The Kephardt Initiative (I-161)

There is a bit of a fight brewing in the state of Montana. Now, when I hear the word "fight" I assume it's occurring between people (or groups of people) who don't care for one another. This fight is interesting in that it's pitting hunters against hunters and the results could be devastating for the state of Montana. Let me explain:

The issue at hand is what is called Initiative No. 161 (I-161) also known as the Kephardt Initiative. I-161 proposes to revise laws related to big game hunting and the issuance of "outfitter Sponsored" licenses in the state of Montana. Currently the state sets aside 5,500 outfitter sponsored licenses with current costs of $1,250 for big game (deer/elk) combo or $995 for the elk or deer combo when applying for only one of those species.

The goal of I-161 is to replace those outfitter sponsored licenses with an additional 5,500 general non-resident big game licenses. It also increases the nonresident big game combination license fee from $628 to $897 (a 43% increase) and the nonresident deer combination license fee from $328 to $527 (a 61% increase).

Proponents of I-161 argue that the increased numbers (and costs) of non-resident licenses will result in a proportional increase of revenue for the state. This is a short-sighted argument evidenced by what occurred last year in Idaho where non-resident deer and elk tag fees increased dramatically. The result of the fee increase was a shortfall of over $1 million when fewer hunters were willing to pay the higher tag fees.

Beyond potential decreases in non-resident hunters, I-161 threatens to impact the outfitting industry in Montana. According to the website stop161.org, Montana's outfitting and guiding industry contributes some $167 million annually to the states economy while nearly half of that ($83 million) comes from monies spent by people who are in Montana solely for a guided trip.

Montana's outfitting industry included (as of 2005) 1,000 licensed outfitters and nearly 4,000 hunting guides. If the industry were to suffer losses of as little as 20% of those jobs due to I-161 eliminated outfitter sponsored licenses, it would have a noticeable economic impact. I don't believe this is the impact we want to see on the sate of Montana.

My intent here isn't to get bogged down in the facts and figures of I-161. I simply find this initiative to be an interesting quandary because it was proposed by hunters thinking it would benefit hunters as well as the state. From my perspective it will have only polarizing effects. Furthermore, I have agree with the NRA's perspective that "ballot-box" wildlife management has never been, and likely never will be effective.

For more info on I-161, please visit the following links:

http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp

http://stop161.org/index.php

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5349

http://www.billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/gazoutdoors/article_0c6cfce6-1756-11df-8b61-001cc4c03286.html