What you are missing with this argument is there is likely a larger number of those non-hunters that would be against this program maybe the residents of new mexico should point out this fact to the non hunters that larger land owners are selling kill permits for a state owned resource to the highest bidder that likely gets killed on public land not on the ranch that the tag was issued to and see what happens?
New Mexico Privatization. Nuthin like it
- Thread starter abqbw
- Start date
That is something that is already happening and can be seen by local news coverage of the issue. However, as effective as I know that the would be I don’t think that is the most beneficial way for all. In a state that’s already lost trapping based on the public outcry after a single dog was caught off leash by a foothold along with items related to coyote hunting. I only see setting the precedent of getting the non hunting or ranching public involved as more long term harm than good. As we just saw in Colorado with the wolf vote or predator talks.
Nm is a poor state. There is extreme anti wealth sentiment especially in abq that would love to get on board with keeping wealth from exploiting the state. And that exactly how it would be framed.
The landowner in the areas with the elk is a minority although loud and well lobbied
NR nonhunter:
“A program that brings significant financial upside to all residents of our poor state? And provides significant upside to the resource with literally no downside to me? No thank you sir… we are way better off without that, thank you very much!”
I don’t know man, that seems kind of silly to me. Who knows, not my circus and not my monkeys. I just know a good program when I see it
the NM resident or non resident non hunter just isn't the sleeping giant you make them out to be.
you and seeth should just be honest that you two like the idea of privatization because it benefits you two directly and the number within the womb of time be damned.
no need to beat around the bush.
I don’t think I’ve hid this- I certainly haven’t tried to. That doesn’t mean that these programs can’t also benefit the state they are in- both things can be true.
If nothing else, I have been honest about my viewpoint (knowing full well but trying to be respectful of the fact that goes over poorly on this forum).
The landscape for NR western big game hunting has undergone a seismic shift in the past few years, and it’s just getting warmed up.
You keep saying significant financial benefit and I’d like to see your numbers on that. I’d like to know how many of these tags are cash deals not reported or paid taxes on.NR nonhunter:
“A program that brings significant financial upside to all residents of our poor state? And provides significant upside to the resource with literally no downside to me? No thank you sir… we are way better off without that, thank you very much!”
I don’t know man, that seems kind of silly to me. Who knows, not my circus and not my monkeys. I just know a good program when I see it
Look at the jimmy John hunt and how that went and the outcry from all sides. That’s how they’d from this when getting the public involved. Or AZ getting rid of auction tags. It’s about the haves and have nots. And with this program there’s a lot more have nots
How many of those non hunters would like to see hunting gone? Which looks worse and could convinced the general public to limit one? rich landowners selling tags to rich hunters or average resident hunters just wanting a tag to put some food on there table.
It doesn't do crap for the state economy all the ones making money of this scheme are all ready rich.
With arizona eliminating the auction tags hopefully the momentum keeps shifting away from these programs to give the wealthy hunter a upper hand.
No problem.
Once you provide your polling data on “extreme anti-wealth sentiment in ABQ,” I will be happy to send that right on over
i'm just saying, there's a lot of ways to skin the cat when it comes down to what "brings a ton of money to the state economy" and what "greatly benefits the resource"
it's just a guise used to justify further privatization for the benefit of the self (or wealthy few) IMO and is therefore a bad argument when there are many means to those ends.
Now you’re starting to pick up what I’m putting down, my man… when states hide behind the Public Trust Doctrine to shut out NRs for their own benefit, this is the risk they run.
trickle down economics? I mean that’s been working so great for decades
I’d guess you’re completely right that most of the money never sees the light of day on a tax form or anyone but a landowner or outfitters pocket book
I agree, there are many. But can you name one that is more effective?
i think you first have to prove a more privatized model does indeed work better than the models that have been employed for the last 75 years or so.
and it's a subjective question in the end - looking past things like habitats, populations, and economies, the wealthy would say one thing about the model while the average and subaverage joes would say another thing, and they'd both be right, because they wanna see it benefit them as well - skewing the models so only one side of the teeter totter benefits would be a failure IMO.
Yeah… I can’t think of a better one either
no i'm serious. you employ open ended vague generalities way too often.
you have to prove to me privatization works better than what's been done for a century now.
Any other western state?
But you brought up Nebraska and you’re right. Maybe nm should be like them and not allow nonresident elk hunting. Their economy seems to be doing significantly better than ours even with all your financial benefits
1. No I don’t.
2. See Montana for counter-example. Total dumpster fire. So much so that a working group on this very website has emerged to fix what E-Plus does a great job of addressing.
