4100,
It appears I hit a nerve. Obvouisly, we disagree and surely will not find too much common ground on the I-161 issue. However, I think it only fair to point out a few facts:
1. I am not sure how you have proven your point concerning $2,000,000 additional revenue. I spoke directly to FWP and they don't know yet. The price increase of NR licenses will help but the returns will subtract. Again, FWP stated that they do not know how this will shake out.
2. Also not sure how you can have it both ways - you claim that a few bad outfitters tarnish the entire industry but a few good ones do little as ambassadors. You might also want to check your "facts" as there are many more than 16 involved in BHUBS. Additionally, all outfitters are not represented by MOGA (the organization that funds BHUBS). I think the number is closer to 350.
3. The outfitting industry is one of the most regulated industries in the state. In reality, I-161 removed many of those regulations. If I remember correctly, the outfitter sponsored license was a product of sportsmen, landowners and outfitters. There was minimal confidence in that these groups would agree on anything. Hardly a subsidy, it was hailed as an economic achievement.
4. Block Management had nearly a $2,000,000 trust fund prior to I-161. That fund is now gone.
I am not an outfitter. I am a hunter that is concerned with the future of our hunting privilege. As I stated previously, it is my hope that we could start some dialog that would unite the hunting community....not divide us.
Toole, the nerve you hit is your insistence upon spreading BS.
1). MTFW&P's knows full well how much money they have made. It is record. I've done the math, and they made almost $2,000,000 more with the new system. Anybody with a calculator can add this up in no time.
2). I'm not the one claiming a few bad outfitters tarnish the image for all, or are a majority. Your the one that came out gloating about the new organization, and how great outfitters are. I tried to make sure you knew that I could come up just as many bad ones (If you like). Of the ones I know, I wouldn't hunt with very many. Just saying!
3). The outfitter sponsored tags came out of the whining from the industry, claiming they needed a stable number of tags to keep running their businesses. The also claimed if they got this, then they would self police themselves and keep the number of outfitters statewide to 600. They did that, but, the growth came in the number of guides they hired or worked under their licence. For example. Landowners had a outfitter front the "sponsored tags" for them. A NR would come to hunt on the landowners property. The landowner would basically do the outfitting under the outfitters licence. They would be working under the guides licence. Then they would toss the outfitter a bone to take a couple of other clients on the landowners property for the tag's bought. Last I checked licenced guides had gone up over 2000 in the same time frame.
A subsidy is anything given to an industry to help it out monetarily. Tags set aside by the government,for the outfitting industry, could only be purchased if they intended to use the outfitters services. That my friend is the definition of a subsidy. Jackie Bushman, would buy his tags through an outfitter every year, He might toss him some sort of bone for that service. He was guaranteed to hunt, given preferential treatment over the average NR hunter. Their odds were about 50% on draw. I think all should be equal. If they want to hire a guide then go for it.
4). Where did you get your information on the loss of that fund? Got a link? How about somebody I can call?
