Possible changes for Montana....

[Dansk]

Not sure how I feel, but here's some food for thought...

Seemed like anyone who applied and got on the alternate list got thier Combo liscense this year... I think I was #800 or so on the alt list and got mine quickly.  Did the state have problems getting enough paying customers for all the Combo liscenses?... bad economy maybe?  Not sure...  but seems to me that increasing the Combo by 30% or so would reduce the numbers and related revenue even further from this year- at least for 2010 anyway.  I just don't think you would have as many paying customers since non-res combo demand and the economy are both in the crapper.

I would wager the revenue and economic impact of Non-Res (non-guided, DIY, "Ill drive my self") hunters is more than guided hunters.  We dropped thousands of $$ on hotel, gas, beer, food, butchering, supplies, etc at local ma-and-pa places along our 2000 mile journey.  A guy from the east coast who flies in, is picked up, fed, housed, etc. by guides (many whom of which are not residents and take thier $$ with them when the season is over) probably doesn't impact the local economy as much.  True, tags are more for the guided, but only a couple hundred $$..  The 'welcome hunter' signs are much more than the kind and hospitable people of Montana - it's a big source of economic income from us 'old school' hunter-tourist types.

[BAR C3]

Don't fix it if it ain't broke!  
They will end up like Idaho and will not sell out like Idaho use to. Hello people, we have a 10% unemployment rate and lets raise everything. You know how many guys I know that religiosly hunt and can't because they are looking for work and can't afford it.
I hunt Montana every other year. Have for 15+ years. Use to hunt Idaho until they raised there non resident tags every other year. I also have a bunch of family and friends in Montana. They don't support this, it brings revenue to the state. The guy that pays for a guide is going to spend more money in there state then the guy like me that actually camps and roughs it.
You don't ever give any hunting privledge up! I would like to know if this guy that is sponsoring the bill is a native Montanan? Or is it a Californian? Just like Washington, the granola eaters are invading and bringing there tree hugging ways to Montana.
If they raise the prices, I will be done with Montana as well.

[bow-n-head]

It's broke. Hunting as you know it in Montana isn't going to last long. Landowners are pissed and sportsmen are pissed. It isn't out of state hunters either. It's just too many hunters period. The largest landowner around here I know couldn't get his 12 year old son a deer this year because of all the hunters. You are going to see large withdraws in Block management even if it finds it's funding. And you will see lots of other landowners paint their fences orange. Outfitters with money will lease up more and more land, and who could blame them. If I had the money I would have a hunting lease myself. The ship is sinking, and I don't think it is just Montana. I think when you check the numbers, deer and elk harvests and herds are fairly normal. It is more of a people problem. I don't mind outfitters, I just think privileges to a public property (game animals) shouldn't happen because you  have more money than I do. "Landowners" are only kidding themselves they only get to use the land until they die. We all live on a finite piece of property, and until they pay taxes on the deer and elk etc.. on their property we have the right to fill our tags with those deer. If they don't like it sell out and move to town. Well that's the sugar coated version of how I feel. Honestly it is broke and I blame the "landowner" more than anyone. Their sob story of how they have to sell deer to stay on the place is getting quite old! In their argument I should be able to go to any piece of state or federal property and take oil, gas, gold, or any other natural resource and sell it on the open market to subsidise my income. I maintain gravel roads to their ranches. I see them driving to town in their new pickups in the middle of the day. Welfare for farmers and ranchers is enormous. Has anyone seen the farm bill. My dad is a farmer, and he thinks it is ridiculous. Manufacturers are not trying to sell something that already belongs to us I find this excuse hilarious. No hunters are not the problem. Polititions are. Here in Montana most of them are "landowners" perfect example Max Bacus, and Jon Tester.

[bow-n-head]

I am fired up now a couple of years ago they limited our archery elk hunting with a bow. There were meetings with wildlife biologists where we could be heard. The biologists agreed with the hunters. We wrote more letters to fish and game than they had ever got on an issue before opposing their change. And they did it anyway Their excuse was to limit out of state hunters. they said it was for our own good. The comission is made up of, you guessed it "landowners". Their change cost me an elk with my bow that year. So I shot one with my rifle on public land. They may try to stop us, but there are hunters who will always get their game I have never had a problem with another hunter. Landowners are another story.

[BAR C3]

I will agree that getting on private ground is worse. When I started hunting over there (rifle), ranchers begged you to take everything your truck could hold. Now they want paid. I bow hunt now so I don't see the crowds. I think the crowds are during certain times, so I avoid those times and go over there enough that it doesn't affect me.
I have seen a different kind of hunter over there. Two times I have been at a gated road waitng for daylight and having guys pull up and start trying baling out before I do. My practice is if I come up on a place someone has beated me on, I go to plan B. If the area is big enough for a couple hunters, I may talk to them about where they may hunt. No respect anymore. The first time the guy got crapy with me. I was ready to pull his earing out and beat his ass in front of his girlfriend. He was from Missoula of course.
I don't know the anwser, I know cutting the outfitters and raising fees is not the answer. I would hunt Montana every year if I could get drawn and wouldn't buy another Washington tag.

[huntnphool]

I will agree that getting on private ground is worse. When I started hunting over there (rifle), ranchers begged you to take everything your truck could hold. Now they want paid.

 I have a suggestion for those of you wanting to hunt private land rather than over crowded BM. Find a ranch you want to hunt, let the land owner know you would like to be considered for the lease and outbid the existing lease holder.  Find out how many animals the land owner feels comfortable that the land can support being harvested, get a group of guys together to split the harvest and cost and go hunt.

 Just because the land is currently being leased doesnt mean the owner is locked into any one person or outfitter. I think you would be surprised the kind of quality land you can access this way.

[muleyguy]

BP,

Let me clarify my points I made earlier;  the number of outfitters has not increased I will agree with you;  BUT that is not the whole story.  The number of Guides, which is a seperate class, has risen, more then overcoming the drop in Outfitter numbers;  all a guide needs to operate is an outfitter to endorse him.  So, for instance, an outfitter in a general area of the Breaks or the Broadus area  (both areas which have high numbers of big game guiding going on), might "endorse" multiple different guides, all guiding on different ground.  And, there is no law that I can see that prevents a "guide" from leasing ground.

The data on "acreage leased" by outfitters is sketchy at best;  in fact the PL/PW council states they do not really know what the total acreage leased before 2003 was.  But, I did a simple search on MFWP and can find some numbers.  And, it doesn't add up:

"Outfitters leased 6 million acres of Montana farms and ranches in 1995 and 7.5 million acres in 2001"

That is straight from the MFWP website.  1996 was the first year the Guaranteed Tag program went into effect.  So, according to MFWP there was a 25% increase in acreage leased in 6 years after the guaranteed program was put into effect.  That looks a pretty big increase to me.......

Now, if you go to the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Council annual reports, they say they only started tracking it in 2003; they do not even track it every year, only every other year.  They state in 2003 it was 6.4 million acres and by 2007 it was down to 5.2 million acres, or about a 20% decrease.  But, the PL/PW Council is dominated by  outfitters, so it is not surprising the data seems fishy.

So, the data says leased ground by outfitters started at 6 million in 1996 when the guaranteed licenses went into effect, expanded up to 7.5 million in 2001, and, then dropped to 5.2 million by 2007    The data from 1996 until 2001 was from MFWP and shows large increases;  the data from 2003 until 2007 is from PL/PW Council (dominated by landowners and Outfitters) shows a huge decrease???  Come on.....

According to that "data" land tied up by outfitting and guiding  is probably back at levels not seen since the early 1990's?  Hell, what are we even worried about, leased land by guides and outfitters is falling faster then Paris Hilton's panties at 2 in the morning!!!

Do you really believe that???   Does anybody who has hunted montana for any length of time believe that??   That doesn't even pass the smell test.........The fact is, this data comes from outfitter surveys.  Not exactly an unbiased survey.   I will ammend my point to say:  Land "tied up" by outfitters and guides has increased dramatically since inception of the guaranteed program.   We both know there are a million ways to get around rules and caps and a million ways to answer surveys.  What exactly constitutes a "lease"  I am not sure of how you personally structure your leases, but I know landowners in the Broadus area and the Breaks.  And, "arrangements" where the outfitter or guide pays a set fee per animal harvested on a landowner's land is a very common arrangement.  I will bet you anything that arrangements like this never end up in the leased acreage survey.  In the late 90's in the broadus area Powder River Outfitters was paying $90 per animal harvested on some of their leases.  Powder River Outfitters claims to have 1 million acres tied up in the Broadus area.  In fact, they had a lease on a large ranch where this was the arrangement, and, the landowner caught them not being honest about how many animals they harvested off of the ranch, so the owners put it into Block Management.  The number told to me straight from the landowner this year in the Breaks was $200/animal.  I have also seen a huge increase in situations where a guide will tie up a few sections of private ground in front of a bunch of BLM and State lands behind it.  You do this in a few key areas, and all of a sudden, a local kid from (insert whatever small town in eastern montana) who thinks he's a big shot has "control" of 5000 acres.  He puts a website up, goes to a few hunting shows to advertise his guiding service, pays a "shakedown" fee to the local Outfitter with the outfitter license to get him to endorse him, gets his guiding license, and off he goes.  So, how do these acreage figures get counted??   They don't.

Anybody who has hunted Montana since the late 1980's can tell you land (private/BLM/State) tied up by outfitters increased dramatically after the guaranteed tag program went into effect.

And, don't try and paint me out to be somebody who is looking to destruct private property rights.  For full disclosure I am a WA resident, and a large land owner in Eastern WA.  And, I do not allow access on my land to anyone.  I don't believe for a second that landowners should be required to provide access for free to anybody who wants it.  I don't believe landowners should be required to do anything;  landowners should be free to grant access, deny access, or charge anybody, any fee, they want for access.   I have been hunting Montana since 1987, and ,have been all over the state.   Its a wonderful state, and, the State of Montana owns its Wildlife and owes us WA residents nothing.  They should charge market rate for what their resource is worth to non-residents.  The plan put forth in the initiative raises out of state tag fees significantly, this will enable funding for the Block Management program to continue and expand, and will result in ordinary people from Montana having better access to private lands. 

In short, this is a "market driven" solution to the access problem that is expanding all over the West  (not getting better like you seem to be suggesting).  It is not a free market when a select group of business' get preferential treatment to public resources. 

So, you are trying to deflect the discussion and turn it into a property rights issue.  It is not a property rights issue.  Wildlife is owned by the Public. And, since it is owned by the public, the management of it is done by a State agency by means of allocating a certain number of tags for harvest.  According to the numbers there is something like 500 Outfitters in the state of Montana.  The guaranteed tag program provides a direct subsidy to the Outfitting industry, pure and simple.  You are taking a PUBLIC resource (wildlife) and guaranteeing a harvest right to 500 PRIVATE business', when no other group of business', or individuals, have that right. 

I can tell you what, that is a helluva a good lobbyist you guys have hired..........I will bet anything you were against all the big bailouts of the banks last year;  transferring PUBLIC resources (money) into PRIVATE business' hands............same difference here......its called "moral hazard".....

[bow-n-head]

So I have slept on it and had my coffee Bearpaw I have nothing against the outfitters. They provide a legit. service to the hunters who don't want to do all the leg work of a hunt out of state. I have many friends who are outfitters. It's just like with hunters a few bad ones ruin it for everyone, weather it be outfitter, or landwoner. Montana is also wanting to offer a cheaper set of tags to anyone with family in the state, I think I heard 1000. And I believe it was for less than 100$. Some people feel that cost should go up untill the number of applicants equals the number of tags. How nice for those with an endless supply of money

[muleyguy]

for the record, I have nothing against Outfitters either, and agree with bowhead;  they are legitimate business' and deserve to operate, and they do provide a good service to those who need it.  If they make a legitimate business deal with landowners to tie land up and guide clients who legally and fairly draw tags, just like everybody else, I have no problem with that.   BUT, they should not be granted special tag allocations for a resource that is equally owned by all citizens of Montana

In fact, I do not even believe the St of Montana should regulate the outfitters as much as it does.  The marketplace should determine the number of guides and outfitters, not some state board in Montana.  At the end of the day, if the Joe 6 pack hunters want access to private ground, they need to be able to compete financially with that because it is PRIVATE ground.  That is why programs like Block Management are good;  they pool large numbers of hunter's resources and use these pools of money to leverage hunting rights with private landowners.  Indvidually, hunters do not have the resources (money), time, or in many cases sophistication, to negotiate access agreements with landowners.  But, the MFWP does have that ability. . 

There are very diginified, decent Outfitters out there and I bet the majority of them are that way.  But, the system of guaranteed tags has brought in a lot of shady characters.

[huntnphool]

Anybody who has hunted Montana since the late 1980's can tell you land (private/BLM/State) tied up by outfitters increased dramatically after the guaranteed tag program went into effect.

  I have witnessed it first hand myself. That is why I have decided to jump in and compete in the bidding, its the only way to access the better areas and insure a place for my kids to hunt in the future.

[Pathfinder101]

Ive gotta say, I think I'm with Bearpaw on this one.  For myself, I don't think that the extra tags that go into the draw will bring up my chances of being drawn enough to justify the additional cost.  $200 is a lot for me.  I can absolutely see how the outfitters rely on those garanteed tags for a good portion of their regular clientel.  I don't have a problem with that, and although I can't afford an outfitter, I don't begrudge those that do.

I DO like Phool's idea of getting together with a few buddies and finding some land to lease.  And the way things are going here in the West, that is probably where we are heading.  As much as I hate that (I saw this when I was stationed in the Southeast when I was in the regular Army-and that's why I hunted very little for those 9 years), it may be unaviodable.

[Ridgerunner]

not too digress too much but why doesn't MT seperate out their deer licenses and offer some WT only licenses for deer.  Seems like an underutilized resource to me.  And a way to make more money.

[bobcat]

Great idea Ridgerunner. That would make a lot of sense.

[huntnphool]

It might have something to do with the access of land. I would bet that 95% of land that whitetails hang out in is privately owned, so unless the hunter had an "in" he wouldn't find much opportunity.

[Pathfinder101]

It might have something to do with the access of land. I would bet that 95% of land that whitetails hang out in is privately owned, so unless the hunter had an "in" he wouldn't find much opportunity.

good point.  We saw some bruiser whiteys along the Milk River this fall, but it was all private and heavily posted.