Guaranteed Outfitter License

[packer]

Just wondering what folks think about doing away with guaranteed outfitter licenses? I am not an outfitter, but I think the outfitters should have their 5,000. We may see more out of staters on public lands,and more private land owners will restrict hunting on their property because of this. This will also have residual effects on many small business related to the industry. I think the outfitter codes and rules need changed, but I don't agree with this change. Tell me why I am wrong! Yes, this law passed as an initiative

 

[mntnguide]

Already happened. Bill I161 passed and thus discarded all guaranteed outfitter tags in Montana. Then FWP also raised the price on all non-resident tags. It is definitely a big debate right now. Idaho raised there prices on non-resident tags, then proceeded to lose millions of dollars the following year due to it.. will be interesting to see what happens, but personally I believe I161 was a terrible bill and its unfortunate it passed.

 

[Blue Skies Hunting Advent]

I have a fealing that the same thing that happened in Idaho will happen in Montana. Only time will tell.

 

[go4steelhd]

I agree with you Packer. I think this will put more poeple on public and block management. In the next few years I think this will cuase the quality of the animals to go down. Why I think this is most non res. will go down hunt for a week, and most of those who do not find a big buck will shoot a small four point the last day they have to hunt. Pretty soon there will be fewer bucks that make it to 4 or 5 years old.

 

[Shane]

I agree this will put more people on public land, but some of the outfitters were getting carried away leasing up land and locking of property that had been open to the public for years. I feel that at least in the very limited draw areas the outfitters should not have been allowed guarenteed tags when the general public was only reciving less than 25 bull elk permits already.

 

[Deadeye]

It will definitely make things interesting. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Pass Thru]

It was a terrible bill. Anyone that thought this would put private lands into block management was mistaken. If the guides can't afford the leases, the hunters that can afford those leases will pick them up whether they are in state or out of state. Instead of non residents coming out for a week hunt with an outfitter they may be able to afford to stay for weeks crowding public lands. Jacking the prices up for non resident tags and taking away guaranteed tags from small business owners was a bad idea.

 

[TwistedFrogs]

but some of the outfitters were getting carried away leasing up land and locking of property that had been open to the public for years. I feel that at least in the very limited draw areas the outfitters should not have been allowed guarenteed tags when the general public was only reciving less than 25 bull elk permits already.

I agree, i am only 23 years old an i have seen this happen. The open public-land where I began my love of mule deer was acquired by cabelas, and quickly closed forever. Very saddening.

 

[ceby7]

I voted FOR I-161. The real reason behind this initiative is to curb the privatization of our wildlife. With a guaranteed client base, the outfitters were able to lease property from landowners for a higher price than the Block Management program could offer. For those who don't know, BM compensates landowners who open their land to the PUBLIC for hunting. BM funding comes from a variety of sources, including non-resident license sales. Plain and simple, BM couldn't compete with outfitters, therefore increasing tracts of land were being closed to the public that had for years been open. Beyond just the land and access issues, the underlying problem lies in the fact that too many outfitters are simply trying to build their businesses ($$$) with little regard to the ethics of hunting. As more land is closed, more hunters flock to public land, depleting those areas of any trophy potential. Outfitters then step in and basically sell the trophies on their properties to the highest bidder. It's the law of supply and demand. When the reason for hunting shifts from a tradition or passion to a business, which this law helps to slow down, many of us DIY, public-land hunters are gonna be out of a lifestyle.

 

[packer]

Some of the large property owners are getting around the guide issue by charging a trespass fee to hunt on their property. I know of some these fees costing $4,000 and more. Maybe cut the number of guaranteed licenses in half. No matter what it looks like the native hunter is going to be the loser.

 

[backcountrybowhunter]

I lived in MT for 24 years and hunted there most of my life. I worked for the USFS for Mt's forests and love my home state. The tag changes to me is a bummer. I can no longer afford the out of state rates to hunt my home state. Making the tags almost $1000 for the combo is ridiculous after paying so much less in the past. The real issue for MT in my opinion is the wolves. I returned home last year to hunt the forest in which I worked everyday in for 3 years to see animal numbers in the dumps. I saw less than 40 deer in the 3 weeks I was home and elk was super tough. I used to see over 40 deer a day 7 years ago. Raising the tag prices to those prices when the animals numbers SUCK is stupid. Just my 2 cents!

 

[mntnguide]

Exactly what has happened in Idaho. For some reason officials decided to raise non-resident prices even with our growing struggle with wolves. The Fish and Game then proceeded to lose large amounts of money the following year due to a lack of non-residents deciding to come back and hunt, and do take into effect the fact that Idaho still has guaranteed outfitter tags throughout the state, yet there was still a major decline in hunters. Now with I161 in Montana, aside for the loss of outfitter tags, the price raise isnt going to help anything. Block Management in Montana relies almost entirely on the funds brought in by Non-Resident tag sales. So now even though the outfitters might not lease the land, in no way is that land guaranteed to become BM. If Montana experiences the same thing as Idaho, There will be no more funds to support more Block Management, and could even lead to less BM due to a major loss of revenue. Only time will show what this situation will bring, but with the herds throughout Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming feeling the major impact of wolves, other actions are needed to keep the major revenue non-residents bring to each state.

 

[TwoBear]

For the purposes of disclosure I am an outfitter.

I-161 has effectively made Montana a glorified OTC draw state. Everybody who puts in for a license will get one. Leasing will not slow down, in fact, it will probably increase do to the ease of getting a tag. Difficult to justify a lease at 50% draw odds, but certainly becomes viable with 90%+ odds. We effectively took income out of the hands of the local economy and turned it over to out of state interest. It was said that reputable outfitters will not be effected, and maybe for the short term that is true. However, repeat business is an important function of quality businesses, and if those repeats are subject to a draw and fail, the repeat client is lost. The outfits that never get repeats are going to have to fill camps every year with new clients, they are uneffected. The outfits that get punished then are the quality ones, seems kinda backwards in my eyes. My clients have no better chance of drawing then the crooked outfit down the street. (figure of speech there).

I think we should have invested time and money into enhancing our public land resources. Quality hunting opportunites on public land can mitigate the desire to lease private lands. Right now, I feel that much of the private land debate is an issue of "percieved" quality. There are some awfully dandy bulls on public land, but the may require the work many are not inclined to put in. If we open up the private hunting rounds to the general public, how long before every bull and buck is in the back of a pickup truck? I like having these places. At the end of the day we have a ton of public land with quality hunting for the hard hunter. I-161 wasn't necessary, and will not achieve the goals many voted for it for. I still think it was an anti-outfitter, anti-NR law. Just for the record, I do lease a river bottom ranch here for mules and horses. We let 8 bowhunters in after whitetails, free of charge. I have never leased a piece of ground for hunting in my life.

 

[Romey]

Right now, I feel that much of the private land debate is an issue of "percieved" quality. . I-161 wasn't necessary, and will not achieve the goals many voted for it for.

Exactly! A++

 

[mntnguide]

Great point TwoBear

 

[Shane]

Can anyone of you outfitters explain to me why you should be "guaranteed" the ability to purchase tags in a limited draw area that the local residents have to apply for. Those tags should not be going to the out of stater like they were. More out of staters were hunting some of those districts than residents. That is not right in my opinion. The outfitters guiding in districts where general permits were good was not a problem, the limited districts is where i feel the problem was.

 

[TwoBear]

Can anyone of you outfitters explain to me why you should be "guaranteed" the ability to purchase tags in a limited draw area that the local residents have to apply for. Those tags should not be going to the out of stater like they were. More out of staters were hunting some of those districts than residents. That is not right in my opinion. The outfitters guiding in districts where general permits were good was not a problem, the limited districts is where i feel the problem was.

The outfitter sponsored license was a license, not a permit. For LE districts clients still had to draw in the second drawing just like everybody else. An example, my clients could purchase the elk/deer combo license under the outfitter tag, however, in my unit deer is a LE draw unit. Even though they had the deer/elk license, they had to apply, just like everybody else, to get the special mule deer permit. Montana via law also has a up to 10% set aside for NR hunters.

 

[mntnguide]

Also, as with Idaho...Im not positive about Wyoming or Colorado's draw units, That 10% that NR are entitled to does in no way mean that they will get 10% of the tags. At the very most NR will be able to get is 10% of the draw unit tags. Some years NR will draw 10% of the tags sometimes less. Draw units will always provide more tags to the Residents of the state.

 

[buckfvr]

As a NR, I can tell you I was excited about the draw odds going up for general licenses, but then the price got jacked up. I love hunting Montana! I am lucky that I met my wife here in Minnesota and that she is form Montana. I have hunted there about four different times with my father-in-law. This was to be the year I go back again, but that isn't going to happen. With the cost going up and the price of gas predicted to be at about $5 a gallon by memorial day, I just couldn't pull the trigger on the tag. I think FWP is going to get a nasty surprise this year when NR take their money else where. It's a shame!
As far as the guaranteed tags goes. In my short time in Montana, I have seen land leased up by outfitters that in previous years all one had to do was knock on the landowners door to get permission. I don't blame the landowners or the outfitters, we all need to make a living, but from the outside looking in, I think that a compromise could have been reached, that would have saved the outfitters as well as the NR.

 

[Jerry]

Some of the large property owners are getting around the guide issue by charging a trespass fee to hunt on their property. I know of some these fees costing $4,000 and more. Maybe cut the number of guaranteed licenses in half. No matter what it looks like the native hunter is going to be the loser.

This happens in Oregon all the time! There are owners that are getting rich off selling "rights" or charging so called trophy fees.
This is the one issue that drives me nuts. The way we are going if you don't have very deep pockets you won't be able to hunt