New bill will greatly impact DIY nonresident hunters in Montana

[huntnphool]

 All good points guys, and gives you a idea of the *censored* show it used to be.

 I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.

 Yep, looked it up. Here you go.

https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Hunter_Access_Funding,_I-161_(2010)

[dreamingbig]

Send in your comments.  They matter.  If out of state interests can influence wolf management we can influence this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[idahohuntr]

I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.

This is government welfare, plain and simple.  Perhaps rather than demand government handouts the guides and outfitters pushing this should focus on improving their business model if they desire more stability, increased profits, etc.

[huntnphool]

I can’t believe they are considering this again, the people voted it out once. I believe it was I-161 IIRC.

This is government welfare, plain and simple.  Perhaps rather than demand government handouts the guides and outfitters pushing this should focus on improving their business model if they desire more stability, increased profits, etc.

 This is similar to Washington’s car tabs votes.

[MADMAX]

I hope the out of state montana hunters on this board take the time to send an email to the chairman/sponsor and the comittee

https://leg.mt.gov/legislator-information/roster/individual/6816



Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee Contact Information


Name   Party   Seat   Email   Phone
Number
Sen. Steve Hinebauch - Chair   R   SD 18   steve.hinebauch@mtleg.gov   (406) 365-7967
(406) 989-1372
Sen. Bob Brown - Vice Chair   R   SD 7   bob.brown@mtleg.gov   (406) 242-0141
Sen. Tom Jacobson - Vice Chair   D   SD 11   tom.jacobson@mtleg.gov   (406) 868-9814
Sen. Mark Blasdel   R   SD 4   mark.blasdel@mtleg.gov   (406) 261-3269
Sen. Jill Cohenour   D   SD 42   jill.cohenour@mtleg.gov   (406) 227-1144
Sen. Jason Ellsworth   R   SD 43   jason.ellsworth@mtleg.gov   (406) 360-0009
Sen. Pat Flowers   D   SD 32   pat.flowers@mtleg.gov   (406) 580-0035
Sen. Greg Hertz   R   SD 6   greg.hertz@mtleg.gov   (406) 253-9505
Sen. David Howard   R   SD 29   david.howard@mtleg.gov   (406) 633-2762
Sen. Bob Keenan   R   SD 5   bob.keenan@mtleg.gov   (406) 250-4111
Sen. Edie McClafferty   D   SD 38   edie.mcclafferty@mtleg.gov   (406) 490-5873

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The best way to vote is with your dollars. Let them know you will refuse to hunt there if they pass this bill, and then stick to your guns if they do. 

[Stein]

We can also call or e-mail hunting organizations and ask them to oppose it and send position statements to their members, especially those in MT encouraging them to write or call in to the senators too.  RMEF would be a good one to start with.

[MADMAX]

Got first response back from committees I emailed

Hello-
 Thanks so much for contracting me on this issue.  Your participation in this process helps so much. I appreciate you reaching out to let me know your thoughts.  Know that I have listened.  Thanks  -Jill

Senator Jill Cohenour
Senate District 42
East Helena, Montana
Phone: 406-227-1144
https://www.facebook.com/Jill-Cohenour-for-Senate-1448274122071012/
Legislators are publicly elected officials. Legislator emails sent or received involving legislative business may be subject to the Right to Know provisions of the Montana Constitution and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Montana law. As such, email, sent or received, its sender and receiver, and the email contents, may be subject to public disclosure, except as otherwise provided by Montana law.

[huntnphool]

We can also call or e-mail hunting organizations and ask them to oppose it and send position statements to their members, especially those in MT encouraging them to write or call in to the senators too.  RMEF would be a good one to start with.

 Did you open the link I provided and read the info on I-161?

[Stein]

We can also call or e-mail hunting organizations and ask them to oppose it and send position statements to their members, especially those in MT encouraging them to write or call in to the senators too.  RMEF would be a good one to start with.

 Did you open the link I provided and read the info on I-161?

Oops!

I found it and was surprised that RMEF and NRA are both for outfitter tags.  Both submitted completely bogus or misleading statements.  Big no-no in my part, I'm done with NRA for the time being but still supported RMEF.  Maybe they have changed their mind since then, I know Newberg spoke out very publicly in favor of no outfitter tags.  We'll see, if they support this they won't get a penny from me in the future.

In reading Randy's forum, sounds like this is being pushed heavily by large wealthy landowners that like to have tons of NR buddies and family come in and hunt their land and they don't like standing in line for the draw with us lowlifes.  They are contributing max amounts through agents to keep it somewhat out of the media's attention.  Of course, the guides are happy as well and did a big show of force when the bill was introduced, but it was introduced in return for big $$s behind the scenes.

In many of the Montana Senate districts, they may only raise $5k for their campaign, so it isn't hard to get noticed and have your position heard by writing checks.

[go4steelhd]

As stated before this is not far from how it use to be, and not that long ago. The residents thought that if they got rid of the outfitted tags that the outfitters would stop leasing as much land since the majority of outfitters operated on only private lands, and then they would be aloud to hunt it again. That did not happen.

Something that was not thought of when they changed but happened Is for the last 7 or 8 years I’m guessing, (some one would have to look up the actual year it changed for outfitter tags) since the change allowed  about double as many tags on the public and block management, they have gotten hammered to the point something has to change.

I am not for outfitters getting 60% of the tags, but most of them operate on private lands thus hugely reducing pressure on public and block management , if they don’t change it with this I feel they will simply reduce tags drastically for Nonresidents. Or go unit specific. You are starting to see changes with this across the west.

The is not enough resources to take the pressure on public

[Stein]

I'm not sure I agree with that, many of MT's units are over objective so I'm not of the opinion harvest numbers need to go down.  The addition of shoulder seasons would be the first thing to go if it were the case.

I do agree this would move a good portion of the hunters from public to private, but where are the outfitters going to hunt when they book 2-3x more clients or new outfitters enter the picture?  More ground will go from BM to private lease and more outfitters will hunt public.

If move X tags from DIY to outfitter, there is 99.99% chance the total harvest will go up, probably dramatically.  Compare harvest rates from guided and DIY and it can't be even close.

If the goal is to reduce total harvest, this will do the opposite.  In addition, the legislation is purely driven from the desire for more guaranteed tags for wealthy NR hunters that want a tag every year and will pay for them, it has no basis in conservation or managing harvest.

[MADMAX]

Sure turning in to a rich mans sport nowadays

We were admiring some buck deer last year
Rancher pulls up , we shoot the breeze
He says hey if you want shoot one of those bucks
$6000 and go right ahead
Yea no thanks
“There small ones anyway” he says
They weren’t small to us

[go4steelhd]

I'm not sure I agree with that, many of MT's units are over objective so I'm not of the opinion harvest numbers need to go down.  The addition of shoulder seasons would be the first thing to go if it were the case.

I do agree this would move a good portion of the hunters from public to private, but where are the outfitters going to hunt when they book 2-3x more clients or new outfitters enter the picture?  More ground will go from BM to private lease and more outfitters will hunt public.

If move X tags from DIY to outfitter, there is 99.99% chance the total harvest will go up, probably dramatically.  Compare harvest rates from guided and DIY and it can't be even close.

If the goal is to reduce total harvest, this will do the opposite.  In addition, the legislation is purely driven from the desire for more guaranteed tags for wealthy NR hunters that want a tag every year and will pay for them, it has no basis in conservation or managing harvest.

Over objective is generally aka damage to agriculture. This is almost always in units that have access issues or are predominantly private. 62.5% of Montana is private. They have also cut the last two weeks off of rifle elk and deer season in units near me due to over harvest. That changed in the last few years

[Stein]

We can debate objective numbers, but this measure has zero to do with management or conservation, it's 100% about who gets the tags, general public or wealthy people.