Amended outfitter bill causes divide in State Senate

HELENA - An amended version of a bill that would place no more than 39% of out-of-state elk and deer tags into an “early bird” limited outfitter pool has caused debate in the Montana State Senate resulting in its original sponsor voting against the newest version. A second reading of Senate Bill 143 amended passed in the Senate 27-23 Feb. 23.

The bill’s sponsor, Senate District 43 Representative Jason Ellsworth (R-Hamilton), originally brought the bill forward with the intention of providing stability to outfitters. It would give them a select amount of out-of-state hunting permits as well as the ability to plan ahead with their clients by making the permits available from Jan. 1 to March 15 without increasing the number of out-of-state hunters. This 39% figure comes from outfitters historically utilizing about 40% of all out-of-state deer and elk tags. Tags that were not utilized in this window would have gone into the general lottery.

This bill would not affect in-state hunters and would not have an effect on the total number of available annual non-resident licenses.

According to https://sb143facts.com, the bill would maintain the 23,600 license cap established in 1975. Ellsworth said it also could help decrease the current competition between resident hunters and out-of-state hunters.

According to a press release from Ellsworth, his version of the bill would have generated between $1.5 million-$2 million annually for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) to fund programs that expand access to public lands for hunting and fishing. This funding would have come from fee increases for outfitted, out-of-state applicants from $100 to $200.

A quarter of the funds generated would have equally gone to public access including Lands Act agreements, access to Block Management programs, the Future Fisheries Program and towards the purchase of permanent easements through private property to access otherwise inaccessible public lands. Up to 10% of the funds also could have been used for partnering opportunities with land trusts and other conservation organizations to pay for these access opportunities, as well as supporting the Private Land/Public Wildlife Advisory Committee.

The bill was amended by Senate District 11 Representative Tom Jacobson (D-Great Falls). His amendments included eliminating funding for increased access to blocked public lands and changing the “early bird” application phase to between Dec. 1-31. His reasoning for the date change was because according to him, outfitters seek clients at trade shows in the early months of the year after the window would have been closed.

Jack Rich has co-owned Rich Ranch in Seeley Lake with his wife Belinda since 1982 where they offer outfitting services. He said that, under the current system, out-of-state hunters who choose to go with an outfitter need to acquire a tag through FWP. Those interested receive a tag by entering into a drawing after they submit their application. Last year’s application deadline was the end of March but he is not sure when this year’s deadline will be. Last year hunters were unsure if they received a tag until the beginning of May.

Rich said currently outfitters’ business models have to be adjusted to fit a certain level of uncertainty in their industry. Hunters will book with an outfitter before they find out if they received a tag or not which can result in sudden booking changes.

As an example, Rich said that an outfitter could hypothetically have a total capacity of 30 hunters where every space is reserved. When the tags are drawn there is the potential of only 20 hunters receiving a tag. If an outfitter hires guides to take around six hunters per trip for five trips, then there is the possibility of having all six hunters in one trip and none in another because they did not receive a tag.

Rich said the original intention of bill 143 was to set aside a block of licenses for people to use outfitters and to provide more time for hunters to find out whether or not they would receive a tag so they can plan accordingly with the outfitters. Outfitters also would have more time to plan for the year regarding staffing, materials and schedules. The bill does not guarantee patronage to any outfitter.

“So it gives assurance to the non-resident who chooses to go with an outfitter and it gives a better business climate and stability for an outfitter who’s trying to run a business,” he said.

According to Rich, the bill was originally intended to alleviate some of the instability and allow for all parties involved to plan ahead. What the amended version does is strip all references to outfitters and their clients out of the bill, making it an early bird phase for anyone who wants an early bird tag. This could actually make it more difficult for an outfitter client to get a tag because outfitters have a fixed number of clients they can take regardless.

“The intent of 143 was to create [a] pool to give stability to outfitter businesses, and give predictability to clients who wanted to go with an outfitter, but they’ve taken those sideboards off so now that pool would be available for anyone that wants to jump in,” Rich said. “And so there could easily be more people jumping into the pool than there are little gold coins in the bottom. And so you would be right back into that instability.”

Rich said, with the amendment, the only advantage of the bill is that now clients would know three months earlier whether or not they were successful in grabbing a tag. He also said that with the pandemic there has been a “huge rush of people buying second homes in Montana” meaning that there’s an even greater demand now for non-resident hunting licenses for people who are going to hunt on their own, leading to increased competition and animosity with resident hunters.

Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) President Chuck Rein issued a statement after the “substantial amendment … significantly altered the bill” in its second reading. He said while the amendment might have been well intended, it will ultimately have a negative effect on resident hunters and small business owners in Montana and will take away money specifically directed to programs that increase access to blocked public lands.

“We’re disappointed in the direction this bill has taken, but we will continue to work with members on both sides of the aisle to try to improve this product to achieve the original intent of helping small businesses, resident hunters, and programs to increase access to blocked public lands,” Rein stated.

Those interested in learning more about the bill should visit https://leg.mt.gov.