Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
one of us |
Although the results for 161 have yet to be certified, it is up by 7 points and appears that it will pass. I-161 revises 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 | ||
|
One of Us |
So in your opinion is this a good or bad thing? I can see where increasing the tag fees for access and habitat is a good thing. Was taking away the G&O tags a good thing? | |||
|
One of Us |
You appear to be asking more than one question. One side effect would be to allow more "little people" who have saved and scrimped for years for their once-in-a-lifetime hunt to be able to hunt Montana within their budget. That's probably a good thing. The important question for Montana guides/outfitters is: Will the loss of control of tags translate to fewer out-of-state hunters using their service - that is, to hunt public land having no knowledge of what they might be getting into? My belief is that there might be a shake-out period where a small number of out-of-staters will attempt/consider hunting on the cheap. But after this shake-out, these folks will recognize that guides' skill and horses or mules are mandatory when hunting elk. Boning and packing out of the back country a 500-900 pound elk - maybe 1 in 20,000 hunters are capable of doing this. And an out-of-state hunter who believes he'll take his elk close to a road or path - I'll have a drag of whatever he's smoking. The likely adjustment in relationship between outfitters and out-of-staters will be in cost of service. But [I must return to] a Montana bull elk hunt as being too important for nearly all out-of-staters to waste on an unguided hunt. Out-of-staters: You get what you pay for. It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it. Sam Levinson | |||
|
One of Us |
I kind of was asking two questions. Wanted to know the OP's opinion on it since all he said was that the Initiative was going to pass. Plus I was kind of hinting at wanting to know the differenc in price between what G&O's had to pay for tags. If the charged the G&O the same price as non-resident hunters then MT would still get the money for habitat and access. I was thinking that there must be a disparity in what G&O's pay for licenses and what non-residents pay that the State wanted to correct. | |||
|
one of us |
Taylorce1, I just posted the above for informational purposes. However, if you are interested, I will wager that you will be able to read all of the points of view here before the day is done: http://www.24hourcampfire.com/...nitiative_161#UNREAD | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia