Big Sky Brewing Bill advocation

Just saw this myself. I don't want to rush judgement and start bashing Big Sky without more information, but damn, that post sure makes them look villainous.

Edit: Just saw this on their Facebook:

Why Did Big Sky Brewing Company Support HB 616?

We supported HB 616 because under current law, Big Sky Brewing Company is the only brewery in Montana where visitors cannot buy a glass of beer to drink at our brewery. Instead, we cannot serve samples at all or we can give them away. We sure do not want to send away visitors without letting them try our beer so we allow them to try up to four 6 oz. samples of our beer. We would like to be able to sell that beer like every other brewery in the state. It is just that simple.

But, wouldn’t HB 616 kill Montana’s craft breweries?

Here is what HB 616 would do. Every existing brewery in Montana would have an option to purchase a beer or all-beverage license within two years of the bill becoming law. Pricing of beer licenses ranges from as low as hundreds of dollars to as high as $100,000. This license allows the brewery to stay open as late as they choose, up to 2am. It also removes the three pint limit from breweries. If a brewery did not choose to purchase one of these licenses, it could continue to operate under the current taproom rules – last pour by 8pm and three pint maximum – for no additional fee so long as at least sixty percent of its total beer sales over 300 barrels went outside of the brewery. By making beer licenses available to breweries, HB 616 would allow all Montana breweries to expand their hours and sell more than three pints per customer per day if they chose to do so. This would expand brewery rights, not reduce them.

Don’t all the other breweries in Montana hate you for supporting HB 616?

First, here is a statement from the Montana Brewers Association on Facebook in response to calls to boycott Big Sky Brewing beers:

Montana Brewers Association "We thank you all for providing your input and passion on this issue. The MBA voted to oppose HB616 largely due to not having been afforded the time to have appropriate conversations with all 3 tiers affected by this bill. The MBA does not support a boycott of Big Sky Brewing as a result of them testifying in favor of HB616."
19 hours ago • Like • 6

Immediately following the hearings the crew from Big Sky Brewing and several members of the MBA wound up in the same restaurant in Helena. Many of us got together over a Montana made craft beer or two and hashed out the pros and cons of the bill. It was a very informative and reasonable discussion and we did not feel any ill-will towards us from other brewers. We then headed over to Blackfoot River Brewing and had a couple of beers there while socializing with several more brewers. We believe that the brewers we spoke with understand that our supporting HB 616 was not in any way aimed at harming their businesses.
If you have further questions, feel free to send me an email – [email protected]

 

As is to be expected, Big Sky's statement omits some pretty pertinent details...

This is because BSBC is the only brewery in MT that exceeds 10,000bbl annual production. Therefore, it is not a "small brewery" under MT law and does not receive the same privileges.

29 of MT's 40 small breweries a located in areas where the BRL quota has been met. That means their only option is the $100,000 license.

This is the biggest problem with this bill, IMHO. Sales for off-premises consumption count the same as on-premises sales!

It removes the right to sell samples without paying $100,000 for a BRL if you have more than 300bbl brewery-direct sales.

IMO, the bill should have a much smaller cap on samples in exchange for not counting sales for off-premises consumption against that cap. I should add that a 300bbl/year cap works out to be about 68 customers per day (365 days) at 48oz per customer. So upon reflection a substantial reduction in this cap isn't particularly reasonable.

Here's a good breakdown of the effects (pdf): http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/FNPDF/HB0616.pdf

 

I would not support boycotting the Brewery over this, but it raises a lot of questions. On a broader theme, this is another example of archaic, restrictive beer laws that I am wholeheartedly against -both the existing scheme and the proposed bill. There shouldn't be arbitrary limits on pint sales, or samples, regardless of the size of the brewery and sales tax should be sufficient revenue for the state, especially when that tax is coupled with new jobs and community rejuvenation in a state where the population continuously declines. I think States should be giving incentives to breweries in the same way that they give large incentives to multi-billion dollar companies. Obviously, the incentives could be proportional to the job creation, but taxing the little breweries is a bullshit approach.

 

Much more in the mountain forum including a link to an article written by BA's own Rwnewhouse.

http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/montana-looking-at-changing-brewery-regulations.77559/

 

Way to throw your fellow breweries under the bus Big Sky, this is gonna really hurt them I have a feeling. If this bill goes through it will put many breweries out of business, maybe that's part of the reason Big Sky is in support of this?? The way the taproom laws are in MT are a little strange but a lot of breweries like them. They have to close by 8pm and can serve no more than 48 oz per person/day. It creates a drunk free responsible drinking atmosphere. Respect beer right?? The tavern association is basically forcing the brewers so pay this $100,000 so they can stay open till 2am and serve whatever amount they want. With many breweries less than 5 yrs old they don't have $100,000 laying around to spend on something they don't want in the first place. There are some really great small breweries in Montana and its very sad they are being bullied by big $$. Even if you don't have a dog in the fight please sign this petition to the Montana governor to veto any bill that would hurt Montana microbreweries.

http://www.change.org/petitions/big...upport-mta-attacks-on-montana-craft-breweries

 

This isn't about the state taxing little breweries. This is about the MT Tavern Owners group disliking competition from brewery taprooms and proposing a law they feel will "even the playing field". There are a number of problems with this attitude. The biggest to me is that taprooms and bars are two different animals other than they both serve beer. My ability to have a few beers at the taproom has zero bearing on whether or not I decide to go to a bar. More often than not, the kind of people I interact with in taprooms are more likely purchase a 6pack and enjoy at a residence than head for the bar.

However Big Sky tries to justify this, instead of working to get MT breweries their size the right to sell in taprooms (current law prohibits large production breweries like Big Sky from doing this) they side with a trade organization that is trying to restrict brewers. I find it hard to believe that given amount they seem more than willing to pay for a license, Big Sky couldn't find their own sponsor for a bill specific to large breweries. Additionally, Big Sky has been around awhile, and suddenly they need a taproom right now? Many great breweries around the country were able to grow and thrive because they could build local followings out of their taprooms. Big Sky is aware of this, which makes me question why they would side with tavern owners vs fellow brewers.

What is really really unfortunate is that Big Sky supporting this bill gives it much more legitimacy among state politicians unfamiliar with the MT brewing scene. This bill would not only affect existing small brewers, but in all likelihood, discourage future taprooms from opening (which seems to be the real agenda).

 

You're skipping a step. Yes, the MT Tavern Owners support the bill because they dislike the competition from more brewery taprooms and the $100,000 fee would equal less competition. The bill was not written by the organization, however, it is supported by them. (That, of course, could be debated, but that is a different debate). All I'm saying here, is the perceived purpose of the bill, as presented by the state legislature, is to raise revenue. The bill then gets lobbying groups like the MT Tavern Owners Group to support it because they want to quell competition.

As lobbying goes, your point is well taken. I'd assume that the MT Tavern Group may have had some influence in the bill's inception. The end result, however, is the same, as I put it or as you look at it. Whether you call it a tax or an attack on the competition, there will be less tap rooms if the law goes into effect. I'm looking at it like this: Montana has current archaic laws, those include limits on drinks, on when people can drink etc. They are proposing new laws, that only work if you can pay-to-play. To me, this is another form of an archaic drinking law, based in part on deep-founded religious beliefs that exert themselves as a sin tax on alcohol. I was just saying that I am against any restriction on brewing that treats the product as if it isn't just another product. Beer is constantly placed in a nebulous legal area, with laws surrounding it that supposedly stand for safety or other concerns, but as those laws are juxtaposed with other similar laws, they are clearly arbitrary and capricious and logically unsound - i.e. stop selling drinks at 8 PM at the tap room, it's terrible to let people drink that late... send them to the bar?

 

and I meant to respond more to your point on Big Sky's participation and the legitimacy that their support gives. I agree that it many questions arise as to why Big Sky waited until now to do this. They are certainly a large enough company to have some lobbying presence, especially if they are apparently willing to shell out $100,000 for a license. You'd think they would have gotten the state's 50 breweries together and figured out something more amicable, and friendlier to the other craft brewers. The obvious inference, as you touched on, is that Big Sky wants this law to restrict the smaller brewers so they can have a tap room, perhaps Bayern Brewing will as well, and no one else will have the money for it. The prohibitive nature of the licensure is certainly discouraging and generally contrary to the friendly "we're in this together" attitude that we would all like to see.

 

The bill's main sponsor isn't exactly a "raise taxes for revenue" type of guy. And if you're familiar with Montana, their budget has been in the black now for awhile thanks largely to all the oil money from the eastern part. The licenses would not be enough of a revenue generator to justify a bill like this. If you don't think the MT Tavern Association was the primary party responsible for this bill, well.........

http://helenair.com/news/local/mont...cle_a33e08f0-96ff-11e2-9961-001a4bcf887a.html

 

Update for anyone still following this. Thanks in part to public protest, the bill was killed today. Back to the drawing board for the tavern owners and time for PR repair for Big Sky.