Montana Senate Bill 143

[seattleman1969]

Firstly, I am not sure if this is the right area of the forum to post this, so please, move it if needed.

There is currently a Bill in the Montana legislature for consideration, requiring 60% of Non-resident licenses be reserved for hunters hunting with outfitters. This would essentially require the vast majority non-resident hunters to hire an outfitter in order to hunt in Montana. Leaving only 40% of non-resident licenses available for DIY hunters. I personally foresee a ton of issues with this. Here is a link to an article on this bill:

ALERT: New bill will greatly impact DIY nonresident hunters in Montana

60% of all nonresident Montana combination licenses would go to licensed outfitters

www.gohunt.com

Please, if you are a resident of Montana, write your Representatives in the State House and let them know your feelings on this bill. The names of the legislators are contained within the article with contact information.

Thank you!

 

[samson]

I watched the process yesterday. As a non resident who does hunt in Montana, I do see both sides. However, many of the outfitters/clients supply their own room and board, food, processing etc. This would definitely effect the small town businesses and probably cause many to go under. They do rely on the Non-resident hunters to survive. I do spend a good amount of money doing these DIY hunts. Between, hotels, restaurants, processing, car rentals, groceries etc. I have befriended many people in Montana and still keep in touch. I would hate to see it end. Looking at some of the outfitter's prices, I would not pay 3500.00 or more to hunt mule deer.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Bow season is pretty calm around here. Rifle season is very busy. But I dont think that any business makes all their money in 5 weeks.

 

[samson]

But it helps A Lot. I guarantee their numbers are much higher that time of year.

 

[seattleman1969]

Bow season is pretty calm around here. Rifle season is very busy. But I dont think that any business makes all their money in 5 weeks.

I agree, no business makes their money in 5 weeks, but I guarantee you that those businesses count on that hunting revenue. In many areas of the state it is not 5 weeks, you have elk hunting from August 15th-Feb 15th, that's 6 months! Places like White Sulphur Springs have BOOMED due to the shoulder seasons. Do you really think those hotels, restaurants, bars, and other supporting businesses will not miss those sportsmen dollars?

I am not sure where in Montana you are located or hunt Alex, but in the area I hunt the local economy looks forward to, and relies upon, that hunter revenue coming in. I would say that more than 50% of hunters I met and talked to last year were from out of state (irritating as that massive increase was it is still good for the local economies). I hunt all seasons, this included archery and rifle, and in my area the non vs res. was about equal across all seasons.

Some short sighted hunters look at this and think "Well, just less non-resident hunters to interfere". That's a terribly outlook. Consider how much more money the Fish and Game Department makes on non-res hunters. Then factor in the hard and soft dollars spent by those same non-res hunters. Then consider that with higher paying hunters hiring guides, more lands will get locked up by landowners with guide contracts. You will have less landowners willing to allow the general public (Local and non-res) to "trespass" (Pay trespass fees or allow to hunt with permission for free) in favor of making those extra dollars. Likewise, you may see a decrease in lands enrolled in hunter access programs for the same reason.

This bill is an extremely bad idea for everyone, businesses, Fish and Game, and ALL sportsmen, local and non-res.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Everyone thinks local places make all their money on tourism. I live in Dillon, no one would go under if those 5 weeks disappeared. The real money around here is cattle. I have never heard anyone talk about that season being critical. I know a few biz owners around here. Theres only so many rooms a hotel can rent, seats a restaurant fill, and hunters a guide can take. Aside from the few guides, I seriously doubt this town would know the difference. I lived in Florida too, tourists thought they kept that economy going too. Well, 6 months of the year they were gone, and life continued. I dont support that bill because I dont like gov. telling folks what they can do, but the argument that out of state dollars is that critical doesnt work for me.
The vast majority of hunters that come to this area, and its a lot, camp out of town. They are not in hotels and restaurants or bars. Some are, but I would bet the biggest boom we get is at the grocery store and gas station.

 

[seattleman1969]

Well, we can agree to disagree. I can see Dillon not being impacted as much as it has the College revenue and lots of farming/ranching supporting it. But smaller towns like WSS, Judith Gap, Harlowton, Lewistown, and Philipsburg do have dependencies.

I also agree with you on the state not telling the people.

I thought it looked like that area, I would imagine South of Dillon, or SW, where your profile photo was taken.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Well, Dillon is only 5000 and the whole county is under 10,000 people. Pretty small for a huge area. Yep the picture was south of Dillon a bit. This whole area gets hammered hard, last year was the busiest I have seen it. Even if you hiked in a bit. Some areas may depend on it? I would say thats a pretty poor biz plan if they do. The first thing to go is vacations/hobbies once times get tough. The tourism dollars are very dependent on how much extra money people have. I saw that first hand living in Fl. many businesses that catered to tourists went under. I just think its not wise to rely on something that so easily can dry up in a tough year.