Sunday, April 18, 2010

Hunters Initiative I-161

What do the hunters in our group think about Initiative I-161? The proposed initiative would be placed on the ballot as follows;

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.

[ ] FOR abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter- sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.

[ ] AGAINST abolishing outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses, replacing outfitter- sponsored big game licenses with nonresident licenses, increasing nonresident license fees, and increasing funding for hunting access and habitat.
Opposition to this initiative is being rallied by many Montana outfitters http://www.stop161.org/issue.php

What do our hunters think about this initiative?

3 comments:

  1. I say it's about time, we would not let elk farmers opperate by raising their own elk to hunt but we will let outfitters lease up all the land and keep the general public out so they can shoot public animals. The land owners still have the right to close their land but game management will still be needed. This Initiave will put the money in the states hands not the outfitters. I would hope that we would see more block management GOD BLESS THOSE WHO ALLOW BLOCK MANAGEMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Fuelburner,good riddens to the outfitters and if the landowner wants to keep the public out so be it.If the game eats and tramples their crops so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ditto fuelburner! And thanks to all the Block Management Participants our there.

    ReplyDelete