I didn't realize that only the all mighty outfitters were allowed to comment on this thread. Considering I've followed I-161 since the beginning and I'm actually smart enough to read and comprehend it I think I'll keep commenting. You keep griping about it not pointing out the downside, but the downside is all theoretical. It says the truth, that revenues will increase assuming all of the licenses are sold. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that revenues could be lower if the inventory doesn't sell out, but there's any number of mitigating factors that can cause that. Change in licensing scheme is by no means the only factor that can change the participation level of non-residents. For all you know there may be an upsurge in applicants because they think they'll have better odds of drawing a tag now. A ballot initiative doesn't need to spell out every hypothetical scenario that could possibly play out.

It was a simple YES/NO vote. FOR = YES and AGAINST = NO. That's perfectly plain English and it's easy to comprehend. The bottom line is your industry is generally disliked by the general public in Montana and their vote reflected that. Feel free to try and repeal it, though. I doubt it will be successful, but like I said before that would actually save me money to go home and hunt.

---------------------------------------------------


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.