Possible changes for Montana....

[finnman]

by J.R. Absher, Slugs & Plugs, found at The Outdoor Pressrom

11/24/2009

Advocates who want to change Montana’s non-resident hunting license system and end the issuance of preferential outfitter set-aside big game tags have received approval to begin collecting petition signatures to place the issue on the November 2010 ballot.

Currently, Montana non-residents have two options for obtaining big game tags; they can hire an outfitter for $1,500 and are guaranteed a hunting license. Their other choice is to enter the drawing process for $400, where they have about a 60-percent chance of getting a tag.

Some Montanans believe the process is unfair, including Kurt Kephart, the primary organizer behind Initiative 161.

“There’s no sense giving the outfitting industry the tools they need to take our privileges and our opportunities away from us,” Kephart told the Missoulian last week http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_f13f1e90-d4c5-11de-b534-001cc4c03286.html

Details of http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp Initiative 161 ballot language

I-161 revises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.

Kephart says Montana’s system of guaranteeing hunting licenses for outfitted hunters privatizes and commercializes Montana’s prized big game. But Montana outfitters beg to differ, claiming the set-aside tags give them the stability they need to run a viable business in rural areas where the economy is highly dependent on big game hunting.

In order to qualify for the November 2010 ballot, Kephart and other supporters of Initiative 161 must gather more than 24,330 voter signatures before next summer.

http://www.outdoorpressroom.com/slugs_plugs/2009/11/will-montana-voters-nix-outfitter-tag-allocation.html

[bobcat]

Well I agree with doing away with the outfitter tags as I don't believe in the commercialization of the public's wildlife. But, I hate to see that $200 increase in the deer tag. I was thinking about going to Montana in a couple years for a deer hunt. At $527, it may not be worth it (for me.)  I could spend that money in this state and have a good hunt.

[Craig]

$900 for a big game combo... Holy crap thats expensive.

[actionshooter]

Sorry to say the $900 isn't out of line with other states, buy a deer and elk tag (montana combo) and you will be right at $900 and some cases, more.
 Not saying I like it. As long as people pay the price will go up.

[huntnphool]

I think its a great idea.

[ing]

I dont think it'll pass.  Hunting is huge in Montana.  Do you really think the guides will let this happen?  Too much money out of their pockets.

[WDFW-SUX]

Mo money mo problem$

[Craig]

I buy the deer/elk combo every year I can draw ( 4 or the last 6 years ). I don't like it but I will still buy it even at the $900 price if it goes that high.

[NRA4LIFE]

I'm with Rob on this one.  I like having more general Non-resident tags.  I would love it if they upped the deer tag numbers especially.  OK, the $200 increase sucks, but it won't deter me.

[bearpaw]

It's really interesting to read what some guys write who don't know anything about what they are talking about.  

First of all, if being a hunting guide is commercialization and that is so bad, maybe we should stop other industries like fishing guides, charter boats, tackle & gear manufacturers, commercial fishermen, fishing lodges, hunting decoys, mouthcalls, knives, rifles, bows, ammunition, hunting shows, wildlife magazines, Fish & Game Departments, and the list goes on. Isn't any industry or profession that benefits or aids another in the acquisition of wildlife for profit, by definition: commercialization?

Well aren't all these other industries and professions making money off wildlife?...............  

What about raffle tags, governor tags, landowners tags....

Obviously a certain attitude got me excited, my apologies to everyone....maybe I should have been a game warden instead, since some may not consider that as earning a living off of wildlife.

Since I am a licensed Montana Outfitter, I can tell you a few facts about the Outfitter licenses.

1. The wildlife in Montana like any other state belongs to the people of Montana. They do not have to allow non-residents to hunt in MT except for possibly on federally owned lands. Non-residents should consider it a privelage to hunt in another state. Do you have the same standards for allowing non-residents to hunt in Washington as you have for yourself going to Montana or to any other state?

2. The people of Montana pay less for licenses since non-resident licenses cost usually 10x more. This is roughly the way it works in every western state. One of the reasons you are welcomed to go hunting in Montana and other states.

3. Your hard earned dollars are welcomed by the State Agencies, Gas Stations, Motels, Restaurants, Landowners, Hunting & Fishing Guides, and many others. Like it or not, wildlife is a huge commercial industry and a significant part of many western state economies, thus one of the reasons that we get to hunt.

4. The more expensive Outfitter License proceeds provide a large portion of the funding for the Block Management Program. Outfitted hunters are paying for all the other hunters who hunt in Montana to have access to private lands that otherwise may not be available to hunt on.

5. Montana legislation specifies that Outfitter Licenses shall be priced at what the market will bear. As long as licenses sell out, the price goes up, when they do not sell out, the price goes down. Whatever the price is, the money is used for programs, primarily block management, that benefit wildlife and all the people who hunt in Montana.

6. The reason the Initiative has to increase the price of General Nonresident licenses is because without the increase the Block Management program would end.

The person who complained in the story and some who posted in this thread obviously are biased and do not either know or offer up all the facts. There are many other issues involved, but these are enough reasons to show why Outfitter Licenses were established and why it may not be a good idea to discontinue them.

Ultimately the people of MT will decide what system they want. Once they know all the facts regarding where Block Management funding comes from, I wouldn't be surprised if the Initiative fails.

Just for the record, most of my clients are working class guys, many do not want to pay for the expensive Outfitter Licenses anyway. But there are good reasons that the Outfitter Licenses exist.  

[huntnphool]

I dont think it'll pass.  Hunting is huge in Montana.  Do you really think the guides will let this happen?

The one thing you are forgetting is that a large number of outfitters in Montana are not residents and will not be voting.

[Dmanmastertracker]

 Correct me if I'm wrong Dale, but can't a person with a Montana general (non-outfitter sponsored) tag still hire an outfitter if they want? I guess I see both sides, but given the BMA issue going on I have to lean towards being in favor of this ballot, not that it matters as I can't vote on it.

[bearpaw]

Another thing you are forgetting is that Ranching is huge in Montana. I have a pretty good idea how the ranchers I lease from will vote as will many other ranchers and landowners who's income is helped by hunting leases.

Another political struggle you probably don't realize, is that many hunters who live in the cities in MT think they should be able to hunt on eastern MT ranches. The Block Management Program was cleverly divised to satisfy landowners and city hunters.

So you may see some unusual alliances opposing the Initiative.

[bearpaw]

Yes, many of my clients choose the draw since it is cheaper. But take away the outfitter licenses and they will have to pay more for the draw tags....

[Dmanmastertracker]

Yes, many of my clients choose the draw since it is cheaper. But take away the outfitter licenses and they will have to pay more for the draw tags....

 Maybe there is some middle ground. Perhaps in exchange for the elimination of the guaranteed tags, the fee's should go down.