Possible changes for Montana....

[bearpaw]

I agree with you guys, I do not want to see the licenses go up. You are correct, it costs too much for someone without a lot of money to hunt and that is hurting our sport.

[muleyguy]

"If you want a true answer to how many acres are used by outfitters then contact the Outfitters Board who are charged with keeping records of outfitter use. They have the answer to 2003 outfitter use and the answer to current outfitter use, any other answers are heresay. If you look at the true facts they show that acreage used by outfitters is on the decline during the last 6 years."


the data is obviously either being reported wrong or being collected wrong. I did look at the Outfitters Board numbers, I got the 2008 annual report.  The point is the data that they are presenting does not correspond with what all of you outfitters are reporting on your websites for how much private ground you have leased up.  I suppose you could all be "overstating" your leased acreage on your websites in order to advertise your services better.  That would be one possible reason.    Here is the list of outfitters and their acreage, I threw yours in too since you say on your website you control 100,000 acres of private ground:

Powder River- 950,000
Trophies West-  650,000
Trophies Plus- 130,000
Big Buck- 250,000
JJ- 165,000
Bearpaw-  100,000

So, throwing you into the mix, now, just 6 outfitters control 50% of the reported acreage to the Board of Outfitters???  I doubt overlapping of leased acreage between outfitters is that common.  I am sure it happens, but I doubt it accounts for very much acreage.

the data is either:

 1. being incorrectly reported to the Board of Outfitters
2.  Being analyzed incorrectly by the Board of Outfitters
3.  being incorrectly stated on all of your websites

a simple statistical analysis of what outfitters are reporting on their websites for acreage controlled, vs ,what the Board of Outfitters is reporting for acreage controlled, points out massive inconsistencies.

I also looked at the number of guaranteed licenses sold in 2003 vs 2008 and the number of outfitter acres in both of those years.  For simplicity, I will just give you the quick totals:

2003-  6827 guaranteed licenses sold;   6,400,000 acres of land leased;  = 937 acres of leased land per guaranteed tag holder

2008-  7658 guaranteed licenses sold;   5,200,000 acres of land leased; = 679 acres of leased land per guaranteed tag holder.

If those numbers are accurate from the Montana Board of Outfitters, the hunter accessibility to hunting acreage, for guided, guaranteed licensed,  hunters, DECLINED by almost 30% in just 5 years.

Leased land is getting locked up, or lost FASTER, for guided hunters then non-guided hunters if these numbers are right......

c'mon, that does not make any sense and you know it.   

as far as the cost of the tags going up, and that pricing out people who cannot afford it, what you have to realize is that non-montanan's do not own montana's wildlife.  Montana owns its wildlife.  Montana is under no obligation, either legally or morally or financially, to provide affordable tags to non-residents.  In fact, it has a fiduciary duty (or should have) to maximize revenue from non-resident hunters.  Every time a non-resident shoots a big game animal in montana, you are taking a "resource" from the citizens of montana.  By charging us non-residents so much, montana is able to keep its resident tags cheaper and affordable for the vast majority of its citizens.  I believe about 75% of the MFWP is funded by non-resident tag fees.  And, if us DIY'ers want access to private ground, we are going to have to pay for it, pure and simple.  That is why the Block Management program has been so successful.

at the end of the day, the point is this:  the guaranteed program "carves" out a portion of the public montana resources (game animals) for the benefit of 450 private business'.  And, by guaranteeing outfitter licenses, you provide a higher level of stability to the Outfitter business'.  With a higher level of stable clients, you are able to lease and control more ground then you could without them.  IF your leased acreage is falling because of other factors, then certainly the guaranteed program, slows this fall in acreage to slower level then it would be under normal market conditions.  How many other business' in the State of Montana get priveleged and controlled access to the resources of the state of montana?

The reason everybody "bought off" on all this originally was money;  they took the extra fees that were generated by the higher tag costs and used it fund Block Management.

We can argue if leased ground is going up or down for whatever reasons;  but, I can guarantee you that the guaranteed tag program has resulted in more leased ground then would have been in place otherwise.   The stability of having guaranteed tags causes this.  Montana does not "owe" a guaranteed clientele to outfitters anymore then it "owes" a clientele to any other business.

A much better system is to get rid of the guaranteed tag system, raise the tag fees high enough to continue to run and expand block management, and let the outfitters compete for their clients in the general draw.  If you are providing a good service to your clients, the good outfitters will be just fine.

[hunterofelk]

As a former resident of Montana I thought I would weigh in on this subject.  I quit hunting in Montana after the last increase.  I felt the level of game, the amount of land to hunt and the overall experience was equal to my new adopted state of Washington.  The only advantage is hunting in late November.  I was thinking about doing an antlerless elk hunt in Montana next year, but I am sure the fee will jump $200 or more, so that might shoot that down.
Let me tell you something about living in Montana.  It's a great place to live, but a terrible place to make a living.  The residents don't have many advantages in their state, the natural resources are the only things going for them.  Once a kid leaves high school the first thought is "I am going to have to live in another state in order to make a good living!" 
So I say let them charge as much as they want for a deer or elk.  Give the outfitters guaranteed licenses.  Landowners can lock up their own land as they see fit.  Finance the Block Management through the nonresident fees.  The current system seems to be working, it just needs more money to cover the high cost of realestate.  Montana for Montanans, give them some incentive for staying there and making sure things don't freeze or blow away.

[haugenna]

Not that I care, but this could affect the hunting shows as well.

[huntnphool]

Not that I care, but this could affect the hunting shows as well.

 Will be interesting to see how this effects guided hunt prices for sure.

[Hornseeker]

Wish I would have got in on this thread earlier...cause I just cant sit here and read every word...unfortunately...

Montana has some problems... so do most other western states and now a lot of the midwest is becoming the same way with their big whitetail hunting opportunities...

Outfitters haven't created the problem...they have contributed, but so have many other people.. now Phool is bidding on the land and contributing further to the problem... Bottom line is, hunting and ANTLERS have become a big "status" symbol... if it weren't for Antlers and all these ridiculous hunting shows and the idollization of these idiotic hunting personalities, NONE of this would be happening...

Yeah, Private land, the good stuff for sure, is becoming very hard to get free permission to hunt on. Cant blame the landowners...they are generally "scraping" to make ends meet... they are land rich and green poor big time! Many of them...   But there is still BOAT loads of public land to hunt. If you cannot kill "a deer" on public land in Montana in a couple days of hunting, you have more trouble than just not being able to get on private land.

Since I've lived in Montana (11 years) I have only killed 3 or 4 bucks...however, I pass up anywhere from 10-100 bucks a season. sure...most all those passers are dinks... but they were available game.  Its all about the antlers now. I would be tickled pink to shoot a big buck, but I sure as hell am not going to PAY for it...that would completely take the satisfaction out of it for me. I'll work for it... and I will kill a nice buck one of these day, I have no doubt. I wont be killing one every year like the guy that Pays for it though...

Take away the guaranteed outfitter tags... you'll NOT decrease the amount of land leased! You WILL decrease the amount of land leased by outfitters. Not substantially though. As seen in this thread...and as Im aware of living here...there are MANY more folks that will jump on that land that the outifitter has to give up cause he doesn't have a guaranteed clientelle.

The obseession with big antlers and the new American way of wanting everythying and wanting now and wanting it EASY is what is ruining hunting...adn the country in general. Go Hunt public land or free land and work hard...and you will be awarded with more than a big set of antlers....

[whacker1]

I think ultimately Montana should look to Idaho to learn from another state's mistakes.  Idaho raised their prices to comparable levels to what Montana has proposed and the # of tags sold went down along with the total revenue.  game numbers based on wolf predation played a part in this demand (i can only imagine), but that is an issue faced for certain parts of Montana as well.  No matter how you slice and dice this issue, when you raise prices for the bulk of the tag holders demand will change.
Idaho license  141.50
Idaho deer tag 258.50
Idaho elk tag  372.50
grand total $772.50

after the change May 1st.
Idaho license 154.75
Idaho deer tag 301.75
Idaho elk tag 416.75
grand total $873.25

Still 2267 elk tags available as of 12/4/09
2534 regular deer tags
1500 white tail deer tags.

That is a lot of uncaptured revenue for roughly a $100 increase in tags.

I don't know how I feel one way or another about the guaranteed tags for outfitters.  I do believe that it will decrease the numbers of hunters using guide services, because most working class folks plan a couple of years out on the trips they take on a guided basis, and not knowing whether or not they will be drawn will play as a factor for the decision making.  I know the trip that I have been talking about would change, because the predictability in planning when I can book that trip to the year of the draw would make it a challenge.  And even more so for the outfitter.  I have been looking at a hunt in the Bob Marshall wilderness for about 4 or 5 years.  I can't afford it yet, but I can only imagine the outfitter having 5 weeks available and not knowing if his interested parties will draw or not.  He may have no hunters draw and leave all his spots open or have all of his prospects draw and only be able to accommodate some of those hunters.  This provides a pretty shaky business model and will ultimately thin down the number of outfitters over time.  Yes, they will still have interested hunters, but the stability will go away as guides have difficulty filling trips from year to year.

Not sure what the correct solution is, but I don't think the current Initiative solves the problems at hand.    I did take from this a lesson though.  "don't raise your rates for non-resident tags/licenses in a downward trending economy before your neighboring states do the same".   Idaho is 

[huntnphool]

now Phool is bidding on the land and contributing further to the problem.

 If the land owner of the land I would like to hunt only allows the people that lease the land the right to hunt it, why should I not bid on that right same as the outfitter? Either way the land owner is not going to let the general public hunt it, if nobody leases it, so why not lock it up for my friends and family?

 I understand what you are saying, and maybe some landowners will open up their land to everybody, doubtfull, but not so in this case so I'm jumping in to lock it up. Selfish? okay, but then again its nice to hunt a huge section of country and not have to worry about seeing pumpkins on every ridge.

[BAR C3]

I think ultimately Montana should look to Idaho to learn from another state's mistakes.  Idaho raised their prices to comparable levels to what Montana has proposed and the # of tags sold went down along with the total revenue.  game numbers based on wolf predation played a part in this demand (i can only imagine), but that is an issue faced for certain parts of Montana as well.  No matter how you slice and dice this issue, when you raise prices for the bulk of the tag holders demand will change.
Idaho license  141.50
Idaho deer tag 258.50
Idaho elk tag  372.50
grand total $772.50

after the change May 1st.
Idaho license 154.75
Idaho deer tag 301.75
Idaho elk tag 416.75
grand total $873.25

Still 2267 elk tags available as of 12/4/09
2534 regular deer tags
1500 white tail deer tags.

That is a lot of uncaptured revenue for roughly a $100 increase in tags.

I don't know how I feel one way or another about the guaranteed tags for outfitters.  I do believe that it will decrease the numbers of hunters using guide services, because most working class folks plan a couple of years out on the trips they take on a guided basis, and not knowing whether or not they will be drawn will play as a factor for the decision making.  I know the trip that I have been talking about would change, because the predictability in planning when I can book that trip to the year of the draw would make it a challenge.  And even more so for the outfitter.  I have been looking at a hunt in the Bob Marshall wilderness for about 4 or 5 years.  I can't afford it yet, but I can only imagine the outfitter having 5 weeks available and not knowing if his interested parties will draw or not.  He may have no hunters draw and leave all his spots open or have all of his prospects draw and only be able to accommodate some of those hunters.  This provides a pretty shaky business model and will ultimately thin down the number of outfitters over time.  Yes, they will still have interested hunters, but the stability will go away as guides have difficulty filling trips from year to year.

Not sure what the correct solution is, but I don't think the current Initiative solves the problems at hand.    I did take from this a lesson though.  "don't raise your rates for non-resident tags/licenses in a downward trending economy before your neighboring states do the same".   Idaho is 

[Hornseeker]

There are plenty of "good folks" leasing some land to hunt...and not knowing you from Adam.... maybe you are one of them... I just think the paying to play thing is the whole problem... In the last decade or so it has went from just a few paying a little...to many paying A Lot... and there are lots of folks out there with Lots of money.... they are the ones... you I guess.... that will have the priviliges... You probably worked hard for your money... so that is "part of the hunt" for you I guess... Something to be proud of.

If I was wealthy... Maybe I'd lease something?? I cant say, I dont feel now like I would, but if I had the $$... maybe my opinion would change...

Anyhow, I am on the board of the Montana Bowhunters Association and we have been bombarded with issues related to this topic for the last 3 years... members are divided as much as the members of this forum are... both have great arguments.. some will lose out... some will win. Hopefully...whats best for hunting in Montana will win out!

[bearpaw]

muleyguy, I can not speak for every other outfitter, but over half the property I lease is also leased by one or two other outfitters. That helps prove that there is nothing wrong with the numbers. You are only trying to stir the pot.

I am opposed to losing outfitter licenses and I am opposed to the fee increase for the draw licenses. Your proposal is a double edged sword, the guys who can afford the guaranteed license lose out, and so do the guys who need to hunt on a budget. Why screw up a system that has the best of both worlds? The way it seems both kinds of hunters lose out with your Initiative plan and so would Montana landowners and outfitters.

[huntnphool]

There are plenty of "good folks" leasing some land to hunt...and not knowing you from Adam.... maybe you are one of them... I just think the paying to play thing is the whole problem... In the last decade or so it has went from just a few paying a little...to many paying A Lot... and there are lots of folks out there with Lots of money.... they are the ones... you I guess.... that will have the priviliges... You probably worked hard for your money... so that is "part of the hunt" for you I guess... Something to be proud of.

If I was wealthy... Maybe I'd lease something?? I cant say, I dont feel now like I would, but if I had the $$... maybe my opinion would change...

Anyhow, I am on the board of the Montana Bowhunters Association and we have been bombarded with issues related to this topic for the last 3 years... members are divided as much as the members of this forum are... both have great arguments.. some will lose out... some will win. Hopefully...whats best for hunting in Montana will win out!

Hornseeker, I completely understand your concern and have witnessed much the same thing over there. Maybe its naivete or even wishful thinking on your part but I don't see it ever going back to the "knock on the door and ask" time period. Realizing this is more than likely the case, I have two choices; 1) continue to sit back and watch the best areas get leased and hunted by others or 2) Talk to the landowners myself and outbid the outfitters.

 I think you would be absolutely shocked at what the majority of outfitters lease land for, I have found it to be much more obtainable than previously thought. Now you take a group of friends and split the cost and in my case, pay the landowner more than the outfitter and at the same time take less animals off the property every year. I have found the landowners much prefer to get to know and have the same group of guys out each year, rather than a bunch of people they dont know. At the same time helping out with the "chores" in the summertime or fall, this also adds a bit "ownership" if you will to the land and respect as well. Trust me the landowners really appreciate it.

I help out any way I can each year and this year on top of that we spent our first day over there helping round up the cattle and drive them to the corral. What they take as work we actually enjoyed and had fun, city slickers style. They got a kick out of us helping and like I said, really appreciated it.

[Hornseeker]

I agree Phool... It will never be back like it was....

I am not familiar with leasing costs... several years ago there were a group of guys that were leasing an elk place in the Bull Mts here out of Billings for like $3000 a year. They were killings 330-390 bulls EVERY YEAR!!! Then...outfitters finally got wind... Now...Denny...YES...anyone, including myself, or phool or whoever could have also got wind...so not knocking the outfitter... and Told the ranch he'd double it... THe hunters said...well...we will give you $7000... Before it was said and done, the outfitter was giving $18,000...however...it is also very well known that a big 375+ bull will bring some MAJOR bucks...and that is what happened there!!

[whacker1]

So, I was looking over this thread again.

I wasn't able to find any resources to see if they had enough signatures to add this to the 2010 ballot or not.  I know it is a long way off, but I wanted to track this issue. 

Anyone know where I can find the status report? 

[Magnum_Willys]

The days of hunting private property for free are over.  We have public land, and private land we pay to access through leases or payment to someone who has it leased - like an outfitter.   Outfitters market and attract business and tourism to the rural montana economy.   What economic sense would it be to block half of their potential customers that won't draw a tag?  From an economic standpoint that doesn't make sense. 

The only ones I see voting for this initiative are the dreamers who think farmers may swing their gates open and you can again begin accessing private land for free.  Sorry - those days are gone - Not gonna happen.  Maybe here and there until someone finds out and drops thousands in their hand along with some fresh salmon and goodies to lock it up.  The internet and the outdoor channel changed everything.  Your secret free ranch to hunt is now auctioning its access - if not it will be soon.   Not just to outfitters.  Clubs, groups, buddies, me.....maybe you....