What were voters thinking?

It is perplexing why Montana voters chose to kneecap two lines of business, when it would obviously cost a lot of jobs at a time when the state’s economy is already struggling.

We have to wonder if voters really understood the ramifications of passing initiatives 161 and 164. Did they somehow miss the fact that a minimum of 32,000 Montanans are already unemployed?

In the case of I-164, it didn’t just cripple the payday lending industry in Montana; it flat-out killed it along with an estimated 800 jobs. It’s a strong possibility there was a perception that the initiative would merely rein in payday lenders by capping the maximum annual interest rate they can charge at 36 percent starting Jan. 1.

Currently, lenders can charge a maximum annual rate of 650 percent, which probably seemed alarmingly obscene to many voters. But they probably didn’t consider that most lenders were making loans for two-week or one-month terms with interest rates of less than 20 percent for the small loans.

Immediately after the election, payday lenders and title loan businesses in the Flathead Valley and across Montana ceased lending and announced plans to close their doors for good within a matter of weeks.

Another cost of it all: for people with poor credit ratings or folks in need of a speedy loan, payday lenders were an option, sometimes the only option, but not anymore. One has to wonder what type of business might next be perceived as undesirable. Pawn shops, perhaps?

The impacts of Initiative 161 will not be as immediate and it is more difficult to estimate just how many jobs it may cost, but the overall economic fallout could be far more profound.

The initiative put an end to outfitter-sponsored big-game licenses, which provided non-resident hunters guaranteed access to hunting tags, and it sharply increased prices for licenses that non-residents must now acquire through a drawing.

It is painfully obvious that there will be a sharp downturn in the number of non-resident hunters coming to Montana, at a cost not only to outfitters but to other companion businesses. Why would they swallow  a 43 percent increase in the cost of a combination elk license and a 61 percent increase for deer licenses when they can go to other Rocky Mountain states that provide far more affordable, guaranteed licenses?

The price increases were intended to provide continuing revenue for the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks block management program, which allows the state to lease private land for public hunting. Outfitter-sponsored license sales have provided about 80 percent of that program’s funding in the past, but not anymore. We’ll just have to wait and see how badly revenue declines under more expensive and less accessible non-resident hunting license sales.

The initiative was intended to end the practice of outfitters leasing private land exclusively for their clients and boost block management leases, but we doubt that will be the case. There are already indications that many landowners will view the initiative as an affront because of its intent to disrupt their ability to lease to outfitters if they choose to do so.

Again, the long-term impacts of I-161 are hard to predict. But there is one certainty about both of these initiatives — they will be costly.

At a time when most voters seem to be demanding less government intrusion in their lives, Montana’s voters gave a green light to big government in a big way.

Like we say, it’s perplexing.