Post by: finnman on December 03, 2009, 10:29:17 AM
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
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2009, 10:41:55 AM
Post by: Craig on December 03, 2009, 11:13:06 AM
Post by: actionshooter on December 03, 2009, 11:21:26 AM
Not saying I like it. As long as people pay the price will go up.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 11:57:20 AM
Post by: ing on December 03, 2009, 12:04:18 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on December 03, 2009, 12:06:19 PM
Post by: Craig on December 03, 2009, 12:18:59 PM
Post by: NRA4LIFE on December 03, 2009, 12:24:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 01:18:49 PM
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? :dunno:
Well aren't all these other industries and professions making money off wildlife?............... :rolleyes:
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents:
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. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 01:19:12 PM
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. ;)
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on December 03, 2009, 01:26:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 01:31:52 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 01:34:42 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on December 03, 2009, 01:38:33 PM
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.... :bash: :bash: :bash:
Maybe there is some middle ground. Perhaps in exchange for the elimination of the guaranteed tags, the fee's should go down.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 01:43:37 PM
Quote
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.
The absence of guaranteed outfitter tags doesn't prevent you from leasing the same properties. It also doesn't prevent the land owner from leasing his land to you or anyone else. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 01:43:59 PM
That is the most successful program at opening the most private lands to public hunting of any state in the country.
I have to ask what is so bad about the status quo? The guys who want a cheap license get one every 1 to 3 years, the guys who want to pay for BM get to hunt when they want to go, and everyone gets access to millions of acres of private land that otherwise would probably not be open to hunt. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 01:48:23 PM
Quote
Do you want to give up the Block Management program?
Why would we have to give up the BMP?
Post by: Special T on December 03, 2009, 01:50:25 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 01:54:49 PM
As far as I can see this initiative will upset a balance that actually works quite well.
For you guys who want to pay $200 more so you have a better chance of getting a license, I see your odds of drawing a license increasing by maybe 1/10th. The outfitter licenses are only a small portion of total non-resident licenses, it won't make a huge difference, and everyone who used to buy the Outfitter License will now be competing for the draw licenses. :twocents:
T....I am sure they have the fee increase so they don't lose the BM program or the initiative would never have any chance to pass....will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
The current program actually works quite well thats why I hate to see changes....but obviously it will be determined by the people.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
QuoteDo you want to give up the Block Management program?
Why would we have to give up the BMP?
phool, in case you missed my earlier post, the Outfitter Licenses fund Block Management.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 02:09:54 PM
QuoteI 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.
The absence of guaranteed outfitter tags doesn't prevent you from leasing the same properties. It also doesn't prevent the land owner from leasing his land to you or anyone else. :dunno:
You are correct, it doesn't prevent me or anyone else from leasing. However, most years I have at least 6 to 10 hunters who do buy the Outfitter License. That stability allows me to go ahead and lease property.
I guess I like seeing the option of cheap draw licenses or more expensive gauranteed licenses. The initiative takes away both..... :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 02:17:30 PM
phool, in case you missed my earlier post, the Outfitter Licenses fund Block Management.QuoteDo you want to give up the Block Management program?
I didnt miss it. According to the numbers in the proposed initiative there would be a substantial increase in the revenue raised, why would anything be cut except the guaranteed tags?
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2009, 02:22:38 PM
But I just think $527 is way too high for a deer tag. I guess if people are willing to pay it, then it's not too high. But I wouldn't pay that much.
As Bearpaw said, Montana's system is working well as it is, why change it. It's not broke, no need to fix it.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 02:24:14 PM
Quote
most years I have at least 6 to 10 hunters who do buy the Outfitter License. That stability allows me to go ahead and lease property.
BP, you are of the mind set that the loss of guaranteed tags equates to a drop in clientele? I would think it would be just the opposite. At a decrease of almost half the $ for the tag, wouldn't you potentially have more people considering going with a guide? Just to keep it simple, if for a total package to hunt with you they were originally looking at $2500, now they are looking at a total of $1900. I would think you would be picking up a couple more per year. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
Quotemost years I have at least 6 to 10 hunters who do buy the Outfitter License. That stability allows me to go ahead and lease property.
BP, you are of the mind set that the loss of guaranteed tags equates to a drop in clientele? I would think it would be just the opposite. At a decrease of almost half the $ for the tag, wouldn't you potentially have more people considering going with a guide? Just to keep it simple, if for a total package to hunt with you they were originally looking at $2500, now they are looking at a total of $1900. I would think you would be picking up a couple more per year. :dunno:
Yes you are correct, I am of that mindset:
Let me explain a little more clearly:
My hunters looking for the most affordable hunt apply for $343 deer licenses.
My hunters who don't care what it costs but want to hunt this year pay $1100 for deer licenses.
Take away the cheaper license and take away the guaranteed license, and I beleive my business will drop because I lose the best options of the two worlds.
Unlike many of you more experienced hunters on this forum, a guy from western Washington who has never hunted in Montana or a guy from South Carolina who has never hunted mule deer often want a guide for their Montana hunting trip. Please remember, those guys have just as much right to hunt MT as you do. Also please realize there are poor hunters and there are wealthier people who are hunters. The current program allows a wider variety of all those hunters the option to afford that hunt or to experience that MT hunt the same year they want to go.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 02:51:45 PM
Quote
The current program allows a wider variety of all those hunters the option to afford that hunt or to experience that MT hunt the same year they want to go.
But for someone that wants to go with you next year, the total cost would be cheaper with the initiative passing than it is now.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2009, 03:07:39 PM
QuoteThe current program allows a wider variety of all those hunters the option to afford that hunt or to experience that MT hunt the same year they want to go.
But for someone that wants to go with you next year, the total cost would be cheaper with the initiative passing than it is now.
No it would be more expensive for some and cheaper for others.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:09:41 PM
AND
If the Initiative passes the guys that would have paid $343 for a chance at the draw license will have to pay $527 for the draw license and may choose not to apply or to go where licenses are cheaper.
Thus the best of both worlds is gone....I could lose clients from both groups of hunters as might other outfitters.
Two things are for sure, the least expensive option is gone, and the guaranteed option is gone.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
With the initiative, the only real winners I see are the people who hate outfitters and don't care what it takes to get in a poke at the outfitting industry. Honestly, the average nonresident hunter will have to pay almost $200 more to increase their odds of drawing by a very small percentage. Just doesn't make any sense to me. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 03:20:02 PM
Rather than twist this around the subject just answer me one question. Since we were talking about you losing your 6-10 guaranteed clients, under the new initiative, would those clients pay more or less if it passes?
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:29:10 PM
I wouldn't have any of those hunters who want to have a hunt for sure next year. Many of those guys who are willing to pay for the guaranteed tag will go to Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, or New mexico where they can get an outfitter or landowner tag.
I also get a lot of working class folks who choose to apply since it is only $343, I will most likely lose some of those hunters as well when the licenses cost more, they will go somewhere like Utah where they can hunt for $338 on a landowner permit.
Now answer this for me.....why are you so ademate to get rid of the whole program in Montana.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 03:30:23 PM
The whole program with the Outfitter License fees paying for the Block Management program is a win/win/win/win for the poor hunter, the wealthy hunter, all hunters wanting access to private land, the outfitting industry, and the outfitted hunter.
Explain how the passing of the initiative will negatively impact the BMP. As I pointed out earlier, the passing of the initiative will actually increase revenue, not decrease it.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:42:25 PM
I am not sure revenue will be increased since I have not done the math but it may, please keep in mind that any revenue increase is at the expense of the guys who used to get a license for $343.
Because the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license, so all the initiative may do is increase license fees for the folks who used to pay less money to hunt in Montana.
It is yet to be seen if it impacts BM or not.... :dunno:
A books is not always as it seems on the cover. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Quote
Now answer this for me.....why are you so ademate to get rid of the whole program in Montana.
Its not getting rid of the program its making changes to it. Changes that I believe will be better for most of the non res hunters heading there. The people that were going with you will still apply, and although they may not all draw I believe you will likely increase the amount of people wanting to book a trip because in the long run for them it will be cheaper. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:54:09 PM
As stated more than once, the guys who want to hunt now, will hunt elsewhere, where they can hunt now. Almost every other western state has special outfitter or landowner licenses that will allow them to hunt now.
These guys are also the guys who likely leave the most money where they hunt, so economically Montana may actually lose money. As Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 03:55:45 PM
Quote
Because the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license,
I'm betting those guys will still be applying except now they are only paying $527. If they draw, great, they just saved enough to pay for the rest of their hunt or help subsidize the cost of an additional out of state tag. If they don't draw then they can still apply in that other state you claim they were jumping ship for anyway.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:57:14 PM
How is this better for them?
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 03:59:20 PM
QuoteBecause the guys who used to pay $1100 for a deer tag are now going to other states where they know they can get a license,
I'm betting those guys will still be applying except now they are only paying $527. If they draw, great, they just saved enough to pay for the rest of their hunt or help subsidize the cost of an additional out of state tag. If they don't draw then they can still apply in that other state you claim they were jumping ship for anyway.
I don't like betting on getting business when I don't have to. Those guys you are reffering to are looking for a hunt now, not a cheaper deal.
Post by: Special T on December 03, 2009, 04:01:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 04:05:07 PM
Quote
As Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.
True, and like you I seriously doubt it will pass. I can see them coming up with a compromise though in order to justify an increase in tag fees.
Quote
What about the majority of Non-res hunters who used to only pay $343?
How is this better for them?
Maybe the increase in drawing odds has them drawing every other year on average rather than every 3rd year?
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 04:08:25 PM
Quote
and as BP said the 200 difference in tag cost willnot likely change someones mind in hiring an outfitter.
The combo would be a $600 savings, and I do believe that would be enough to tip the scales of someone on the fence. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 04:19:39 PM
QuoteAs Montanans weigh all this out, it will be interesting to see what happens.
True, and like you I seriously doubt it will pass. I can see them coming up with a compromise though in order to justify an increase in tag fees.QuoteWhat about the majority of Non-res hunters who used to only pay $343?
How is this better for them?
Maybe the increase in drawing odds has them drawing every other year on average rather than every 3rd year?
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.
Post by: Craig on December 03, 2009, 04:51:57 PM
Post by: Skillet on December 03, 2009, 05:05:05 PM
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.
Post by: muleyguy on December 03, 2009, 05:05:57 PM
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.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2009, 05:18:51 PM
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.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2009, 05:25:32 PM
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.
Post by: cohoho on December 03, 2009, 05:26:11 PM
Post by: tmike on December 03, 2009, 05:32:45 PM
Post by: Skillet on December 03, 2009, 05:33:08 PM
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 $$ figures and worked it out from there. Sounds like you have tighter numbers, and I'd be interested to run the math with real numbers- that's why I qualified it with "Based on the # presented so far in this thread."
If the numbers still prove out, and there is an increase in revenue, if it is used to secure Block Management on land formerly tied up by outfitters, I'd support it if I lived in the state. The point on the economic principals of tag demand/price lands perfectly. The perfect price point is where there is a 80% or so success rate, I'd bet.
And let's not forget, the people who will be voting for this, the residents of MT, only stand to gain if more BM land is opened up and less goes to the outfitters.
*edited to add last point*
Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2009, 05:35:10 PM
Here is a page to get the numbers from.
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html
Post by: Skillet on December 03, 2009, 05:38:49 PM
Skillet,
Here is a page to get the numbers from.
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html
Got it - have you figured the $$ impact yet?
Ah, more fun hunting debate... Gonna tick the woman off talking about this over supper tonight! :chuckle:
Post by: Bigshooter on December 03, 2009, 05:41:31 PM
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! :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 03, 2009, 05:49:54 PM
(((OBAMA RULES)))obamarules(((O B A M A R U L E S)))
Post by: bow-n-head on December 03, 2009, 06:05:30 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 06:41:54 PM
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..... :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Skillet on December 03, 2009, 06:47:03 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on December 03, 2009, 06:49:05 PM
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.... :twocents:
Also, many residents who own land are closing it off to hunting.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on December 03, 2009, 06:57:19 PM
Post by: Dansk on December 03, 2009, 07:04:32 PM
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.
Post by: BAR C3 on December 03, 2009, 07:28:58 PM
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.
Post by: bow-n-head on December 03, 2009, 08:09:28 PM
Post by: bow-n-head on December 03, 2009, 08:52:54 PM
Post by: BAR C3 on December 03, 2009, 09:37:36 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on December 03, 2009, 10:07:31 PM
Quote
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. :twocents:
Post by: muleyguy on December 04, 2009, 01:06:22 AM
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".....
Post by: bow-n-head on December 04, 2009, 08:10:05 AM
Post by: muleyguy on December 04, 2009, 10:03:13 AM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on December 04, 2009, 10:16:30 AM
Quote
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.
:yeah: 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.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 04, 2009, 10:24:27 AM
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.
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 04, 2009, 10:51:02 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 04, 2009, 11:03:46 AM
Post by: huntnphool on December 04, 2009, 11:05:25 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 04, 2009, 11:07:29 AM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on December 04, 2009, 11:11:41 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 04, 2009, 11:17:17 AM
Post by: huntnphool on December 04, 2009, 11:18:13 AM
West part of the state has tons of WT as well as national forest land, that's where I was thinking it would work well.
That would be cool.
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2009, 12:02:26 PM
Just to clarify a few things.
Outfitter Tags are part of the non-resident quota which has been capped for years, Outfitter tags do not take away from the opportunity of any MT resident to get licenses.
Every year each outfitter must renew their outfitter license. Each outfitter must also keep records up to date of all lands they operate on including the exact legal description and exact acres of each property. Every single property must be approved by the Board before you operate on it. Operating on any lands without land owner/manager and Board approval is a violation. That includes BLM, State, or Forest Service. The Outfitters Board has an exact figure for the number of acres utilized by outfitters. I spoke to the director myself last summer and he said the number of acres has dropped in the last few years by about 2 million acres. (can't remember the exact acres) That is a significant reduction, those are the facts.
Some of you may not realize but there are large hunting clubs popping up in Montana. These are not outfitters, they are hunting clubs. These hunting clubs are expanding rapidly and perhaps that is where the confusion is occuring. To my knowledge, hunting clubs are not regulated and state officials have told me that large areas in the Breaks and elsewhere are being leased by these clubs. I was also told that they have leased enough property in some areas to control access to public lands.
Please let me repeat, outfitters can not even hunt on any private or public land without landowner and Board approval.
I think many of you guys have got the apples and the oranges mixed on this issue. It's so easy for someone to get all fired up and then excite a bunch of other people into thinking some travesty is occuring. But until you have the facts straight it is easy to jump to conclusions based on heresay.
I can gaurantee you that the Outfitters Board keeps very strict control over the outfitting industry. Perhaps Montana should look into bringing hunting clubs under some type of control and monitoring. :twocents:
I hope I can locate some of these $200 per animal leases, so far I have not heard of such a thing in this day and age. :twocents:
As far as landowners go, I believe a person should be able to control who goes on their property. That includes people accessing their property to hunt. The reason some private properties are better hunting is because they are not over run with hunters, wildlife feels safe and stays on the property. Take the best property and overhunt it and at least some wildlife will leave.
I understand the plight of the public land hunter having to compete with other hunters, it's tough sharing the field with other hunters, but I think a we all should be glad there is public property to hunt on. The Block Management program adds to the availability of land for the public to hunt. Sure it's block massacre in some areas and I am sure there is some cheating somewhere, but overall the system puts hunters onto more acres.... :twocents:
As far as the quality of hunting overall in the state of MT. I agree it is slipping a little. But Non-Res hunter numbers have been capped for years. The real problem is that MT is growing and I think growing resident hunter numbers is going to force MT to eventually take action to reduce hunting pressure one way or another. Even if you eliminated Non-Res hunters and outlaw outfitters, that is only a small portion of the overall licenses sold. So no matter what, eventually resident hunting pressure will have to be addressed. :twocents:
Post by: KimberRich on December 04, 2009, 12:58:47 PM
I'm confused about all these numbers of tags... I'm speking of Deer only. Not the Deer/Elk Combo.
Currently they give:
2300 general Non resident deer tags
2000 Landowner Sponsored Deer tags
1800 Outfitter sponsored Deer tags
6100 total per below.
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nonresidentCombo.html
I'm not sure if when they said 5500 additional tags they were talking about the Deer/Elk Combo or ??? From what I read there are 4750 Outfitter Sponsor Deer/Elk tags and 1800 outfitter Sponsored Deer only tags. Making 6550 total per my math. Not seeing how they come up with 5500?
Also I'm not sure where the hell they come up with the 60% successful number!
Here are the numbers for the Deer only Drawing per my conversation with a Montana Fish and Game person this fall:
2300 Non-resident Deer Only Tags - 13000 applicants = 18% roughly
2000 Non-Resident Landowner Sponsor Tags - 6000 applicants = 33% roughly
They may be speking of the Elk/Deer Combo but I have a hard time believing the odds are almost 3 times better going that route.. I can't spek of my experiences with Deer/Elk Combo as I only put in for the Landowner Sponsor Deer each year.
Even if you threw in the additional 1800 Deer OUtfitter tags into that equation the number would only increase to about 32% success.
I'm under the impression that any Outfitter tags that are not purchased by a certain date go into the pool to be distributed to the people on the Alternate's List that is started soon after the Drawing in the Spring.
All this said I think it would be great to have additional tags available and I would have no problem paying the extra $200 if my chances would improve to get drawn. I don't want to step on any outfitters toes though because they have to make a living also. It's a tough topic. Bottom line is there are more independent hunters than there are Outfitters so if everyone gets a vote it could be tough for the Outfitters.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 04, 2009, 01:34:53 PM
Post by: KimberRich on December 04, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Not sure, but I think the deer elk combo tags have a little better than a 50% draw rate for NR. Maybe that's the 60%...?
Might be..
Post by: Craig on December 04, 2009, 01:38:27 PM
2008 big game combo
19444 apps
10707 drew
simple odds. 55.06 draw success.
Post by: KimberRich on December 04, 2009, 02:19:59 PM
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.
They already offer the WT doe surplus tags. In years past you could buy up to 7 of them as a resident or non-resident over the counter until the quota had been sold. I bought a couple in late Nov. and there were still plenty available.. I think they were $75 each for Non-res. Like $10 for residents. I know we all want to shoot Big Bucks but if you want to even out the herd or fill the freezer this is a good option. I know getting access to private land is easier when your only shooting does. On my family's ranch near Lewistown they charge to hunt but allow most anyone with a doe tag to come out and shoot as many as they have tags for.
Post by: KimberRich on December 04, 2009, 02:23:53 PM
This is off Huntin Fool web site
2008 big game combo
19444 apps
10707 drew
simple odds. 55.06 draw success.
That would be closer to their 60% quote.. It's odd that 10707 drew a tag when their regs state that their are 11500 available??
Post by: muleyguy on December 04, 2009, 02:32:58 PM
I do not believe I am mixing apples and oranges; I understand that "hunting clubs" are popping up and that this ties land up also. I stick by my original point that acres tied up by outfitters and guides, legal and illegal, etc is greater now then in 1993; which the "official" numbers that you are using are saying.
My question to you is simple: I don't care what the official numbers say; do you honestly believe the amount of acres tied up by the outfitter/guide industry in the State of Montana is the same in 2009 as 1993??
I have no doubt that the Montana board of outfitters requires all of this information to be submitted to them. But, the data has to be weak because the Private Lands/Public Wildlife Council admits that it does not really know what the acreage number was before 2003. And, in the annual report, the data is only given every other year since 2003. If the information was so readily available why not publish it every year?? The Private Lands/Public Wildlife Council was created by the guaranteed tag legislation back in 1996 to specifically look at this issue. If the information is tracked so readily by the Montana Board of Outfitters, why the "problem" in the data pre 2003??? Here is a quote:
"accurate data documenting the amount of private land used by licensed hunting outfitters was not available from MBO (Montana Board of Outfitters) until 2003......"
It doesn't take a lot of digging to figure out something is fishy in the numbers; I went to the MOGA site (Montana Outfitters and Guide Association) and pulled up the websites of just 5 outfitters working in the Broadus and Breaks area; you guys all like to brag about how many acres you control. Just these 5 outfitters, according to themselves, control 2,145,000 acres of land to hunt on. In 2007 according to PL/PW Council 5.2 million acres were controlled by outfitters.
So, your telling me 42% of the all the land controlled by outfitters is done by just 5 of you guys??? That doesn't leave much for the remaining 445 of you.........only about 6500 acres or so per outfitter. Is that the makeup of the outfitting industry in montana?? 5 guys average over 400,000 acres of land, and the remaining 445 average 6500 acres?? To be honest, I find few if any outfitters who say they only control 6500 acres. My guess is that if I go through the websites of these guys, by the time I hit a 100 or 200 or so outfitters I will be up to the 5.2 million acres pretty easy. That still leaves 200 to 300 of you.
So, lets be honest, the "official" numbers are weak, at best. I don't pretend to know exactly why the numbers are off; but, they are off, nothing reconciles. It would be a PR disaster for the Outfitting industry, the PL/PW Council and the Montana Board of Outfitters, if acres tied up by outfitters were increasing. So, I leave it to rational minds to come to conclusions why the "official" numbers seem goofy.
Another point to those trying to figure out if draw odds would increase. The draw odds would increase, not necessarily because of the additional tags being put into the pool, but because the large price rise would result in less draw "demand". That is why the odds would increase. Anytime tag costs are increased there are fewer applicants.
Post by: Craig on December 04, 2009, 03:38:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2009, 03:47:27 PM
I honestly have no idea about years before 2003. There was no accurate record keeping process that I know of. Thus any figure would most likely be an estimate by anyone providing it and very possibly not fact.
My point is that outfitter acreage is on a decline which is contrary to the impression you give. Since 2003 outfitter acreage has decreased.
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.
Argue it all you want, but the outfitters board has an accurate accounting of all the acres of private land that Montana Outfitters are authorized to outfit on and it is less than in 2003, that shows it is on a decline.
Post by: elkkiller on December 04, 2009, 05:28:35 PM
Post by: Turkeyman on December 05, 2009, 05:04:54 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 05, 2009, 12:06:44 PM
Post by: muleyguy on December 06, 2009, 02:28:48 AM
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.
Post by: hunterofelk on December 06, 2009, 05:56:33 AM
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.
Post by: haugenna on December 06, 2009, 08:42:20 AM
Post by: huntnphool on December 06, 2009, 12:56:04 PM
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.
Post by: Hornseeker on December 07, 2009, 08:37:22 AM
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....
Post by: whacker1 on December 07, 2009, 05:20:27 PM
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 :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on December 07, 2009, 06:07:40 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: BAR C3 on December 07, 2009, 06:19:32 PM
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.:yeah:
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 :bash:
Post by: Hornseeker on December 08, 2009, 07:42:57 AM
If I was wealthy... Maybe I'd lease something?? I cant say, I dont feel now like I would, but if I had the $$... maybe my opinion would change...
Anyhow, I am on the board of the Montana Bowhunters Association and we have been bombarded with issues related to this topic for the last 3 years... members are divided as much as the members of this forum are... both have great arguments.. some will lose out... some will win. Hopefully...whats best for hunting in Montana will win out!
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2009, 01:17:10 AM
I am opposed to losing outfitter licenses and I am opposed to the fee increase for the draw licenses. Your proposal is a double edged sword, the guys who can afford the guaranteed license lose out, and so do the guys who need to hunt on a budget. Why screw up a system that has the best of both worlds? The way it seems both kinds of hunters lose out with your Initiative plan and so would Montana landowners and outfitters. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on December 09, 2009, 04:00:41 PM
There are plenty of "good folks" leasing some land to hunt...and not knowing you from Adam.... maybe you are one of them... I just think the paying to play thing is the whole problem... In the last decade or so it has went from just a few paying a little...to many paying A Lot... and there are lots of folks out there with Lots of money.... they are the ones... you I guess.... that will have the priviliges... You probably worked hard for your money... so that is "part of the hunt" for you I guess... Something to be proud of.
If I was wealthy... Maybe I'd lease something?? I cant say, I dont feel now like I would, but if I had the $$... 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.
Post by: Hornseeker on December 09, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
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!!
Post by: whacker1 on January 14, 2010, 11:17:04 AM
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?
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 14, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
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....
Post by: boneaddict on January 14, 2010, 12:44:08 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 14, 2010, 12:50:09 PM
This revenue on non-resident hunting is not rocket science - But for some reason these dumb***es we elect for the various state positions try to turn economics and science into their own magical and mystical wish list.
OR maybe when you are elected your IQ is reverted to a primative level, which seems to be roughly 50. And at a 50 IQ - I suppose this revenue thing would be rocket science. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2010, 01:06:02 PM
Quote
What economic sense would it be to block half of their potential customers that won't draw a tag?
MagnumWillys, the tags are not going to be eliminated, they will go into the general draw. There will still be the same amount of tags given out, the difference is the outfitters won't be guaranteed the amount they are used to. Instead they will have to entice successful applicants to hunt with them. If you are a quality outfitter and have a successful track record this should not be an issue.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 14, 2010, 01:22:58 PM
Also the incentive to go with an outfitter for guaranteed tags is eliminated - this will also reduce outfitter business volume.
Yes this sounds bad for outfitters, and bad for the rural montana economy. But for the nonresident DIY hunter that wants to hunt Montana every year - if this passes that may be a possibility. Hmmm....
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2010, 01:28:39 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 14, 2010, 01:37:16 PM
But I believe the total number of applicants will go down based on the increase in fees as did Idaho. But how much is the question. Right now the deer /elk combo runs around 40-55% success in draw (higher the last couple of years based on fewer applicants). Will the increase in cost actually deter the number of applicants down low enough that it turns to 100% success and possibly not fill all the tags? We won't know until this passes and see the results from 2011.
I know that I plan to apply for 2010, but feel that an extra $200 may price me out of the equation for 2011. I would normally defer to Idaho in that case, but there will only be about $30 difference beteen the two stats in total cost.
Post by: muleyguy on January 14, 2010, 02:51:17 PM
the wildlife of montana is not owned by individuals; it is collectively owned by the citizens of Montana; when the govt steps in, and by decree, grants one group of people a guaranteed "right" to limited tags over another group, you are conferring special priveleges on one group of people over another.
as phool stated, the issue of helping rural montana is moot; DIY hunters will bring more resources to a wider group of people in montana then the guides will, so that argument does not carry the day. In fact, many of the "Outfitters" do not even call Montana home, so the income that goes to them a lot of times ends up out of state anyway.
I agree 100% with magnumwilly that the days of hunting for free on private ground are over; so what??? Programs like Block Management have sprung up to fill in the void; with todays easy communication, it is also easier then ever for a small group of DIY's to lease the land themselves in place of the outfitters. There are also fledging "hunt club's" starting to arise, whereby for a small fee, you can access several ranches for a limited time, kind of like a privatized version of Block Management. Just as the govt of montana should not confer special priveleges to outfitters, there should not be any restrictions on private landowners to allow hunting, not allow hunting,, etc. There should be no infringement of private property rights either. The good thing about Block Mangement, hunt clubs, etc is that they are market solutions to the problem without the govt getting in the way.
as far as raising the tag fees, the tag fees can be raised as high as the mkt is willing to take. The reason Idaho is having so much trouble is not because they raised the fees, it is because the quality of the product the non-residents are getting does not justify the costs. Montana does not have that problem. Idaho has particular trouble because the majority of the public land in it is so steep and rugged, and much of it is wilderness, so that limits many people and their ability to hunt it. And, Idaho has completely dropped the ball with their mule deer management, and, now they have wolves.
Contrast that with Eastern Montana; high deer numbers, high buck to doe ratio, relatively good access for vehicles, easy walking. The bulk of non-residents in montana are coming from WA, CA and eastern states; to this group of people montana deer hunting is sheer paradise. Montana will not have any trouble selling tags at those levels.
at the end of the day, Montana does not owe it to non-residents to provide them with reasonably priced tags; their only mandate should be to maximize revenue. That way, they can keep montana resident tags cheaper.
the guranteed tag confers special financial treatment to one class of people over another; and, as usual when something like that happens, you get a whole lot of less then desirable characters showing up to the party.......and, that is exactly what has happened in montana.........
as phool said, good outfitters who provide a good service will have no problem's..........the problem's will come for the guys who have 3 sections of private ground leased in front of 10 sections of public ground, who never have owned a ranch in their life, and are charging $4000 to guys from pennsylvania to come drive around in a1994 suburban and shoot a 20" mule deer.......
Post by: huntnphool on January 14, 2010, 03:05:25 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 14, 2010, 03:44:10 PM
To expand about your comment about the "collective ownership by citzens of Montana" - I also believe the reason that this is taking place on an initiative format is that the individual residents of Montana are the ones that are motivated to make this happen and not beauracrats trying to maximize revenue as they did in Idaho.
I do find it interesting that they have tied this "rights" based initiative to a budgetary move as well to raise the revenue via raising non-resident rates. Non-residents do add a big chunk of money to the wildlife's overall budget through non-resident licenses, tags, etc.
The initiative does run the risk of making a decision that could account for less dollars brought in than in prior years should less folks apply. Like you stated the market will determine what happens ultimately.
You are also right that Idaho has other factors driving the non-resident purchases downward. Economy, wolves, terrain, etc. But you can't say that raising the price $150 didn't have an impact. Wolves pressure on game and the price increase were two of the reasons I didn't hunt in Idaho last year. Drawing a multi-season deer tag in WA was also a factor as I could spend more time hunting.
I must say that I like this conversation over most topics that we have discussed. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the various arguments, opinions, etc. I know that it will be more difficult for me to hunt in Montana should the pricing go up by $200 per year, and this is the only decision I get to make in this process as I don't get a vote in this one.
It will be only a matter of time as the surrounding states all end up in that $800 - $1000 range for the deer / elk combination, and the playing field, so to speak, will be leveled.
Post by: muleyguy on January 14, 2010, 04:34:14 PM
I know it is tough spending the money for montana, especially if they raise it that high. But, I would counter that you get a lot of bang for the buck in montana; at the end of the day, it is a pretty good value. You have to give montana a lot of credit for the Block Management program; no other state even comes close to providing hunters with that kind of access to private ground. If I can pay a couple of hundred dollars more, and get access to millions of acres of private ground, along with all the public ground, see good numbers of deer, good numbers of bucks, and be able to hunt in classic mule deer habitat, without the rat race of hunting in states like WA, that is a pretty good deal.
the Block Management program isn't perfect, but this initiative would go along ways towards fixing it and making it stronger; the BM program was really a concoction of the department of wildlife and the outfitters; the outfitters wanted guaranteed tags so they would have a guranteed client base; MFWP knew that this would strengthen and the outiftter industry beyond what it would normally be and lock up more private ground then would have been locked up without it. So, they said ok, we will gaurantee you tags, but, jack the price up, and we will use that money to start the BM program to counteract it.
at first, it seems like a good idea, and generally it is, but, in a perverse way. What has happened is that the outfitter industry had become stronger then it would have, and, they lock up all the best hunting ground, and BM ends up with the leftovers. This isn't the case in every situation, but generally holds true. So, at the end of the day, you have a stronger outiffter industry and more ground locked up and less quality land in the BM program.
This is happening because non-resident guided hunters are footing the bill........a much better way, would be for us non-guided hunters to foot the bill for Block Management. That is what this initative is doing, it is shifting the funding burden from the guided hunters to all hunters. This will have the effect of weakening the outfitter industry and strengthing the Block Management program, or allow other programs (private clubs, groups of DIY guys leasing land) all of which is positve for the DIY hunter.
So, I think you have to look at it from a total value standpoint. I can tell you what really stings, spending money on gas, tags, camping equipment, time off of work, in WA state to go hunting and have it be a sea of orange and a sea of stupidity, and few if any deer on public ground. WA state is far worse for the average hunter to gain access to private ground then montana. Skip the WA hunt, save the money for montana, and go have yourself a great time.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 14, 2010, 09:39:30 PM
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on January 14, 2010, 10:18:20 PM
Thats the best piece of advice I've seen on this site...
Post by: Ridgerunner on January 14, 2010, 10:44:19 PM
Quote
Skip the WA hunt, save the money for montana, and go have yourself a great time.
My plans exactly in 2010!
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2010, 11:19:09 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 05, 2010, 11:25:45 AM
But seriously - the initiative hits the November 2010 ballot for 2011 changes if they have enough signatures. Not sure exactly where this is at regarding signatures.
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 02, 2010, 01:16:46 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 01:18:29 PM
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.There are more hunters in Montana that want the guides off of the public lands. There are more voting hunters than voting outfitters. I think it will pass.
Post by: whacker1 on November 02, 2010, 01:19:12 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 02, 2010, 01:34:28 PM
Post by: finnman on November 02, 2010, 02:19:41 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 02:22:16 PM
So will our odds of drawing a combo license go up......or down????
They didn't even sell all of their combo tags this year. You could buy them online directly. Your odds should go up with more tags available and less people willing to shell out the extra cash.
Post by: Ray on November 02, 2010, 02:24:48 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 02:31:22 PM
500 dollars to hunt a deer? Rich man's sport.I wish it were only 500 bucks. Unfortunately gas almost equals that much. New clothes, toys etc. Food, it keeps going and going.
Post by: Ray on November 02, 2010, 02:33:02 PM
Post by: KimberRich on November 02, 2010, 02:45:38 PM
So will our odds of drawing a combo license go up......or down????
They didn't even sell all of their combo tags this year. You could buy them online directly. Your odds should go up with more tags available and less people willing to shell out the extra cash.
I'm hoping this is true. Less people and better odds sound good to me and worth a little extra $$ in my opinion.
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 02:51:48 PM
Post by: whacker1 on November 02, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
I just looked and there are still combo licenses to be bought on the Montana website. Can't believe they haven't sold out yet.
First time in a very long time that they did not sell out. I wonder how this will work out when they raise the prices? Probably like Idaho - actually revenue goes backwards.
Post by: 270Shooter on November 02, 2010, 02:57:18 PM
Post by: Practical Approach on November 02, 2010, 02:59:24 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 02, 2010, 03:03:14 PM
It will take a few years for the hunting pressure to even back out over the public ground, Block Management, and private ground.
BUT, as time goes by, it will be a much better program; one of the major flaws of the Block Management program is that it gets the "leftovers" of private ground;
with more funding for BM (which this provides) and the lack of guaranteed tags for the outfitters, over time, more private ground, will be able to enter the BM program, and it will be higher quality ground.
the outfitters got what was coming to them on this one, most of the outfitters/guides in MT are a complete joke.
For the good outfitters, this will actually be a boon because you will get rid of all the 27 yr old punks from Billings, who lease 5 sections of private ground (which locks up 6000 acres of public ground), threatens any hunters who are on public ground legitimately, and has their buddy put together a $100 website, and drives their "clients" around in a 1991 suburban road hunting.
Without the guaranteed tag, these jokers will quickly fade, leaving more business for the legitimate guides.
Post by: muleyguy on November 02, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
Quote
First time in a very long time that they did not sell out. I wonder how this will work out when they raise the prices? Probably like Idaho - actually revenue goes backwards.
no, that won't happen; most of the problem is that people just did not "know" there were left over tags available, it wasn't publicized widely enough;
just look at the deer A tags; without a preference pt, you only have a 20% chance of getting drawn; I am not sure of the math because of the prefernce pt, BUT, a whole hell of a lot of people more then tags applied
the combo license is the same thing, 50% chance without a preference pt; so, LOTS of "excess" demand.
Plus, all of the guaranteed outfitter tag people will now be in the pool with the non-outfitter people;
people LOVE to hunt MT; especially Eastern MT; wide open, lots of deer, easy to access, etc
Idaho is completely different; lots of wilderness areas, too steep for most people's liking; poor deer numbers etc.
Post by: whacker1 on November 02, 2010, 03:58:38 PM
QuoteFirst time in a very long time that they did not sell out. I wonder how this will work out when they raise the prices? Probably like Idaho - actually revenue goes backwards.
no, that won't happen; most of the problem is that people just did not "know" there were left over tags available, it wasn't publicized widely enough;
just look at the deer A tags; without a preference pt, you only have a 20% chance of getting drawn; I am not sure of the math because of the prefernce pt, BUT, a whole hell of a lot of people more then tags applied
the combo license is the same thing, 50% chance without a preference pt; so, LOTS of "excess" demand.
Plus, all of the guaranteed outfitter tag people will now be in the pool with the non-outfitter people;
people LOVE to hunt MT; especially Eastern MT; wide open, lots of deer, easy to access, etc
Idaho is completely different; lots of wilderness areas, too steep for most people's liking; poor deer numbers etc.
I understand what you are saying, but last year they sold out through the Alternate's list. This year they did not - so far anyway. The alternates list was up over 1500 people last I heard. Raise the prices and you will lose people. Maybe it will go to 100% success on the draw for the big game combination, but there are a lot of people that will walk away. I won't be doing it next year. This is my last year for Montana for several years, but it is not solely due to the increase, but it definitely plays a part.
Post by: jstamp on November 03, 2010, 02:00:15 AM
Post by: KimberRich on November 03, 2010, 09:30:38 AM
Just to let everyone know, I161 passed in Montana. That means you will be paying $897.00 for a big game combo next year and $527.00 for a deer tag.
Heard that this morning.. It sucks that I'll be paying more but it's not going to keep me from going and I hope it drives people away. I do land owner sponsor tags but any increase in my odds sounds good.
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 03, 2010, 09:53:52 AM
Post by: GoldTip on November 03, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
QuoteFirst time in a very long time that they did not sell out. I wonder how this will work out when they raise the prices? Probably like Idaho - actually revenue goes backwards.
no, that won't happen; most of the problem is that people just did not "know" there were left over tags available, it wasn't publicized widely enough;
just look at the deer A tags; without a preference pt, you only have a 20% chance of getting drawn; I am not sure of the math because of the prefernce pt, BUT, a whole hell of a lot of people more then tags applied
the combo license is the same thing, 50% chance without a preference pt; so, LOTS of "excess" demand.
Plus, all of the guaranteed outfitter tag people will now be in the pool with the non-outfitter people;
people LOVE to hunt MT; especially Eastern MT; wide open, lots of deer, easy to access, etc
Idaho is completely different; lots of wilderness areas, too steep for most people's liking; poor deer numbers etc.
Thats where your wrong, to a point. All of those outfitted guys were already in the draw with the rest of us. The difference was if they did not draw, they simply then purchased the more expensive guaranteed tag thru the outfitter and still went hunting. So, all those same guy's will still be in the draw with the rest of us next year, but if they do not draw, they will not then be able to hunt.
I think the increased price will increase the draw odds considerably. Overall however, it's still no more than Idaho currently is priced.
Post by: Wea300mag on November 04, 2010, 08:13:06 PM
Post by: @RCHER on November 05, 2010, 11:07:43 AM
I think you nailed it, Dale. Maybe it won't pan out for them and things will revert back. Although it sounds potentially damaging for you folks in the business, at least it's not as friggin insane as things like archery-only cougar seasons. "You can kill two cougars each season :IBCOOL:...and we are happy to announce that only hunters between the ages of 12 and 74 are required to use 3", .24 caliber, blowguns, only on Tuesdays, following the new moon, on odd numbered years, only in GMU 602, from an elevated tree-stand. And the full 1,200" blaze orange body condoms are required." But I digress...
I'd like to see a program that's best for all of us hunters. I want to see you guys and your kids out there with me and my tribe. Guided (for whatever reasons, it’s none of my business), public, private BMP, BLM, BFD…whatever! We have a blast and hearing the report of another rifle usually means someone is having a good day. We hunt public land and always come home with most or all tags filled. In today's economy, who needs a program this restrictive and seemingly pretentious. Yeah, we'll probably go with the flow and save a few more sheckles for the added cost as well, and hope they get the hell smacked outa them for such sharp and extensive changes/increases. But it's still the same pain-in-the-ass stories I've been hearing since the 70's and 80's. "I want special treatment cuz I don't like road hunting with all these outa-staters." "All those guys from Billings do is cut my fences. They better not have a 3T lic plate." :ACRY:
It’s a bigger picture problem, folks. It’s about this entitled, elitist "I'm only interested in getting MY nut" mentality and the sick joy of throwing others under the bus for our own selfish gain. Too crowded? Block management? ACCESS programs? AHE? Really?! Funny, I don’t see any of those guys after I hike my fat ass to the top of those Montana public land ridges where I fill my tags. Why is it a good thing if more and more people can't afford to hunt? Some of you say "so there's more opp for me." You guys are welcome to branch off, as far as I'm concerned. I hear enough of that crap from the flyfishing crowd. If it's that tough for you to draw tags and find animals, then there are other issues running amuck.
All I would like to ask of my fellow outdoorsmen and women is to consider what’s best for the hunting community and wildlife and wild lands as a whole. Not just for you and your unique situation or social standing. For EVERYONE. I’ll pay the crazy $900 (which is more than I pay for a 1,000 lb Bison BTW) for a couple average free-range grass-eaters as a non-rez. But I don’t believe in the cause. In the reason(s). As Dale and others have pointed out, I161 looks pretty heavily one-sided. How is that a good management decision on the part of those in charge?
Good news is it’s almost time for the rut - if it would just get COLD! :tup:
Post by: walleye1 on November 05, 2010, 12:42:21 PM
Post by: Craig on November 05, 2010, 01:08:17 PM
Post by: RPM on November 05, 2010, 03:09:29 PM
Post by: GoldTip on November 05, 2010, 03:25:15 PM
Post by: Ray on November 05, 2010, 04:37:53 PM
Post by: seth30 on November 05, 2010, 04:40:11 PM
Post by: Ray on November 05, 2010, 04:40:50 PM
Post by: seth30 on November 05, 2010, 04:49:38 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2010, 08:43:17 PM
Are deer B tags going up to?
I was wondering the same thing. I was thinking about going to Montana next year on a doe hunt.
Post by: RPM on November 05, 2010, 10:29:03 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 11, 2010, 11:33:00 PM
This will have some affect on my business but will not break my business as I learned to diversify after the Washington cougar vote. I have the option of putting my hunters who do not draw MT tags onto Idaho tags, Washington tags, or Utah CWMU tags. But many resident outfitters who only outfit in Montana will lose a substantial amount of business.
I had an interesting discussion with a motel owner who said he voted against 161. Several outfitters keep clients at his motel and he figures it will hurt his fall business as many do-it-yourself hunters stay in camps and campers and not in motels. He figures less business for motels, restaurants, gift shops and all their employees. My landowners also voted against it, they figure they will lose money. The one motel owner said that the same thing has happened with Montanas natural resources, people wanted stricter rules, now all the mining companies have moved to other states and the Montana economy and jobs have suffered. He figures in the end it is a mistake for Montana to turn away the business that has been brought in by outfitter sponsored licenses.
I guess only time will tell if this was smart or not so smart of a move by the voters. One thing is for sure, the people who wanted to hurt their resident outfitters have certainly won. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on November 11, 2010, 11:41:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 14, 2010, 04:40:19 AM
U can almost gurantee that there will be left over MT combos this year at $900 a whack, last year there was left over combos at $670. I dont see how you will lose bizz, anyone who wants to hunt MT will
Maybe it will work out that way, but I still like the old system, my hunters, many who wanted to keep the overall cost down could apply for the inexpensive draw tag and draw every 2 or 3 years, the guys who didn't mind spending the extra dollars could get the guranteed license and their extra dollars paid for the block management program. Now everyone pays more and shares in the expense of the block management program and everyone still has to draw. Seems like we all lost something and have only one option now, and that's to PAY MORE.
As an outfitter I couldn't buy my own outfitter sponsored tags and didn't want to most years as I need to be cost conscious myself. Now it will cost me more to apply, so even from an individual standpoint it seems like a losing proposition to me, but it's just something we all obviously have to live with now if we want to hunt in Montana. :twocents:
Post by: Pathfinder101 on November 24, 2010, 04:43:01 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 26, 2010, 01:18:36 AM
On a different note: I paid a pretty good sum of money to purchase my outfitting business in Montana from a resident. Now my investment has taken a 2/3 loss when the voters passed this law as 2/3 of my approved client use was for the oputfitter sponsored tags which have been eliminated. I still have time to try and somehow rebuild my business, but what about the Montana outfitters who are ready to retire and need to sell their business in order to retire. The voters pretty much just took away their whole retirement.
I also pointed out that the voters pretty much took away any incentive any other non-resident businessman would have for investing in a Montana hunting business. I know that I certainly would have invested in a Wyoming or Clorado business had I known the Montana voters could take away my business the way they did. :twocents:
While some people are rejoicing, others are wondering how they will earn a living or ever be able to retire. What has this country come to?
Post by: huntnnw on November 26, 2010, 03:43:43 AM
Post by: GoldTip on November 26, 2010, 07:09:58 AM
I wrote some legislators and have already gotten some feedback, some of them are very concerned about the impact I-161 may have on the state, they are getting letters from all over the country about the increased price, I expect some steps to be attepted legislatively to help ease this.
On a different note: I paid a pretty good sum of money to purchase my outfitting business in Montana from a resident. Now my investment has taken a 2/3 loss when the voters passed this law as 2/3 of my approved client use was for the oputfitter sponsored tags which have been eliminated. I still have time to try and somehow rebuild my business, but what about the Montana outfitters who are ready to retire and need to sell their business in order to retire. The voters pretty much just took away their whole retirement.
I also pointed out that the voters pretty much took away any incentive any other non-resident businessman would have for investing in a Montana hunting business. I know that I certainly would have invested in a Wyoming or Clorado business had I known the Montana voters could take away my business the way they did. :twocents:
While some people are rejoicing, others are wondering how they will earn a living or ever be able to retire. What has this country come to?
Ok, OK, gonna play a bit of the devils advocate here. Bearpaw, I like you and respect you, you seem like a good outfitter and that you do a lot for the hunting community, let's get that out of the way from the start. But let's get one other thing straight as well, no other business in Montana has a GUARANTEE of business like the outfitters had, something my father did not have when he was outfitting and his business did just fine. He didn't lease property and he guided on public ground and back then there were no guaranteed tags he had no problem filling his bookings. Outfitters having guaranteed tags is no different than when a NR drives into Montana he is then directed to a specific hotel to stay at because all the Hotels are guaranteed a certain amount of business. Many, many outfitters did just fine for a long, long time before there were guranteed tags.
Second, I would be willing to bet most if not ALL of your Montana clients were initially in the public drawing for tags, then when they didn't draw they bought the outfitter guaranteed tags. These guys were drawing tags that I didn't draw to be able to go home and hunt with my family, then when they didn't get that tag, then and only then did they purchase their license through you. I would only agree with the guaranteed tags if your business had to purchase them up front for five years. No ands, if's or butts about it, these guaranteed tags allowed outfitters to lease property that normally would have been either hunted by the general public for nothing more than the price of asking. Also, you haven't necessarrily lost any clients at all, you've only lost the ones that don't happen to draw a tag. There was no law passed saying you can't take just as many hunters as before, the law simply removed your ability to guarantee as many clients as you want that they will get tags. With that loss of ability to guarantee as many clients as you may wish to take, your bets have to be hedged a bit more when it comes to just how much property you pay leases on up front.
Bearpaw, I in no way wish to see your business suffer, that is not what I am hoping for, being the son of a former outfitter I also have no qualms with guided hunters or with outfitters. But the guaranteed tags goes against any and all forms of free trade in a marketplace that is not socialist. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2010, 12:20:49 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on November 30, 2010, 12:48:53 PM
BP the best thing you did was to diversify you locations so that one state or another cannot screw you.... Like this one or MT... :twocents: Your a smart busness man :twocents:
I know he runs his operation in Washington, Idaho and Utah as well (at least, he may have others), but when a 1/4 of your business takes a hit like this, it's gonna hurt.
Post by: 400out on November 30, 2010, 12:54:23 PM
Post by: finnman on November 30, 2010, 01:10:35 PM
I will pay the extra money but only if I am hunting GOOD ground with nice deer. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 21, 2010, 02:19:46 PM
I wrote some legislators and have already gotten some feedback, some of them are very concerned about the impact I-161 may have on the state, they are getting letters from all over the country about the increased price, I expect some steps to be attepted legislatively to help ease this.
On a different note: I paid a pretty good sum of money to purchase my outfitting business in Montana from a resident. Now my investment has taken a 2/3 loss when the voters passed this law as 2/3 of my approved client use was for the oputfitter sponsored tags which have been eliminated. I still have time to try and somehow rebuild my business, but what about the Montana outfitters who are ready to retire and need to sell their business in order to retire. The voters pretty much just took away their whole retirement.
I also pointed out that the voters pretty much took away any incentive any other non-resident businessman would have for investing in a Montana hunting business. I know that I certainly would have invested in a Wyoming or Clorado business had I known the Montana voters could take away my business the way they did. :twocents:
While some people are rejoicing, others are wondering how they will earn a living or ever be able to retire. What has this country come to?
Ok, OK, gonna play a bit of the devils advocate here. Bearpaw, I like you and respect you, you seem like a good outfitter and that you do a lot for the hunting community, let's get that out of the way from the start. But let's get one other thing straight as well, no other business in Montana has a GUARANTEE of business like the outfitters had, something my father did not have when he was outfitting and his business did just fine. He didn't lease property and he guided on public ground and back then there were no guaranteed tags he had no problem filling his bookings. Outfitters having guaranteed tags is no different than when a NR drives into Montana he is then directed to a specific hotel to stay at because all the Hotels are guaranteed a certain amount of business. Many, many outfitters did just fine for a long, long time before there were guranteed tags.
Second, I would be willing to bet most if not ALL of your Montana clients were initially in the public drawing for tags, then when they didn't draw they bought the outfitter guaranteed tags. These guys were drawing tags that I didn't draw to be able to go home and hunt with my family, then when they didn't get that tag, then and only then did they purchase their license through you. I would only agree with the guaranteed tags if your business had to purchase them up front for five years. No ands, if's or butts about it, these guaranteed tags allowed outfitters to lease property that normally would have been either hunted by the general public for nothing more than the price of asking. Also, you haven't necessarrily lost any clients at all, you've only lost the ones that don't happen to draw a tag. There was no law passed saying you can't take just as many hunters as before, the law simply removed your ability to guarantee as many clients as you want that they will get tags. With that loss of ability to guarantee as many clients as you may wish to take, your bets have to be hedged a bit more when it comes to just how much property you pay leases on up front.
Bearpaw, I in no way wish to see your business suffer, that is not what I am hoping for, being the son of a former outfitter I also have no qualms with guided hunters or with outfitters. But the guaranteed tags goes against any and all forms of free trade in a marketplace that is not socialist. :twocents:
Goldtip everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I do feel you should have all your facts straight before you speak so strongly about an issue.
1. In Montana hunters had to choose to apply for the outfitter license or choose to apply for the draw tag by Mar 15. You could not buy the outfitter after the draw unless their were undersubscribed outfitter tags. Most years that did not happen.
3. The MT outfitter tags did not guarantee us business. Customers still had to choose to hunt with us and not with another outfitter. All it did was guarantee am tag for those who wanted to hunt with us and were willing to pay the high price tag price that supported the block management system for other hunters to enjoy.
2. Idaho has an outfitters quota and landowner tags. Utah has landowner tags, over the counter tags, and governor tags. Washington has governor tags, some landowner tags, and unlimited over the counter tags. That is quaranteed business for anyone choosing to hunt with us. Montana now has the worst system for outfitters thanks to those voters who did not understand the issue. In Montana there is no way for a non-resident to get a gauranteed license unless they buy a governor tag. I almost forgot, I think landowners are quaranteed at least one non-resident license, is that going to be the next licensing issue for jealous voters to mess up. I am sure there are hunters on HUNTWA that get landowner permits, what do you think about scrapping that program?
4. Goldtip, are you telling me that the hundreds of tax accountants are not guaranteed business by the state and federal government. (just one example)
While I appreciate your opinion I hope you will try to get your facts straight in future posts. No ill intent meant with my remarks and none taken from your post, but I do think you have your facts a little mixed up on this issue.
Best Regards, Dale
Post by: bearpaw on December 21, 2010, 02:26:00 PM
I wrote some legislators and have already gotten some feedback, some of them are very concerned about the impact I-161 may have on the state, they are getting letters from all over the country about the increased price, I expect some steps to be attepted legislatively to help ease this.
On a different note: I paid a pretty good sum of money to purchase my outfitting business in Montana from a resident. Now my investment has taken a 2/3 loss when the voters passed this law as 2/3 of my approved client use was for the oputfitter sponsored tags which have been eliminated. I still have time to try and somehow rebuild my business, but what about the Montana outfitters who are ready to retire and need to sell their business in order to retire. The voters pretty much just took away their whole retirement.
I also pointed out that the voters pretty much took away any incentive any other non-resident businessman would have for investing in a Montana hunting business. I know that I certainly would have invested in a Wyoming or Clorado business had I known the Montana voters could take away my business the way they did. :twocents:
While some people are rejoicing, others are wondering how they will earn a living or ever be able to retire. What has this country come to?
Ok, OK, gonna play a bit of the devils advocate here. Bearpaw, I like you and respect you, you seem like a good outfitter and that you do a lot for the hunting community, let's get that out of the way from the start. But let's get one other thing straight as well, no other business in Montana has a GUARANTEE of business like the outfitters had, something my father did not have when he was outfitting and his business did just fine. He didn't lease property and he guided on public ground and back then there were no guaranteed tags he had no problem filling his bookings. Outfitters having guaranteed tags is no different than when a NR drives into Montana he is then directed to a specific hotel to stay at because all the Hotels are guaranteed a certain amount of business. Many, many outfitters did just fine for a long, long time before there were guranteed tags.
Second, I would be willing to bet most if not ALL of your Montana clients were initially in the public drawing for tags, then when they didn't draw they bought the outfitter guaranteed tags. These guys were drawing tags that I didn't draw to be able to go home and hunt with my family, then when they didn't get that tag, then and only then did they purchase their license through you. I would only agree with the guaranteed tags if your business had to purchase them up front for five years. No ands, if's or butts about it, these guaranteed tags allowed outfitters to lease property that normally would have been either hunted by the general public for nothing more than the price of asking. Also, you haven't necessarrily lost any clients at all, you've only lost the ones that don't happen to draw a tag. There was no law passed saying you can't take just as many hunters as before, the law simply removed your ability to guarantee as many clients as you want that they will get tags. With that loss of ability to guarantee as many clients as you may wish to take, your bets have to be hedged a bit more when it comes to just how much property you pay leases on up front.
Bearpaw, I in no way wish to see your business suffer, that is not what I am hoping for, being the son of a former outfitter I also have no qualms with guided hunters or with outfitters. But the guaranteed tags goes against any and all forms of free trade in a marketplace that is not socialist. :twocents:
Goldtip everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I do feel you should have all your facts straight before you speak so strongly about an issue.
1. In Montana hunters had to choose to apply for the outfitter license or choose to apply for the draw tag by Mar 15. You could not buy the outfitter after the draw unless their were undersubscribed outfitter tags. Most years that did not happen.
2. The MT outfitter tags did not guarantee us business. Customers still had to choose to hunt with us and not with another outfitter. All it did was guarantee a tag for those who wanted to hunt with us and were willing to pay the high price that supported the block management system for other hunters to enjoy.
3. The Montana Outfitters Board has very strict limits on the number of clients an outfitter can service. FYI - I attended an extended learning course two years ago put on by the licensing board. The director told us that outfitting industry was the most regulated industry in Montana.
4. Idaho has an outfitters quota and landowner tags. Utah has landowner tags, over the counter tags, and governor tags. Washington has governor tags, some landowner tags, and unlimited over the counter tags. That is quaranteed business for anyone choosing to hunt with us. Montana now has the worst system for outfitters thanks to those voters who did not understand the issue. In Montana there is no way for a non-resident to get a gauranteed license unless they buy a governor tag. I almost forgot, I think landowners are quaranteed at least one non-resident license, is that going to be the next licensing issue for jealous voters to mess up. I am sure there are hunters on HUNTWA that get landowner permits, what do you think about scrapping that program?
5. Goldtip, are you telling me that the hundreds of tax accountants are not guaranteed business by the state and federal government. (just one example)
While I appreciate your opinion I hope you will try to get your facts straight in future posts. No ill intent meant with my remarks and none taken from your post, but I do think you have your facts a little mixed up on this issue.
Best Regards, Dale