Next up, I-161:
...{R}evises the laws related to nonresident big game and deer hunting licenses. It abolishes outfitter-sponsored nonresident big game and deer combination licenses, replacing the 5,500 outfitter-sponsored big game licenses with 5,500 additional general nonresident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527. It provides for future adjustments of these fees for inflation. The initiative allocates a share of the proceeds from these nonresident hunting license fees to provide hunting access and preserve and restore habitat.
I-161 increases state revenues over the next four years by an estimated $700,000 annually for hunting access and an estimated $1.5 million annually for habitat preservation and restoration, assuming that all nonresident hunting licenses are sold. It also increases general nonresident hunting license revenues by inflation.
This is one of those initiatives that requires a little bit of background. Basically, some independent hunters aren't happy with the exclusive agreements that some outfitters and private landowners are making that reserve hunting rights on the land for outfitter clients. They want more landowners to participate in the state's Block Management Program, "which pays landowners to allow hunters on their lands." In short, hunters are worried that outfitters are squeezing in-state hunters from the land in favor of wealthy out-of-state trophy hunters.
It's not clear how I-161 is supposed to achieve that goal, or even if it is. Kurt Kephart, the initiative's author, often talks about ending the state subsidy for outfitters - the nonresident hunting licenses reserved for them - and, in this sense, the initiative seems like a big f*ck you to the industry and to out-of-state trophy hunters. What's sure is that, if the initiative passes, outfitters won't be able to guarantee licenses for out-of-state clients, and most clients will book hunting trips only after the June lottery. Maybe I-161 backers are hoping that fiscal uncertainty for outfitters will inhibit them from making deals with landowners, or that landowners might prefer to work with the Block Management Program and the state's sure money. As an added bonus, I-161 should put more money into the Block Management Program itself.
I'm torn on this one myself. It's always fun to poke wealthy out-of-state tourists, especially the big-game trophy hunters. And I like the idea of keeping Montana open to Montana hunters. Still...I don't know. Seems like an ill-fitting suit. Sure, there's a problem here, but does the initiative actually fix it?
While I sympathize deeply with Kurt Kephart and other Montana hunters who feel like they're getting systematically shut out of Montana hunting grounds, I'm recommending "no" on I-161.
Read on for other views.
* * *
Wulfgar!: "I am a hunter, and a Montanan. And more to the point, I don't believe in subsidizing industry, especially when there is no reason to do it, and it involves a very real cost in revenue and resource. I will vote yes on I-161." Wulfgar! opines that outfitters won't be hurt by the initiative; out-of-state big-game hunters will still come to Montana and hire outfitters to hunt.
* * *
problembear: "guides and outfitters provide much needed commerce to montana. at a time of increasing unemployment in this state it is not wise to shackle an industry which provides jobs for so many montanans and montana businesses used by their clients."
* * *
Kurt Kephart, author of I-161: "{W}hy does the state of Montana guarantee wealthy nonresidents a hunting license...while requiring all other nonresidents to enter a drawing in order to obtain one...? Why do wealthy nonresidents garner special privileges?
"Voting yes on Initiative 161 will curb attempts by individuals to control and privatize the public's wildlife by abolishing the special 'guarantee' offered to predominately wealthy nonresident hunters. I-161 will require all nonresidents to enter a drawing for an equal opportunity at a license. Fairness, and not wealth, will be the determining factor in which nonresidents will receive hunting licenses."
* * *
The Missoulian: "{The argument that I-161 would make the allocation of nonresident hunting licenses fair} ignores the fact that license applicants are subject to another kind of inequity - the monetary kind. An outfitter-sponsored big game license costs $1,250, or about twice as much as a license for a resident, which costs $643.
"I-161 seeks to do away with outfitter-sponsored licenses and replace the lost money by raising nonresident fees. So nonresidents would not only have to enter a drawing for their licenses, they would pay more for the privilege. That's not a level playing field. That's a marked disadvantage to nonresident hunters - and therefore, a disadvantage to every business that relies on Montana's reputation as a great place to hunt....
"{A}bolishing outfitter-sponsored licenses provides no guarantees that outfitting companies will stop paying private landowners for exclusive permission to hunt their land. And really, only a scant 6 percent of state landowners who own elk habitat have exclusive agreements with outfitters or have a lease or fee agreement to access their lands...
"Neither do we know how much money the state stands to gain by charging more for nonresident licenses....Unfortunately, the risk would all be borne by Montana's outfitters and other businesses that enjoy a late-year boost from out-of-state hunters. And that's why it is important to join them in voting 'no' on I-161."
* * *
And then there's this crap-tastic "opinion" from the NRA-ILA, the lobbying arm of the NRA: "Laws related to hunting and wildlife management strategies should be firmly rooted in science, not driven by a wealthy few who can produce the most emotionally-appealing 30-second television commercial during an initiative campaign. For this reason, NRA has always opposed "ballot box" wildlife management.
With regard to the specific provisions, Kephardt's I-161, through its significant fee increases, threatens to make the same monumental mistake made in Idaho last year. Non-resident license fees there were increased with expectations of proportional increases in revenue. The move backfired, resulting in a $1 million shortfall because fewer hunters purchased the more expensive licenses. With already poor budget conditions, a similar shortfall in Montana will jeopardize important wildlife management and conservation projects - ultimately detracting from hunting opportunities for all hunters in the state....
"{I}t is up to NRA members to inform your friends, families, co-workers and fellow hunters about the folly of signing Kephardt's {sic} I-161 ballot initiative! Your voice and efforts today will make a tremendous difference. Make no mistake about it, the anti-hunting radicals are watching. If I-161 succeeds, they will learn from Kephardt's {sic} methods and try to circumvent the standard policy-making system and public processes that have stymied them through the years and use deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda."
Un-f*cking-believable. Makes you wonder if the administrative assistant who penned this has actually ever held a gun. Mark Henckel corrects the erroneous claims laced through this thing (including the misspelling of Kephart's name!), but let's just pause for a moment on "anti-hunting radicals..." Seriously, how the h*ll do you call a bunch of hunters looking for wider access to hunting "anti-hunting radicals"? If Montana outfitters wrote a big check to the NRA to make I-161 go away, they should ask for their money back. |
