RMEF, NRA OPPOSE 1-161
Montana’s Anti-Outfitter Initiative Picks Up Heavy Duty Opposition
By Bill Schneider, 2-23-10
Photo courtesy of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
UPDATED: 7 pm, February 25: I just received a press release from Safari Club International, also in opposition to I-161.
A proposed ballot measure in Montana to eliminate guaranteed big game licenses for commercial outfitters, I-161, just picked up some serious opposition.
Proponents of I-161 are currently gathering signatures, so it’s still uncertain whether it will actually be on the ballot this November 2. Nonetheless, in separate press releases, the Missoula-based Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposed the ballot initiative.
In its release, RMEF states the organization doesn’t like to the process of “hunter pitted against hunter” and wildlife management should be left to wildlife professionals.
“Initiatives are always a slippery slope and are especially concerning when it comes to new wildlife management policies,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Besides, at the end of the debate, it is the landowner who will decide how his or her land is used, not the hunter or the outfitter. What is proposed in I-161 is likely to increase private leasing of lands in an unregulated manner, and that will go against both sides in this debate.”
Allen also warned that the “the potential for unintended consequences here is significant” and the ballot measure could create bigger issues than exist now. “Neither the hunter nor the outfitter is the boogeyman, and it is disappointing to see the two sides opposing one another.”
The NRA opposition was more rooted in basic disagreement with the concept of ballot initiatives to decide wildlife management issues. “Initiatives pertaining to hunting laws, by their very nature, politicize the state’s wildlife management policies,” the NRA insisted. “For this reason, NRA has always opposed ‘ballot box’ wildlife management.”
In its release, the NRA made the issue personal by re-naming I-161 “the Kephardt Initiative” after the measure’s primary ball carrier, Kurt Kephardt of Billings, and then stated: “Kephardt Initiative circulators are currently out aggressively pursuing signatures to qualify for the ballot. Reports suggest that they are being anything but honest when describing the measure to the Montanans they target.”
The NRA also echoed one of many concerns expressed by the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (MOGA) on I-161, the “monumental mistake” made by Idaho last year where the state increased the cost of non-resident licenses to generate more revenue, but instead the move resulted in a $1 million shortfall when hunters declined to buy them.
“Neither the NRA nor RMEF statements address the merit (or lack there of) of I-161 but address the loss of open process that ballot initiatives impose,” MOGA executive director Mac Minard said in an email to NewWest.Net. “Their statements also speak to the benefits of sportsmen working together rather than fracturing the hunting community.
“MOGA agrees with both those points,” Minard added. “While we strongly disagree that I-161 does anything beneficial for the average hunter in Montana we see the value of seeking solutions in public forums like the Private Land /Public Wildlife Council rather than in the form of a ballot initiative.”
The 1993 Montana Legislature created the Private Land/Public Wildlife Council to work on the difficult relationship between private landowners and public hunters. Landowners, outfitters, sportsmen and agency representatives sit on the council, and the current system of outfitter-sponsored licenses was one of the council’s recommendations.
To read the initial article on the I-161, click here, and for a follow-up Wild Bill column on it, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
When decisions are made in the initiative arena, however, they are pretty much cast in concrete as legislators are really reluctant to amend anything passed by their constituents. So, if a mistake is made or if there are consequences that Kephart's supporters don't understand until they see the effects in the field, well, too bad. And believe me! there are consequences to I-161 that no one will like - including game wardens . . .
And no offense to anyone, but the NRA showing concern for "facts" is dubious at best. They are about as oblivious to facts as global warming deniers.
Apparently the RMEF is in bed with MOGA. Picture a grizzled guy in bed, flies buzzing around the stetson on his head wearing cowboy boots and silk neckerchief, smoking a cigarette with his arm around a 6pt bull wearing a bell and a smile. Wish I could draw.
Sam Milo
I suggest you read the language of 161, consider the negative fallout of this initiative before you blast the NRA or RMEF.
In Montana, things have gotten out of hand
With pimpish outfitters leasing up land
For instead of pandering pretty girls,
They sell big antlers and full curls
Because prostituted wildlife is in great demand.
Just like the early Market Hunters of old
Outfitters see wildlife as glittering gold.
They want to increase their yield
From all the beasts of the field
So they'll kill it, if the animal can be sold!
When an outfitter spies a piece of prime ground
He tries his best to get the landowner lease bound
Just like a pimp courting your daughter,
This outfitter intends to slaughter
Every bit of marketable game that's to be found.
Now the outfitters love the guaranteed tag
To help their limited skills clients to bag
All the game that they please
Off of land that they lease
So they can go back to the Big City and brag.
Yes, they sleep on Cabela's sheets of camoflauged flannel
Watching High Fence Horn Porn on their beloved Outdoor Channel
They get excited to blow
All their cash on the show
That promises unbothered herds of big horns they can handle!
You see, their john-clients don't hunt out of need.
Instead they've got big Freudian issues to feed.
So the outfitters lock up lots of land
To grease their client's little issue at hand
And in the process, they satisfy their money greed!
But for the outfitters to be able to increase
The amount of land that they have under lease
It's set aside licenses they'd need
If they want to proceed
With their plan that public hunting should cease.
The Game Pimps always work at improving their stature
Every two years they gather at the Helena Legislature
They put on vests, neckerchiefs, and cowboy hats
When they should wear big fedoras, long mink coats, and spats
To get more rights to sell their crimes against nature.
When the Game Pimps hit the Helena scene
They perform like a well oiled machine.
To get more ram, buck, and bull
There's no strings they won't pull
Through the charms of their Lobbyist, Madame Jean!
Now, the average hunters of Montana have had enough
Of putting up with the Game Pimp's land leasing stuff
So they've decided to use the mallet
Of Initiative 161 on the ballot
To drive these New Market Hunter's balls into the ruff.
So if you see the I-161 petition, sign your name
If you value your God given right to hunt game
If you want to be able
To put game on the table,
End the game pimping outfitter's land leasing shame!
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Ulysses Feney
In New Mexico the State issues landowner elk and antelope permits in a form of compensation to the landowners who provide a huge share of the elk and antelope habitat and which in turn give the private landowners incentives to manage for more wildlife which has helped keep their numbers up and benefits all hunters both on private and on public land. These permits are either unit wide or ranch only depending on the landowners situation. Usually only the larger ranchers are ranch only. These guaranteed tags are very valuable property and sell for big bucks. A lot of them are bought up by outfitters but many go to individuals. It is simply supply and demand.
Many states don't do this, such as Arizona and it is definitely not popular with many resident hunters who feel all of the licenses should go into the draw, and that gives them somewhat better odds to draw the tags.
Many State Game Departments need the non-resident higher revenues and as outfitters bring in these non-residents they enhance different methods to make sure they make their needed operating revenues.
As usual it is about money. The old adage, "Follow the Money" holds true here.
I do think the landowners should be compensated for all they provide for our elk herds. It has been fought over, hashed over, fought over some more and still not everyone is happy. I don't think it ever will but NM keeps trying to tweek it so it is fair for everybody.
I think there are some parallels between Montana's program and New Mexico's.
As far as RMEF and NRA, I think they both have a dog in the fight and although I'm not a big fan of RMEF for buying up private ranches and turning them back over to the Federal Government, it makes a lot of Joe Blow hunters happy to get more public land to hunt.
The big question is and you hit on it Michael, and that is subsidization of the industry and either have the resident hunters pony up the needed revenues or have the states go to their respective "General Funds" to operate their Game Departments, which isn't very likely to happen, as the taxpayers will nix that idea.
I think there needs to be a fair balance for all sides of the issue and as we get more and more people wanting to share in the wildlife resource, the costs keep going up and the supply and demand grows farther apart. I hate to see it become a rich mans sport or "the European-ization of hunting" as bad as anybody. You can't really blame the landowners for after all they provide a big share of the habitat and waters for the state's wildlife. We are pretty fortunate in most of the West in that there is a lot of public land and much of it is prime wildlife habitat.
Supporters of I-161 bash RMEF and NRA and SCI because they simply cannot point to any actual benefits derived from I-161 that come close to outweighing the negative consequences. If you can't run a positive flag up the pole, all that's left is to tear down someone else's flag.