Originally Posted by
AK Jeff
Below is the text for I-161. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. Both the initiative language and the voting sections start out by describing the change in licensing proposed.
Frankly, if I was just looking after my own @ss it would be in my best interest to see I-161 fail. I was born and raised in MT and my whole family still lives there so I qualify for the Come Home to Hunt Program. The price of those licenses will climb just like the rest of them. I'm just calling it how I see it though.
-----------------------------------------------
http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/archives...ives/I-161.asp
INITIATIVE NO. 161
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
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.
LOL, are you reading what your writing? How in the world does this sound straight foward? Look, Linda M's office approved this language from the bills sponsor against objections from MOGA, Linda is the governers appointment, a governor who is no friend of outfitters. This was a classic rural/urban vote with the urban areas voting for. The were several instances of signiture fraud documented with foresics and hand writing analysis, all waived by a governor appointed judge. The defense in the case, the pro-I161 defense, argued it was ok for the sponsors of the bill to lie, as it was the voters responsibility to discern the truth. I-161 is a sham, a political peice of garbage ram-rodded through and twisted and munipulated for a yes vote. There is no increase in revenue it the tags don't sell out, there is a net revenue loss if they under sell, where is that language?
Honestly, if that looks like an objective Iniative to you I don't know what to say.