Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Cool Guaranteed Outfitter License

    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
    Last edited by packer; 02-21-2011 at 04:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The mountains of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
    Posts
    183
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 64 Times in 35 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 19 Times in 1 Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I have a fealing that the same thing that happened in Idaho will happen in Montana. Only time will tell.
    Brian
    Blue Skies Hunting Adventures
    www.blueskieshunting.com

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    It will definitely make things interesting. Time will tell I guess.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Billings, MT
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Laurel, MT
    Posts
    92
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 35 Times in 2 Posts
    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.
    I recognized long ago that if I have a warehouse full of guns, but no public land or public wildlife, I have nothing!

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Type 1 v 2 antelope license
    By Ridgerunner in forum Wyoming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 09:18 AM
  2. Wyoming House committee says no to license fee hike
    By Umpqua Hunter in forum Wyoming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 05:44 PM
  3. License Application Services
    By cycloneshooter in forum General Hunting
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 06:15 PM
  4. Elk license
    By edford8 in forum Elk
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 12:19 AM
  5. Lifetime License?
    By mntnguide in forum Idaho
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •