO 87-2-505 AND 87-2-510 MAY BE PURCHASED THROUGH AN EARLY DRAWING TO OCCUR 26 ON JANUARY 15 BY PERSONS WHO APPLY BETWEEN DECEMBER 1 AND DECEMBER 31 FOR A FEE OF $300. IF APPLYING 27 AS A PARTY, EACH PERSON MUST PAY THE APPLICATION FEE. APPLICATION FEES MUST BE USED BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SECURE, DEVELOP, AND MAINTAIN WILDLIFE HABITAT PURSUANT TO 87-1-242. AT THE END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR, 1 UNOBLIGATED FUNDS COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (1)(A)(I) ARE AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR 2 ANY PURPOSE PURSUANT TO 87-1-201(3). 3 (II) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL CONDUCT THE EARLY DRAWING IN ACCORDANCE WITH 87-2-115. APPLICANTS 4 WHO ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE EARLY DRAWING MUST BE ENTERED IN THE GENERAL DRAWING CONDUCTED PURSUANT 5 TO SUBSECTION (1)(B). ANY LICENSES THAT REMAIN UNSOLD IN THE EARLY DRAWING MUST BE ISSUED IN THE GENERAL 6 DRAWING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1)(B). 7 (III) THE COMMISSION MAY INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF CLASS B-10 AND CLASS B-11 LICENSES AVAILABLE 8 FOR PURCHASE IN THE EARLY DRAWING TO UP TO 50% OF THE TOTAL AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO 87-2-505 AND 87-2-510 9 BASED ON PARTICIPATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S EARLY DRAWING. 10 (B) AFTER THE EARLY DRAWING IS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1)(A), THE DEPARTMENT SHALL 11 OFFER FOR SALE THE REMAINDER OF THE CLASS B-10 AND CLASS B-11 LICENSES MADE AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO 87-2-12 505 AND 87-2-510 on April 1 through a general drawing conducted in accordance with 87-2-115 if the number of 13 applicants exceeds the number of available licenses., with 2,000 of the authorized 14 (2) In addition to the Class B-11 licenses authorized pursuant to 87-2-510, there are reserved 2,000 15 Class B-11 licenses for applicants indicating their intent to hunt with a resident sponsor on land owned by that 16 sponsor, as provided in subsections (2) and subsection (3) and this subsection.

And I put "someone they know" in quotes because for sure this is about money derived from our public wildlife. Many ranchers control the deer/elk using their property by hunting. I'll be damned if I am going to support removing opportunity from the general public by giving the opportunity to those with the most money.

Some have noticed the 2,000 landowner sponsored deer tags in this bill. That landowner sponsored feature has been in Montana statute for over 25 years. This bill doesn't add or delete anything to that part of Montana statute.

Stand by to see what happens in the next 48 hours.

Just FYI - the growing number of threads on hunting sites dominated by the western state resident hunter theme, “this belongs to us, outsiders not welcome,” is being noticed by those called upon for external support when things get tough. We all need allies, especially these days. Just sayin.

Couple this with the fact that giving outfitters guaranteed tags likely locks up more land (maybe removing it from block management) it hurts the resident hunters too. But hey let's cater to the wealthy hunters and outfitters.

Explain to someone else what the bill is about.

As I said above about this proposed MT bill revision #3, there is a $300 gamble for anyone thinking about the early draw. That is just the early app fee....no tag costs included. Unless you get your $300 app fee back if unsuccessful....you're out that $300 and possibly no tag if you also don't draw in the general.

I don't see any winners with this proposed bill except the state...at least short-term. Hopefully it is DOA. To take it a step further....I'm waiting on a proposed bill to reduce the NR tag costs and bring them back to earth.

In Montana, the res general elk tag is $20. The NR elk combo, which includes two frills (fishing and birds) that most elk hunters won't mess with because their focus is on elk, is $888. That's a 44X ratio. That is price gouging IMO and using NR's to disproportionately subsidize these states.

What is reasonable is subjective. That is why the ratio approach would be a logical method and provide some type of standardized approach. Otherwise, we have unchecked, runaway NR prices like we see now which prices out a lot of folks. This isn't just Montana either. This should be a concern for everybody. As Randy correctly noted....we're all NR's in 49 states. I don't know if Randy has already done this, but it might be a great topic for his podcast.

As long as the states see potential to make money to support their over inflated budgets (generally all government sectors) in this case off the backs of NR, the prices will continue to rise.

Not complaining per say, but it is a pay to play sport at this point.

I pay $60 per year for a bonus point in Iowa, and will most likely draw my tag after four years which is around $644. After adding $60 x 4 years, I am paying $884, for the chance to hunt Whitetail’s in Iowa once every four years. I don’t even think there’s a real comparison to be made here when it comes to the price you’re paying to hunt elk in Montana as a non-resident. Out of all of the western states, Montana is the best thing going where you can consistently hunt every year for elk, as a non-resident. Colorado may have more elk, but nowhere near the quality, Idaho is not as good, Washington and Oregon are a trophy potential joke, Wyoming is good, but harder to draw, and you can’t hunt on federal lands without an outfitter , so with Montana you’re getting to hunt elk in one of the best , consistently huntable, states there is just about every year. If there are complaints to be made, everyone should start complaining about the fact that you have to purchase a Hunting license in Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico in order to even apply, and if you are fortunate enough to draw a tag once every 5, 10, or 20 years, you have paid way more for that opportunity than you do to hunt Montana that has, often times, as good of opportunities as the top tier states, not to mention you can come here on an almost yearly basis. I live in this state year around because it’s worth it to me to put up with six months of winter, often times at 25 below, with limited resources and limited access for things like sports for my kids in order to hunt a place like this as a resident. I really have zero sympathy for the tag fees that non-residents pay here. We are inundated with non-residents year after year, who very often are rude, discourteous, and lack respect for other hunters and boundary lines. I hope tag prices continue to go up. In fact I wish we would revert to the system that Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada all have, then you guys won’t be able to complain about this kind of thing anymore, and instead you will be talking about how awesome it used to be when you could get a tag almost every year for around $900. Out of all the western big game states Montana is by far the best ones to come hunt consistently, and if that wasn’t the case you guys wouldn’t be complaining about it. I like Randy Newberg, a lot, so no offense to him, but the fact that we’re non-residents in 49 states doesn’t mean anything. What’s the point? I am also a nonresident in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and every other province in Canada, even though I live 30 minutes from the border. Being a non-resident in 49 states literally means nothing. I don’t live in Hawaii, so I don’t get the kama’aina discount when I visit, and that’s because I choose not to live there, and pay exorbitant taxes and house prices. Therefore, I don’t begrudge the Hawaii residents that live there getting that discount. Likewise, move here to Montana, with limited resources, a limited job market, extremely harsh winters, and the many other downsides of living in a rural place like Montana and I think you’ll appreciate my stance a little bit more. The fact remains most of you don’t live here because of those, or similar reasons. Just like I don’t live in Iowa because of similar reasons. I don’t begrudge the guys in Iowa who live there and get to hunt giant whitetails every year, and no one should begrudge a Montana resident paying $20 to hunt elk here. I chose to uproot myself and move away from all my family and friends in order to live in this state, and I’ll be darned if I’m going to be told that a non-residents fee to come hunt this state is too high, and my cost is too low. They say to “withhold judgment from a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes”. I have confidence that if many of you moved here, and lived here for a length of time, your perspective would be quite different.

As someone mentioned above....res's might complain about NR's who bring these issues to light. But when the res needs NR support for something inside their state (like wolf regs, land closures or in this initial case...the outfitter welfare bill), the res will seek help from the NR's....funny how that works.

I think Randy is correct in his view about being a NR in 49 states. I believe his point is all folks need to work with each other when these nationwide, hot-topic issues come up. Blowing off someone else's concerns because you think you don't have any skin in the game will eventually come back to haunt you.

JL, .

To quote you “Look at it this way....in any state....it should be no more than a reasonable "X" times the cost of a resident tag. For example, if a res elk tag is $40.....how many times that $40 would be a reasonable price for a NR elk tag? 5X's....6X's....7X's....maybe 10X's.....etc?? In Montana, the res general elk tag is $20. The NR elk combo, which includes two frills (fishing and birds) that most elk hunters won't mess with because their focus is on elk, is $888. That's a 44X ratio. That is price gouging IMO and using NR's to disproportionately subsidize these states.”

Firstly, You don’t know whether I have skin in the game or not. Regardless, I strongly disagree that people’s livelihoods depend on non-residents coming here to hunt. Not saying that it isn’t a nice shot in the arm for particular business owners, but Montana businesses existed long before nonresident hunting became as wildly popular as it is today. Most of the businesses in this state depend on agriculture related things, not hunting. There are certainly parts that depend on tourism, but you cannot convince me that there are livelihoods that depend on hunting tourism. In fact, the only one I can think of that would is the Outfitter, which is what I believe this bill was all about. I understand where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree. It’s only the Western states that seem to ever “need” outsiders help. For example, I can’t remember Arkansas ever asking for non-resident hunters help to defeat some hunting related proposal. Additionally, most of the people chiming in on this bill are non-residents because it hurts their tag chances the most. I live here and I couldn’t give two hoots whether the bill passes, and i’m not asking for any non-residents help. Of course Randy wants nonresident’s help to defeat the bill, because his platform is to non-residents. The fact remains is that non-residents typically want to chime in here because they feel they have skin in the game, as they want to come hunt this great state. What I’m saying is that with what our state has to offer, especially in comparison to other top tiered western states, non-residents shouldn’t complain how our state price structures their nonresident tag fees. Again, I find it interesting that I’m not hearing you complain about how Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, or Wyoming structures their tag fees, which are absolutely absurd when compared to Montana’s. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too, but I don’t think there’s very many Montana residents who share your same viewpoint. Of course you would think what you think because you don’t live here, but at the end of the day I’m pretty sure Montana will continue to get along just fine with the price structures as they are, or even increased. You should try living in Manitoba or Alberta where you can’t even hunt your neighboring province of Saskatchewan for mule deer, ever, because they don’t open it to anyone except Saskatchewan residents.

Lastly, I find it very interesting that you’re from Michigan. I was born and raised in the Detroit metro area, and lived there until I was 24. I realized how bad off Michigan is on almost every front when it comes to Hunting and decided it was high time to get out of there, and I never looked back. I made the sacrifice to leave and move out west. Even though my friends and family have to pay high nonresident prices, it is what it is, I’ve paid a high price of leaving everything behind and living here, so I’m not going to feel sorry for anyone who has to pay a $1000 to come hunt here. It’s a phenomenal deal for what you’re getting compared to almost any other state in the west. You’re free to follow my lead and leave Michigan and move out here, then you can pay $20 every year and never have to worry about high, skyrocketing nonresident tag prices again;)

That is in House Bill 505 sponsored by Wylie Galt. Man I am glad these clowns only meet every other year.

One thing I would like to remind everyone is divided we will all lose. As stated on another thread, hunter's are only approx. 10% of the population. The fewer hunter there are, then more likely hunting in general will be disapproved by more people in general. We (hunters), not just residents need to look at this long term. Remember how wolves were re-introduction in Yellowstone? Urban/city people got it passed despite opposition from residents that opposed it, because they out numbered residents. This is a slippery slope. Be careful what we wish for.

I read both of your long posts and I largely agree with what you said.

My only comments would be that a) WY can be hunted on Federal lands without a guide, just not in the wilderness and b) I think you're giving MT too much credit when you compare it to NV and AZ and UT/NM if you're looking at the 50th percentile and north.

Now, when you compare it to CO, WA, OR, and much of ID, then yeah, I agree with you. And when you talk about opportunity, yes, you're definitely right that MT has a lot to offer the NR hunter and that's where I agree that the NR hunter should have to pay a premium.

Where I start to raise an eyebrow is at NR fees that seem like gouging: WY's worthless points that cost an arm and a leg, some tag costs that are ridiculous (perfect example being AZ bison, but even WY/NM sheep tags fit that bill, as do WY Grizz and bison tags).

I could afford them, but I don't put in for them so as to put my money where my mouth is, because I feel that a government should not be out make money, but rather to manage their responsibilities at the lowest cost possible. And pricing out blue-collar Americans to even do a DIY hunt doesn't seem right to me. So I feel there's a balance.

I think that MT's NR draw system is dumb and they should make it more straight-forward... Using PPs to draw a general tag then have BPs for a second draw when you have no plans to use the general tag just makes no sense.

Lastly, I'm wholly opposed to outfitter welfare. I hate it and I feel that it only creates graft, politician bribery, and unfair advantage for the well-to-do. I feel it's downright Socialist, which is un-American. So while I don't have much skin in the game because I'm no longer an every-year-elk-hunter and MT isn't my destination of choice for an elk tag unless it's a top tier zone, I still feel the law is/was despicable.