Guest Opinion: Outfitter Bill Would Forever Impact Montana Hunting
On January 26th, 2021, Montana Senator Jason Ellsworth introduced Senate Bill 143, a bill proposing widespread changes to hunting in the state of Montana. If passed, the bill will adjust non-resident hunters’ ability to access tags within the state. The proposed legislation’s primary objective is to allocate 60% of non-resident licenses to licensed Montana outfitters. The remaining available licenses would then go to the general draw. You can read the entire proposed bill here.
We asked for the opinions of Travis Hough, a Montana resident, hunter, and ex-outfitter guide, along with Joe Griffin, a non-resident hunter with his sights set on annual Montana hunting. Below is their take on SB 143 and its effects.
From the Eyes of a Non-Resident, Joe Griffin
To best understand the repercussions of SB 143, you first need to understand a little about Montana and what we could potentially lose. Montana is a destination for hunters worldwide with its 27.3 million acres of public land, over 100 available units, and a generous season length. The vast wildernesses, unforgiving terrain, and potential trophy appeal to seasoned wapiti enthusiasts. These factors make this state desirable for seasoned western hunters or first-time western hunters from the midwest. There is plenty of opportunity from the Missouri Breaks to the Welcome Wilderness and the Gallatin to Glacier. Any person inclined to take the challenge of hunting the mountains can buy a tag and join the 17,000 hunters in the pursuit of filing a non-resident elk or deer tag. This state has created a long-standing legacy of opportunity for hunters and all forms of recreation.
Now, this all sounds good, but what does it cost? Montana has the most expensive general elk license in the country. However, it also offers the landmass, animal density, and season length to support such a price. Montana's elk season is proven every year when the non-resident draw takes place in April. Seventeen thousand folks from all walks of life, not lucky enough to call themselves Montanans, pay the $1,052 in hopes of adventure. Plumbers, lawyers, factory workers, and doctors budget to make this pilgrimage to Montana in September. Hunters all wait for that late April morning to see if their tag is drawn, securing their hunt in the West. There is nothing that someone with wealth and notoriety can do to acquire a general elk tag that the average Joe can't. Every single non-resident with a pulse is in this fight. $1,052 x 17,000 is a thunderous $17,884,000 raised for conservation in Montana. Astoundingly, this number does not even include add-ons like a bear, antelope, or cow tags. Not to mention the influx of people pushing money towards local hotels, restaurants, bars, pro shops, guides, ranchers, car rental, airlines. The favorable impacts on conservation, and the overall local economies of Montana, are immense.
SB 143, to be blunt, wants to take 40-60% of these tags and designate them to guides and outfitters. It suggests that Montana should allocate a considerable percentage away from the general population so that outfitters can control the tag selection. Limited tag selection and the financial burden that outfitters expect of hunters would create a more elitist non-resident hunting population in Montana. Please keep in mind that all 17,000 tag holders can undoubtedly choose to hire an outfitter on their own accord, and many do! Guides are an essential part of the equation. They offer assistance and knowledge to non-resident hunters tackling the challenge of elk hunting in unfamiliar terrain. However, many choose to go on their own. From a financial side, elk hunting is expensive enough between the gear, tags, and fuel, but it's doable for almost everyone! Some choose to go unguided because it is part of their adventure to figure it out independently. The key here is both hunters can make a choice. The taxpaying tag holder is in control of how he or she chooses to pursue their game.
"Operating by a lottery is no way to run a business. It doesn't promote good operators or bad operators. It promotes lucky clients," a quote from Ennis Outfitter, John Way, at the senate hearing earlier this month. John is correct, but hunting in itself is not a business. You built a company based around a natural resource that all Americans have the right to pursue. Not just the ones you cherry-pick because they can afford the inevitable monopoly you and others wish to create for tagholders. Legislating yourself into a position where a large part of the general population has to use outfitters to go hunting is wrong. It places a black eye on the face of respectable outfits, who do not need legislation to fill their lodges each season. I call on outfitters to think about what they are asking for here.
This bill isn't a matter of left and right, or guided vs. unguided. This piece of legislation is flat-out wrong. Our hunting heritage is continuously under attack. We need more people involved in hunting, and we can do this by creating more opportunities for people to do so. Each one of us needs to take it upon ourselves to protect and preserve what we all love. Taking general tag opportunities away from the general public and monopolizing them with outfitters will seriously hurt recruiting new hunters. If this legislation passes, I will be looking elsewhere for new hunting potential. These are not landowner tags we're talking about here. These are GENERAL BIG GAME tags that should be available to the GENERAL PUBLIC.
From the Eyes of a Montana Resident, Travis Hough
As a former outfitter, current guide, and Montana resident, my livelihood is derived from the hunting industry; therefore, keeping up with all the current laws and newly-introduced bills is vital for my family and me. When I first heard about SB 143, a sense of selfishness and greed overcame me. I daydreamed of a hunting season with 60% fewer non-resident hunters and more consistent work for guides and outfitters like myself. Quickly, the selfishness faded, and the conservationist in me came out as I started to realize the adverse long-term effects this bill could have on hunting in Montana.
Firstly, I fear that the reduced number of non-resident hunters will have a very negative economic impact on small-town Montana residents and businesses. Small town businesses, primarily owned and operated by locals, make a large sum of their income during hunting season when hunters visit, dine, and stay in their local bars, cafes, and motels. If bill SB 143 were to pass, it would pose a severe threat to the small businesses and families that rely on those hunters' profits each fall.
I also fear SB 143's effect on the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks along with its resident hunters and outdoorsmen. We continue our traditions based primarily on public land management - and Montana FWP funds these efforts with dollars received from out-of-state hunters. Over time, many out-of-state hunters may stop applying for permits if they are required to hunt through an outfitter. We should also consider that funding a program of this size - which will certainly not be cheap - has the potential to pull funds allocated to other Montana conservation efforts. We could give up much of what makes Montana so unique between losing the funding from non-resident applicants and re-allocating dollars to fund SB 143.
Although I have spent many years in the guiding industry, I do not believe that guides and outfitters should receive special treatment. As hunters, we must be on the same team and operate as one to preserve the lifestyle we all love so much. The tension that this bill's passing could create between outfitters and DIY hunters would be unnecessary and a significant step backward in the ultimate goal of conservation.
There may be a few positives that could come from the passing of this new bill. One is more stable work for guides and outfitters, who also have to provide for themselves and their families. I worry more about the effects this change would make to the tradition of hunting for all those who enjoy hunting in Montana. For example, the families that once they took time off work to hunt deer in Montana with their kids each fall may be forced to find other ways to pass on this lifestyle they hold so dearly. As a DIY hunter who dreams of the opportunity to explore a new country outside of Montana, seeing opportunities begin to fade away goes against everything that I stand for. For those like me, who wish to preserve the hunting lifestyle and the vital conservation efforts here in Montana, we must take a stand and share with others around us the importance of opposing SB 143.
How do you feel about SB 143? Let your voice be heard by contacting members of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Committee.