will this be the 4th time we've gone over this?
i believe that hunting purely for the sake of hunting, or adventure in other words, is a worthwhile use of time, not dependent on bringing home meat. i just differ from some that if there was no prospect of bringing meat home i wouldn't be heading...
why has western hunting become so gawddamn popular with easterner and midwesterners?
is it because you've continually found yourselves locked out of places to hunt? landowners controlling the rules of game you want to play? overrun small parcels of public with scarce game?
so you look west and...
i should clarify.
i'm not so much arguing the merits of eplus. i'm speaking in generalities.
i sense a belief in this thread that things like eplus are "the answer", "the future", "the way hunting should operate"; that transferable tags should be the norm.
maybe that's not a belief in this...
no simply highlighted in some detail what i disagree with, and that you can likely achieve the same end via different means that leaves more tags in a public draw, and your response was "nope"
so, if that's the kind of discourse you provide i'll just return it in kind. i don't even know what to...
it's not obviously yes. refer back to your "vague generalities." you can't just say something is better and have it be so.
in any event, trustees manage the trust.
depriving beneficiaries of opportunity by pricing them out, is not good or "beneficial" and would be mismanagement of the trust...
i'd personally trade away my rights to hunt bulls for good in exchange for a guaranteed top tier cow tag in 2-4 states every year in a heart beat. but that's a different topic.
so do we continue to trade away public/pool draw tags that start going for market price so that well to do non...
no, we've been through this already.
i just personally see little value in not hunting for meat. going on big expensive trips, whether cross country or cross borders, for hunting is certainly of value to me - meat brought back or not - but in many cases is not practical to do every year and...
several tags? last i checked my freezers weren't full after stuffing one cow and one deer in it. so, yeah, would hope to fill a few tags. you guys are exhausting. you knew that.
how much meat did you bring back from argentina?
sure, everyone is looking out for themselves.
as you and seeth are. you see personal benefit to these systems in obtaining tags.
my wife and i make pretty stellar money combined, i could obtain more of these tags than i'd like to admit if i switched things around in the budget.
but where's...
you missed my point then if you're surprised.
twisting the statistics any which way is irrelevant to most of us. khunter's statistics versus seeths - irrelevant to me, couldn't care less if you will. because one truth matters: these are privatized tags that generally go to the highest (richest)...
part of the problem here is for many of us, none of that matters, at all.
whatever truths or mistruths get thrown around are irrelevant because one thing is true: these are privatized, transferable tags generally going to folks with (a lot) more money than the average new mexican or even...
there's no denying that. and allowing the market value of wildlife to flourish would very likely be beneficial, but i imagine it would turn into diminishing, if not negative, returns faster than we think in america. the dollar is an insatiable monster.
foundationally a democracy is designed to...
the issue is we can't have access yes in colorado because landowners can instead do so much more financially with vouchers. something like access yes is a non starter because of that, dead on arrival so to speak.
montana... the issue is the demise of mule deer, not access. transferable...
i don't think transferable private tags fix montanas population declines in mule deer. seems neither here nor there, you might need to expand on that.
but we could talk about how LPP in colorado has all but fully eliminated any possibility of having successful large scale private access...
strong economies have nothing to do with hunting in the end. so it's the most moot argument of them all.
hot chicks and jobs man. that's all there is to it.
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.
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...
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...