My annual Montana hunting-fishing expedition is always full of discovery.
This year, the education tended to be a series of blunt reminders to the lessons I’d learned in the first 25 years of my life as a Montana resident.
First, Montanans don’t really like out-of-staters, but they love their money.
On Tuesday, Montana voters approved Initiative 161, which will abolish guaranteed hunting licenses and jack up fees for out-of-state clients of professional outfitters.
About 7,800 outfitter-sponsored big-game licenses will be replaced by an equal number of nonresident licenses available through public drawings.
At first that sounds good to the average nonresident unguided hunter, except that the already hefty fees on nonresident licenses will increase by roughly half.
The initiative calls for increasing fees from $628 to $897 for a nonresident big-game license and from $328 to $527 for a nonresident deer license.
The root of this issue isn’t whether Montanans like or dislike Minnesotans and Washingtonians. In talking with resident hunters, it’s clear that they’ve been upset by the growing amount of private farm and ranch land being leased and locked up by outfitters.
Locals like to see farmers and ranchers compensated for their stewardship to valuable game animals, but they’re concerned about the commercialization of public wildlife.
That’s a narrow line to walk.
Some outfitters in Montana charge clients more than $10,000 for the promise of shooting a trophy elk on private land.
It’s easy to see why ranchers aren’t impressed by the average local hunter bearing a box of apples and a bottle of whiskey in gratitude for land access.
But it remains to be seen whether the new system hurts Montana’s small businesses.
My wife reads my column, so I’m chary to report how many hundreds of dollars I spent in Montana two weeks ago beyond the hundreds I’d already spent on hunting and fishing license fees.
And I’m just one of thousands of nonresident hunters trickling out cash in big and small towns alike.
Higher fees and lack of a guaranteed hunt will discourage some out-of-state hunters from traveling to Montana. I can’t say how many, but I can say that Idaho outpriced the market a few years ago and hasn’t been able to sell its allotment of formerly coveted nonresident elk
tags.
Also to be seen is how Initiative 161 will impact the state’s wildly successful Block Management Area Program, which pays landowners to allow public hunting on vast areas of private land.
Most of the BMA funding came from the high fees on those 7,800 outfitter-sponsored licenses the voters just eliminated.
Land of plenty, usually: The wealth of wildlife resources Montana stewards is as fragile as the state’s economy.
Wet spring weather has dramatically reduced the pheasant population in Central Montana the past two years, and an outbreak of epizootic hemorrhagic disease decimated the once flourishing antelope herds.
If something unforeseen tanks the state’s prized elk herds, an even higher percentage of nonresidents will look elsewhere.
It’s easier to justify getting fleeced when you can fill your tag.
None of the downsides will prevent me from returning to Montana to hunt and fish again, as long as I can afford it.
