Initiatives and What Not, Part 1

I was going to write part of this as comments at other websites, but I really shouldn't be neglecting my own baby.

There has been some discussion on the Montana-tubez about an upcoming election and how people are going to vote, or should vote.  Quite a bit of it has been about the 3 Initiatives on the ballot and the Constitutionally mandated call for a Constitutional convention vote.  I'll get that one right out of the way first. 

No.  The Montana Constitution is elegant and able, and mucking with it in this manner would only screw things up.  A lot of folk discuss the expense of a Constitutional convention, but that's beside the point to me.  It works; don't screw with it.  I write this knowing especially that those who favor a CC are after one thing most of all, to remove the plank of quality environment.  Uhhhm, no.  I just don't believe in destroying our state to save it.

The other no-brainer is CI-105.  It seeks to muck with the Constitution as well , to change it such that it prohibit a tax that Montana doesn't have.  It doesn't take a genius to see that it is the effort of an industry to favor itself at the expense of Montana's Constitution and it's democratic process.  The legislature sets taxation, not out of state realtor associations.  So, to CI-105, I say no.  And to John Sinrud, I offer a heart felt Fuck You and Kiss My Ass, you self-serving Montana-hating piece of used toilet paper.

Now here's where it gets a bit trickier.  I-161 would remove the protected pool of 5500 out-of-state hunting licenses offered to outfitters such that they can use them to drum up business.  It would put those tags into public non-resident offering, and raise the price such that the state would garner more revenue from the sale.  To this I say yes, and that puts me at odds with several people I respect.

Lets be clear right from the get go.  Outfitting is an extraction industry based on renewable resource.  That makes it little different from logging; it just shortens the time frame of renewal.  Elk and deer are in limited supply, and a certain measure of the harvest is being taken from Montanans for private profit of outfitters.  So lets just dispense with the idea of a "fair hunt" right out of the gate.  It isn't fair.  As I've indicated elsewhere, the tag allotment to outfitters is a business subsidy, offered by the state at the expense of the state.  It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not in favor of that.

The claims from the anti-crowd of I-161 are that the release of these tags from the protected pool will drive outfitters out of business and that out-of-state hunters won't hunt without outfitters.  These claims are contradictory, though that's probably not obvious on the surface.  Where outfitting differs from other extraction industries is this:  outfitting isn't profitable because every client gets a trophy elk.  Outfitting is profitable because it is entertainment.  No one pays a couple of grand because they need the spoils.  The people who hire outfitters aren't trying to fulfill some Galtian quota of raw resource.  They aren't needing the meat or the kill.  They want it, and I haven't seen one argument or statistic yet that convinces me that they won't still want it.  There will be those who will buy their tags (you can do it online, y'know) and come to Montana and get skunked like many of the rest of us do.  And then there are those who will realize that their hunting experience is better with an outfitter.  That's what they are paying for.  Many out-of-state hunters will still prefer outfitters.  And the only ones claiming that I-161 will put outfitters out of business, are the ones currently profiting from state largess ... the outfitters.

I am a hunter, and a Montanan.  And more to the point, I don't believe in subsidizing industry, especially when there is no reason to do it, and it involves a very real cost in revenue and resource.  I will vote yes on I-161.

Which brings me to I-164, the "Cap-the-Rate" initiative on payday lenders.

I work for a living, and the tired is setting in.  So, I will carry this over to a part 2.  But hey, the brother-in-law who had a heart attack is stable, and Teddy has his sutures out.  That's good, right?  See you all tomorrow.

Comments

[Eric Coobs]

Well Rob - I agree with you on 161 - let all the out-of-staters put in for the drawing, the same as we all have to.

The ones that want to do an outfitted hunt can still do so.

I'm voting for 105 though, and I'll give you my reason for that.

There is no transfer tax in Montana, yet every legislature has bills introduced to add taxes, and they are mostly defeated.

I don't particularly trust our state government - especially when we have governors increasing state spending by 50% while they're in office.

So if I decide to retire, sell this house to the kids, and move to San Diego, I don't want them to have them pay a transfer tax on a house I already paid for once.

With the Obama economy, there is no danger of house flippers making any money in Monatana anymore.

I believe it will pass and pass big.

[Wulfgar]

Eric, CI-105 will pass; I don't know about "big". It's an emotional thing. I just know that I won't support letting a very select industry dictate to me what my Constitution will allow.

[Moorcat]

As you already know, I disagree with your stance on I 161 and it has taken me some time to think about how to respond to your critique.

First, I agree with you to some extent - I 161 is kind of like a business subsidy. That said, it isn't like we don't subsidize other businesses in Montana - especially those that bring in dollars to Montana.

Where I really disagree with you is that non-resident licenses are not as simple as buying it online. You have to enter a drawing to get that license and there is no guarentee that you will get it. That presents a real problem for many that plan vacations around a hunting trip to Montana. There were two examples of this in the Dillon paper article where the individuals stated flat out that if the outfitter couldn't guarentee the hunting license, he wouldn't be able to go because he had to put in his vacation plans with his company months in advance.

Further, this isn't just a subsidy of the outfitters. It is also a subsidy of motels, resterants, grocery stores and every other business that benefits from the visitation brought in by the outfitters.

What does it hurt to allow the licenses to go to outfitters? Are the tax payers paying for this "subsidy" like we do for the oil, insurance and energy companies? No, we do not. Are these outfitter hunts breaking Montana law in some way that hurts the tax payers? Again, I would have to see some pretty convincing proof before I would buy into that.

I see no reason to vote for this initiative (other than the increase in the license fee - something I think should be done anyway), and I can see a number of reasons to vote against it. Since a large portion of the tourist money coming into Dillon each year is from outfitter sponsored hunts and fish expeditions, I am not all that comfortable potentially damaging that business - especially when I can see no logical reason for it.

[Bustednuckles]

Just my .02,but it's not like they are trying to put food on the table.
I live in SW Washington right next to the Columbia river, right on the edge of the "Columbia River Scenic Gorge"
and we have professional guides for fishing here., it is exactly the same thing on a different scale.An elk and a sturgeon are both natural recources that we have to pay the state to hunt or catch.
A sturgeon can live to be over a hundred years old and are not able to reproduce until they are five or six years old.

They live in a river, you don't have to go kill your self by heart attack running around in the hills.
Still, we have professional guides who will take who ever pays their fees to the right place and get you a damn fish.
It is the same thing with the guys are talking about and it is indeed a business.

It isn't going away any time soon but I would encourage you as a fellow countryman to try and defeat this to keep it at a minimum.
It isn't a petting zoo. Feeding your family or taking an animal for a freaking trophy on a controlled hunt are two very different things.
These are very limited resources and it sure as hell isn't a used car lot we are talking about.