http://helenair.com/news/local/disc...cle_f082c4b2-8850-5974-8405-b9e874853548.html
Groups like Defenders already have a say in how things are managed. They didn't act in good faith with the wolf issue IMO. I don't think giving them an additional financial lever is an especially good idea. What you say?
I completely agree. They want to have a say, but they don't want to pay any of the freight. I'll try to remain calm while writing this.
I listen/read about the wolf stamp idea. If they want to help fund wolf management, they can go buy all kinds of wolf tags and throw them in the trash. That money will help with wolf management. When presented with that option, they state they will not fund in that manner if it involves killing wolves.
So, are they serious about wolf management or do they just want to tell us how it should be?
I look at most the folks at that table who claim to represent other "users" and most their membership is from out of state. I really have no use for someone in DC, NYC, LA, or XYZ having a seat at the table via their little store front office down on Main Street in Bozeman. They don't represent main stream Montana any more than does the Association of New Jersey Left-handed Club-foot Poodle Owners.
Hunters better wake up and see where this is going. Our bitching and moaning about increasing resident fees, even to something far below historic inflation rates, is providing this crack in the door where other groups see a starved agency needing to expand their funding. Even with the recent fee increase passed by the legislature, which as a very small amount, residents in Montana enjoy embarrassing low fees for hunting and fishing. And it is going to have consequences.
It comes down to this - Are we gonna pony up and keep our seats at the table, or are going to buy new trucks, beer, etc and let the other groups buy our seats for pennies on the dollar?
For me, the entire premise that other groups should be allowed a seat at the tables in some sort of equivalent number of fashion is bullchit. Should the interests of all citizens be represented? Yes. But not by a bunch of paid professional litigators who care nothing about fishing, hunting, habitat, and the model that got us here. I would give them one seat, a non-voting seat, until such time they decide to start paying their way.
These groups had their chance in 2000 when the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) was in Congress. It would have imposed a very small tax on recreation equipment and built a model similar to the Pittman-Robertson for hunting/shooting and Dingell-Johnson used for fishing.
What happened to CARA?
When it got to committees, the outdoor recreation industry killed it. They and their lobbyists were on Congress like a rat on a Cheeto. Those of us fighting to get it passed got steam rolled. I'm still pissed about it and what a parasitic mindset it represents. Given the way hunters whine about resident fee increases these days, I worry that if P-R was introduced into Congress now, rather than in 1937, it would suffer a similar fate. I hope not.
After them killing CARA, the can go blow smoke up some other kilt when it comes to wanting to participate in funding. I ain't buying their sales pitch that they want to be part of the solution. They have no interest in contributing to the solution. They want to call the tune and have some one else pay the fiddler. They can pound that in their ear, as far as I'm concerned. As can any resident who bitches about their fees and is willing to let our seats be sold to these groups for nothing more than promises and threats.
I'll leave the soap box now.
