Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting More to come in Montana?

Why wait. Go now so we don't have to kneel at you alter.

I'll think on that! Waiting to see what the draws in ID, WY, and NM hold. Worse case scenario we can put it in the calendar for next year. If I draw in WY you should pick up some leftover tags. You bring Carnivore and I'll drive. Seriously.

Sounds like a plan! We'll have to bring Tom264 if you want Carnivore along - none of my rifles are named yet!

Sorry about the mix up. He can come too! If he can't go do you think he'll let his rifle go??

Judging from your avatar, it looks like we'll both be up late tonight. Go BLUE 2!

Yep! B U T L E R you a Bulldog!

The public land outfitters probably faced more risk than the private land outfitters, but as Scenarshooter points out, some private land owners will become "outfitters," since the OSL required an registered outfitter and a guide accompany hunters at all time, and some private land outfitters will simply lease more land but won't register hunters as clients, and thus will have more money to tie up private land that they used to use to hire and pay guides. so far I-161 doesn't appear to be hurting outfitters too badly, but correspondingly it isn't clear it will create any more private land hunting for residents or non-residents. In fact, I never understood how it would create more access to private land for non-paying (whether resident or not) hunters . . . maybe someone else does.

The thought was outfitters wouldn't have guaranteed clients to keeps leasing up more land. They could count on a certain amount of money coming in every year to accomplish that goal.

If land owners become outfitters they still have to comply with state law concerning that industry and cannot be paid as a guide/outfitter unless properly licensed. Also, they cannot guarantee they will have clients as before, but as a landowner that doesn't matter as much.

Thanks for posting that. As I understand it private landowners wouldn't have to register as outfitters since they are exempted, but I have my doubts that land which was once leased will be opened to the non-paying public . . . Maybe I'm wrong about that, though . . .. Maybe it will go to block management? I just suspect that it is more likely to be leased to non-residents directly or through some kind of brokerage.

A private landowner leasing to an outfitter generally has a pretty sweet deal. No headaches from idiot hunters like open gates, driving all over Hell and litter etc. I can't understand how anyone looked at I161 and thought that it would magically change a landowners mind. I'm betting most that voted for it did not bother to understand it. I've hunted a bunch of Block Management areas here in Montana and have seen some really sickening behavior. Some landowners stick with the BM system in spite of this. Certain ranchers just dislike outfitters, or at least the idea of them. mtmuley