Possible changes for Montana....

[muleyguy]

ahh the guaranteed outfitter license program............there is some dancing around of what is going on with this initiative, but this is the "real" story.

The guaranteed license program was put into effect through by the Outfitters lobby because they wanted a "guaranteed" tag for their clients;  the reality is that most clients who can afford $3500 for a guided trip can afford a few hundred extra dollars for this guaranteed tag.  The reason the Outfitters wanted this is exactly what BP said, it brought massive stability to the Outfitter business in Montana.

Now, what do you think the effect has been in Montana from bringing all these guaranteed tags into play for the outfitters???  Well, the Outfitter business has grown MASSIVELY since the inception of this program.  The MFWP knew that guaranteed outfitter tag would guarantee that the outfitter business would grow tremendously, so to help mitigate this, they increased the cost of the guarnateed tags and used this money to initiate the Block Management plan.

On the surface, Block Management looks successful;  BUT, what has happened is that by creating such a financially strong outfitter industry in Montana (because of the guaranteed tags), the outfitters have the resources to go out an tie up all the "best" ground.  So, you have a situation where the amount of premier private ground being leased by outfitters has risen tremendously.  While the "weaker" ground that the outfitters really do not want, gets put into Block Management program because the landowners can at least get some financial reward.

Now, there are exceptions, there are some good BMA's, and there are landowners who do not like the outfitting industry, have good land, feel a responsibility to community, who put their ranches in the BM program.

BUT, overall, the outcome of the guaranteed program has been exactly what I have outlined above.  That is why you have seen an explosion in outfitting in Montana, especially eastern Montana.

Personally, my opinion is that by handing out guaranteed tags you are unfairly enriching a select group of business'  (outfitters) by giving them special access to public public resources (animals).  If you did not have the guaranteed tag program, but still had the same amount of hunters, you would "spread" hunter dollars around to a larger base because the outfitter industry would decrease in size and the DIY people would increase, so motel owners, gas stations, grocery stores etc would benefit more.

And, with any explosion in business numbers come some pretty shady characters.....some of these "outfitters" are a complete joke.  Non land owner guys from billings (or out of state) "leasing" a couple of sections that are in front of a bunch of BLM and State ground;  putting up a website, and charging guys from pennsylvania $3500 to come out and drive around on BLM ground that is behind a section of private ground to shoot a 20" mule deer.  In some places in eastern mt it is a complete joke what some of these guys are doing.  And, many of these so called "leases" are not really what most of us think are leases.  They are simply arrangements where they tie up the land and tell the land owner for every animal that is harvested off of their ground, they will pay them $200, or a simalar amount.  You can judge for yourself the honesty of how this works.....I have had many landowners in Mt tell me it is very hard to keep the outfitters honest about how many animals are being harvested off of their land.

The inititiative is a great idea on several fronts.  First it balances the system;  one group of business' should not have "special" access to public resources over another group of people and business'.  Secondly, it raises the costs of the tags tremendously, thereby keeping the funding levels for Block Management intact.  This also will have the effect of REDUCING demand for the tags, thereby INCREASING your draw odds.  So, the argument that your draw odds won't be increased is not correct.

Montana deer tags are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other product;  increasing its price reduces demand and vice versa.  The very fact that draw odds for combo tags are 50% and deer tags is 20% or so, tells you that demand is way higher for tags then supply.  So, you can either increase supply (more tags) or raise prices;  you can't increase tags without putting much more pressure on the resource, so you decrease demand by increasing price.

This is all GOOD news;  it is certainly tougher to spend additional money, BUT, the effect of this initiative will be to increase draw odds, keep the block managment program funded,  weaken the outfitter business and result in higher quality hunting ground being enrolled in BM.  Over time, you will see ground that used to be tied up to outfitters move into the block management program;  and, you will see an increase in the good ole ability to just go up and ask a landowner if you can hunt on there ground.

 

[Bigshooter]

No, I don't think it will. Do the math, currently I believe about 10% of non-resident deer licenses are sold as Outfitter Licenses, so the odds should only improve by about 1/10th, in my book it's not even close to a bargain for that amount of gain in odds for the amount of increase in fees.

I am still curious why you are so adament to get rid of the Outfitter Licenses when the modest rewards are so costly to all the other non-res hunters.

There are numerous Montana politics involved here, so it will be interesting.

Based on the #'s presented so far in this thread, here are the #'s:

5500 outfitter tags are 10% of the total nonresident tags, so there's 55000 nonresident tags.  The 5500 outfitters at $1100 each will be placed in the general draw.

In the old system, 5500 tags at $1100 each nets Montana $6,050,000.
The remaining 90% (49,500) at $343 each, nets Montana $16,978,500.
Total nonresident revenue was $23,028,500.

If the initiative passes, all 55,000 tags go for $527, netting Montana $28,985,000.
That's almost EXACTLY a 25% increase in revenue for the state from out of state hunters.  Nice, round number state agencies love to deal with.  Coincidence?
Effectively, the state said to the outfitters - "We want a bigger piece of what you're getting"; and if it's true that most outfitters are from out of state, that makes sense they'd say that - the profits the outfitters were making from Montana public-owned game was going right back out of state.

I'd believe there is a major revenue grab going on here by the great state of Montana, but I'm ok with it if the additional 25% revenue is used for even more BM programs above and beyond what they have already.

Where do you get 55000 nonresident tags?
If you add up 11500 general big game tags, 2300 general deer tags, 4750 outfitter sponsored big game tags, 1800 outfittersponsored deer tags, and 2000 landowner sposored deer tags.  Adds up to 22,350.  Plus the extra 5,500 is still only 27,850.  Where do you get 55,000?  Maybe I read it wrong.

[Bigshooter]

Muleyguy,
It is only good news if you are one of the guys that can afford the new prices.  I don't think the guys that can't afford higher prices will consider this good news.

[cohoho]

Muleyguy,  I have not hunted Montana but what you state makes great sense for sure.  With what your stating, it does help people me for future hunts as I like the DYI stuff and being able to gain access to previously tied up and secured lands would be wonderful.  The outfitters in AK several years back and every now and then it gets thrown back on the review board for Nonresident Moose hunters to be required to have guides, just like Brown bear, Dall Sheep and Goat and that would almost completely take out the average Joe hunter that wants to put together a quality hunt for a decent price, it already has eliminated most for the three listed.  I wouldn't mind paying the extra 200 bucks for an increase % in tags and possibility of hunting good lands that aren't secured for the wealthiest folks...

[tmike]

I never could understand why only 2300 deer combo tags were available. I for one don't mind paying an extra $200 to draw a tag sooner than every 3 or 4 years. It took me 4 last time while the combo guys draw every other year or better.

[Skillet]

Where do you get 55000 nonresident tags?
If you add up 11500 general big game tags, 2300 general deer tags, 4750 outfitter sponsored big game tags, 1800 outfittersponsored deer tags, and 2000 landowner sposored deer tags.  Adds up to 22,350.  Plus the extra 5,500 is still only 27,850.  Where do you get 55,000?  Maybe I read it wrong.

Just lifted the 5500 tag # from the first page:

"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."

and took what Bearpaw says is the outfitter share of the overall -

"No, I don't think it will. Do the math, currently I believe about 10% of non-resident deer licenses are sold as Outfitter Licenses, so the odds should only improve by about 1/10th, in my book it's not even close to a bargain for that amount of gain in odds for the amount of increase in fees."

and the quoted $$ figures and worked it out from there.  Sounds like you have tighter numbers, and I'd be interested to run the math with real numbers- that's why I qualified it with "Based on the # presented so far in this thread."

If the numbers still prove out, and there is an increase in revenue, if it is used to secure Block Management on land formerly tied up by outfitters, I'd support it if I lived in the state.  The point on the economic principals of tag demand/price lands perfectly.  The perfect price point is where there is a 80% or so success rate, I'd bet.

And let's not forget, the people who will be voting for this, the residents of MT, only stand to gain if more BM land is opened up and less goes to the outfitters.

*edited to add last point*

[Bigshooter]

Skillet,
Here is a page to get the numbers from.


http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html

[Skillet]

Skillet,
Here is a page to get the numbers from.


http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html

Got it - have you figured the $$ impact yet? 

Ah, more fun hunting debate... Gonna tick the woman off talking about this over supper tonight! 

[Bigshooter]

Skillet,
Here is a page to get the numbers from.


http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html

Got it - have you figured the $$ impact yet? 

Ah, more fun hunting debate... Gonna tick the woman off talking about this over supper tonight! 

I went with the least money they make now with the most they could make with the prices going up.  If my math is right they would lose about $400,000.  But that might not be right.

[Wenatcheejay]

HUNTING SHOULD BE OUTLAWED, AS SHOULD ALL FREE ENTERPRIZE!!!!







(((OBAMA RULES)))obamarules(((O B A M A R U L E S)))

[bow-n-head]

As a working class Montana citizen and hunter I am loosing out on hunting I used to do because of big money. Block Management areas are over hunted and quality is gone. This is what I have seen here where I hunt. All of my friends around here feel the same. I don't mind the outfitters, but we hate block management. People who live here are pushed out. Why would they support hunting?

[bearpaw]

muleyguy
Some of your points are incorrect thus making your whole argument supporting the Initiative questionable. Here are a few for example:

1.  Outfitter numbers have dropped. The legislature capped the number of outfitters several years ago. For several years the number of outfitters has been well below the previous capped level and there are available openings for more outfitters. But the total number can never exceed the previous capped level. I don't believe this has changed since last year. This can be verified with the Outfitters Licensing Board (the regulating agency).

2.  The Outfitters Licensing Board has also been tracking the number of acres under lease by outfitters. From the time tracking began several years ago until last year when I last heard, the acreage used by outfitters had dropped by I believe 1 or 2 million acres. The exact drop can be verified with the Outfitters Licensing Board (the regulating agency).

3.  I pay about 5 to 6 times the amount you mention for leases and that is why I have good leases. In fact I do not know of any leases (even poor leases) available for the dollars you mention.

From reading your comments it seems you dislike resident outfitters, non-resident outfitters, and most likely most non-resident hunters, but you probably won't say that on this forum.

Montana isn't the only state with these arguments, the same type of arguments are raging throughout the western states including Washington. What all the complainers forget is that when they go salmon fishing in Alaska, antelope hunting in Wyoming, or Red Stag hunting in New Zealand, they are the non-resident hunter or fisherman that they hate so much. And most will be using an outfitter or charter boat.....

Many hunters in Montana want free hunting on Montana ranches. It upsets them that landowners are making money from the hunting. Many Montana hunters dislike non-resident hunters and outfitters even though non-resident hunters and outfitters are responsible for paying a large part of wildlife management and making cheaper licenses available for resident hunters.

Meanwhile landowners are fighting to keep their rights in Montana. What some people fail to understand is that landowners pay taxes and have to make their ranches profitable, they are just trying to make a living. They need revenue from hunting on their property.

This is some of the Montana politics I was referring to.

One thing you are probably right about, the increased price might make it easier to draw as some people may figure the license will cost too much. That is why I don't like the Initiative, many of my hunters are working folks. I have hunts in Utah where hunters can buy licenses for $338. It will be hard to sell Montana hunts when licenses are cheaper in other states.

[Skillet]

As a working class Montana citizen and hunter I am loosing out on hunting I used to do because of big money. Block Management areas are over hunted and quality is gone. This is what I have seen here where I hunt. All of my friends around here feel the same. I don't mind the outfitters, but we hate block management. People who live here are pushed out. Why would they support hunting?

Do you mean why would they support out of state hunting?  It's all about the Benjamins...

In your opinion, what would be the best route for MT to take to restore the quality of hunting you used to enjoy?  I'm curious to hear from some "boots on the ground", so to speak.

[bearpaw]

I did not look up the exact numbers of Outfitter Licenses, but I know it is far less than the full Non-resident Quota.

That is another thing that should be considered in this whole discussion. Non-Resident Quotas have been in place in most states for many years. The number of non-res hunters is not increasing at all. The real problem is that the population in most states is increasing.....A lot of the real problems lie within the borders of each state....

Also, many residents who own land are closing it off to hunting.

[257 Wby Mag]

I hope it remains the same myself. As far as the Block Management program, there is some shady *censored* goin on. After recieving my guide in August, I phone a couple folks to set up reservations. Well, after no less than 20 calls over 2 months, leaving my #, I got no responses! None! Well, the pards and I made friends with a ranch hand over there, and started telling him our concerns. Ol Bronco Billy told us most of em saved there "spots" for locals, friends, etc, when they are full, they're full!! And they still get there money.... There's somthing to be said for a $500.00-$1000.00 tresspass fee hunt, might have to go that route....