*Q2 Mobile News

Complaint filed over I-161

Posted: Sep 1, 2010 6:01 AM
Updated: Sep 1, 2010 7:56 AM

The Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is filing a formal complaint against the backers of Initiative 161 which would abolish outfitter sponsored hunting licenses and require non resident licenses.

The group claims signature gatherers forged signatures and also failed to provide a copy of the petition while collecting signatures.

Montana Outfitters also claims signature gatherers gave false addresses and sometimes no addresses at all. The group names Secretary of State Linda McCulloch and Montana Public Wildlife on the complaint.

In a released statement, a group representative says, "We strongly believe that the constitutional and statutory requirements guaranteeing the integrity of the initiative process must be followed. Unfortunately in the case of I-161 these laws and safeguards were not followed and in many cases were blatantly disregarded."

Below is a summary of I 161 from the Montana Secretary of State Office. Click here to read more on the issue.

BALLOT LANGUAGE

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.