Saturday, May 18, 2024
46.0°F

No on I-161; yes on being informed

by Daily Inter Lake
| October 21, 2010 2:00 AM

One of the citizen initiatives on the Nov. 2 ballot would abolish outfitter-sponsored nonresident big-game licenses. The immediate effect would be to eliminate 5,500 outfitter sponsored licenses and replace them with 5,500 additional general nonresident big-game licenses.

But this is a case where the devil is in the details. Ask yourself this: Who is to benefit? The same number of nonresident licenses would be available, but just offered in such a way as to cripple the state’s $167 million outfitting industry. There is no real gain from the law, just a victim.

In addition, revenue from the sale of outfitter-sponsored licenses  is used to find the popular Block Management Program that allows 8.6 million acres of private land to be managed for public access. This program has worked remarkably well as a public-private partnership and tampering with it is not wise. The alternative funding provided by I-161 would be based on substantial fee increases for non-resident hunters, and there is no guarantee the new revenue source would be sufficient.

So, as far as we are concerned, a No vote is the correct vote on I-161.

But I-161 also provides a valuable lesson about the initiative process and voter responsibilities. The bill under consideration is more than seven pages long as printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet provided by the Montana Secretary of State. And it is not seven pages of plain language, but seven pages of complicated legalese, with numerous references to other parts of the Montana Code.

This points out one of the problems with the initiative process itself. We are asking citizens to take over the job of legislators, but we don’t give them any education or assistance to do so. This clearly is a complicated piece of legislation indeed, and yet we doubt most voters will bother to read it before voting yea or nay.

That’s too bad. It reminds us that not long ago citizens were up in arms because their senators were voting on a 2,000-page health bill without reading it. Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to the same high standard? Read the bill for yourself, and then vote.

(You can find the full text of the bill on the secretary of state’s website at http://sos.mt.gov/elections/archives/2010s/2010/initiatives/I-161.asp)