Originally Posted by
AK Jeff
Keep crying a frickin' river Muley, but the fact remains that initiative is written at about a 5th grade level. If you or anybody else have trouble reading that, then you should really brush up on your junior high level English comprehension. All the conspiracy theory crap was played out in court and it lost, plain and simple. I-161 was passed by a margin of more than 26,000 votes and it really doesn't matter how urban or rural the distribution was. There are plenty of active hunters in Billings, Great Falls, Missoula, Bozeman, etc. It's not like people from New York City were able to vote on it. Even with the backing of the NRA and the RMEF and considerably better funding the opposition flopped.
The thing that's surprising is that you are complaining so much, but you seem to think the licenses will be undersold. If that's the case then not only will you still have guaranteed tags, but a deer/elk combo will be $353 CHEAPER for your clients!!! Nothing in the initiative bans outfitting, so it should actually make your operations more attractive because the licenses will go from $1250 to $897. Now it's time to stop acting like a prima donna because your guaranteed hand in the cookie jar got taken away and learn to play by the new rules. There are plenty of states that don't have outfitter sponsored licenses and their outfitting industries are doing just fine.
Hand in the cookie Jar? You mean me selling the states tags to clients I paid to get so the residents could hunt private property for free and the cleints can not? Dude you don't even live here, I do. I was involved in this process for 7 months and understand the sham it is. You honestly think I-161 is the end game? I can't tip our hat but I assure you it is only the beginning.
You keep yacking about other states not having gauranteed tags what the hell do you call OTC? What about landowner tags, what about Wyoming requiring the use of an outfitter for wilderness area hunts? Get a clue. You have no idea what the marketing and biz side of western hunting is.
As far as the new "rules" I am playing by them, I'm leasing land for my out of state clients and keeping the locals off it. I have a 220 acre river bottom ranch that had 8 bowhunters we let hunt, they are gone. Also looking at a multiple section lease is eastern Montana for antelope and late season Mule deer. I'll be leasing that up at the first of the year.
At 100% draw odds Montana is now a glorified OTC state with cheaper tags for our clients, it ain't a bad deal for us yet. However, it is a crap deal for the NR/DIY hunter. I think it is time the resident Montana hunter start financing some of their own access, not NR elk tags that are 43x the cost of a resident.
Finally, who said I had trouble reading I-161? I said the language was terrible because it is. It is worded as if there is no downside, thats absurd for ballot language. I prefer a simple Yes/NO, wouldn't you agree that is more appropriate? If anybody is a prima donna is this debate, it is you. You don't live here and were not involved in the process, yet you apparently feel infinately qualified to comment.
