THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AMERICAN BIG GAME HUNTING FORUMS


Moderators: Canuck
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Montana’s Initiative 161
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
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
 
Posts: 153 | Location: Wapiti Way, MT | Registered: 29 September 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by CP:
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


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?
 
Posts: 2242 | Registered: 09 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by taylorce1:
quote:
Originally posted by CP:
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


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?
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
 
Posts: 1528 | Location: Seeley Lake | Registered: 21 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Naphtali:
quote:
Originally posted by taylorce1:
quote:
Originally posted by CP:
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


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?
You appear to be asking more than one question.



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.
 
Posts: 2242 | Registered: 09 March 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
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
 
Posts: 153 | Location: Wapiti Way, MT | Registered: 29 September 2002Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia