We are all concerned about this.3 bills were heard in the Legis. last week concerning guides.Was an amendment made to limit the number of outfitters to 150 instead of 200? And was an amendment put in one of the bills to limit the amount of acreage they can lease???
Guide leasing
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
Ken, the only action taken was to appoint a subcom. of Porter, Hunskor and DeKrey to study the bill and make proposals for amendments. Everything is still on the table and possible. We should all contact those 3 with our desire for an acreage limit and why.
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
The grandfather clause should be for years 2000-2001. The acres should not exceed 30,000 as this would give them about fifty sections more than enough.
These numbers from a current guide gives them plenty of ground to make a good living off of and still lets the area be utilized by other hunters. Acreage above this will cause the business to become large corp that soon will control entire counties.
Think about 1 outfitter controling all the area from Minot to Bismarck 10 miles on either side of HY 83.This is where we are headed.
We also have to eliminate the day lease.
These numbers from a current guide gives them plenty of ground to make a good living off of and still lets the area be utilized by other hunters. Acreage above this will cause the business to become large corp that soon will control entire counties.
Think about 1 outfitter controling all the area from Minot to Bismarck 10 miles on either side of HY 83.This is where we are headed.
We also have to eliminate the day lease.
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
Guys, you'd sort of have to reverse engineer this thing. An example could go like this (and this is only one example, using math my feeble mind can easily work with):
Let's say you made the determination that 1.6MM acres was the appropriate industry involvement. Then let's say people a whole lot smarter than us figured out that 16,000 acres was the right amount to reasonably sustain an outfitter operation. That would mean that 100 would represent the target number of licenses. You could have less licenses and more per outfitter acreage, or vice-versa.
Can't get from where we are today to 100 overnight. I assume everyone would get the chance to operate on the greater of what they have today or 16,000. Then, as and when a license lapsed or was pulled, a license would not be reissued (and would not be eligible for transfer) until the 100 target was reached. After we got down to 100, the remaining licenses (if in good standing) could be sold or otherwise transfered to another otherwise qualified individual and would be eligible for reissue if lapsed or pulled, but only at the 16,000 level.
Under a format like this, at least after the initial setup, wouldn't much matter how many immediate family members held licenses (except the effect on a localized area) as the 1.6MM industry cap would control overall. Now, how long it would take to get to 100 or the 1.6MM is anyone's guess.
To address the concerns of those who would raise landowner's rights issues, landowners who merely charge an access fee (day, season or somewhere in between), and don't actively provide typical guiding activites, would be exempt from licensing. So, if they chose to do so, every landowner in the state could still generate revenue from hunting, albeit they'd need to take a little more active role to do so.
Let's say you made the determination that 1.6MM acres was the appropriate industry involvement. Then let's say people a whole lot smarter than us figured out that 16,000 acres was the right amount to reasonably sustain an outfitter operation. That would mean that 100 would represent the target number of licenses. You could have less licenses and more per outfitter acreage, or vice-versa.
Can't get from where we are today to 100 overnight. I assume everyone would get the chance to operate on the greater of what they have today or 16,000. Then, as and when a license lapsed or was pulled, a license would not be reissued (and would not be eligible for transfer) until the 100 target was reached. After we got down to 100, the remaining licenses (if in good standing) could be sold or otherwise transfered to another otherwise qualified individual and would be eligible for reissue if lapsed or pulled, but only at the 16,000 level.
Under a format like this, at least after the initial setup, wouldn't much matter how many immediate family members held licenses (except the effect on a localized area) as the 1.6MM industry cap would control overall. Now, how long it would take to get to 100 or the 1.6MM is anyone's guess.
To address the concerns of those who would raise landowner's rights issues, landowners who merely charge an access fee (day, season or somewhere in between), and don't actively provide typical guiding activites, would be exempt from licensing. So, if they chose to do so, every landowner in the state could still generate revenue from hunting, albeit they'd need to take a little more active role to do so.
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Dan where did you get the 1.66 m acres. This numbers is below the amount that I have seen from the tourism dept. I will try and find the article and report, and give exact #'s. I do believe that they said 12% that would be closer to 5.4 m acres
We have more than 10 outfitters that control over 100,000 acres each, currently and leasing more. The clear and present path is to get the number of guides and the acres that they control down to levels around
the 2000 -2001 hunting season. We saw a increase of 100 new operations this past year, and will see even more this year. Look at the adds that a number of them run to draw in hunters and you will see that 1.66 m acres is a very low fiqure.
The cow is out of the barn but has not left the pasture, now is the time to push our elected officals to protect the resoures and the heritage of the state by enacting laws that benifit the general hunting community and the rural economy as a whole.
Dick Monson and others on this site have done a very good job of letting people know what is happening and how to get involved.
We have more than 10 outfitters that control over 100,000 acres each, currently and leasing more. The clear and present path is to get the number of guides and the acres that they control down to levels around
the 2000 -2001 hunting season. We saw a increase of 100 new operations this past year, and will see even more this year. Look at the adds that a number of them run to draw in hunters and you will see that 1.66 m acres is a very low fiqure.
The cow is out of the barn but has not left the pasture, now is the time to push our elected officals to protect the resoures and the heritage of the state by enacting laws that benifit the general hunting community and the rural economy as a whole.
Dick Monson and others on this site have done a very good job of letting people know what is happening and how to get involved.
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
HWM, I'd like to see whatever info you've got on that, because in the past we've just guessed based upon what they're advertising. Ken, run a proposal like the one above up the flagpole with Hunskor. The Comm. will need to do some fact-finding to find out the right industry limit, but our aim should be that it be no higher than that today.
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Dan, Badland guides 40,000 plus, shelon schlect streeter nd 100,000 plus midwest migratory 60,000 plus, First chance gudies, 40,000plus,Cannonball who knows, This was from a five minute search.I will dig deep to find the report or article I mentioned earlier. I would very much like to use that info at the hearings this week.
I hope that this will help in seeing the need for legislation and I do like your idea on l00 licence max but this may not be achievable unfortunely.
I hope that this will help in seeing the need for legislation and I do like your idea on l00 licence max but this may not be achievable unfortunely.
Joined
·
10 Posts
Just to give you a little update on this bill. We worked on the amendments thursday and I had them drafted today.
Rep. Rod Frohlich presented a plan to address some of the acres concerns.
It would provide a base charge of $500.00 for up to 5000 acres and an additional $500.00 for every 5000 acres on top of the base. The outfitter would have to declare their land at the time of licensing and there would be no day leasing of land.
The number will appear high to some but will be a slidding scale that goes over the next 4 years so it is a self regulation of numbers. I think it will end up less than the 150 I've been hearing.
I'm not sure if the guides will like it or not, but they will have a chance at it if it passes the house and makes it to the senate.
Todd
PS: Dan did an incredible job for everyone the past 2 days. It was a pleasure to chair the committee during the hearing on 1307. I hope everyone felt that it was a fair public hearing process.
Rep. Rod Frohlich presented a plan to address some of the acres concerns.
It would provide a base charge of $500.00 for up to 5000 acres and an additional $500.00 for every 5000 acres on top of the base. The outfitter would have to declare their land at the time of licensing and there would be no day leasing of land.
The number will appear high to some but will be a slidding scale that goes over the next 4 years so it is a self regulation of numbers. I think it will end up less than the 150 I've been hearing.
I'm not sure if the guides will like it or not, but they will have a chance at it if it passes the house and makes it to the senate.
Todd
PS: Dan did an incredible job for everyone the past 2 days. It was a pleasure to chair the committee during the hearing on 1307. I hope everyone felt that it was a fair public hearing process.
Joined
·
4,642 Posts
Rep. Porter did a clean job of chairing the committee, fair and balanced. Everybodys concerns were addressed and we all owe him a debt of gratitude as well Dan Buide, Mike Donahue (NDWF), Larry Knoblich (Alliance) and all you fellows for your personal testimony and emails.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
