tldr; The system is broken, time to try something different. Quibbling over the details while not changing some foundational problems gets us nowhere.
-----
This whole back and forth is pointless if we assume the status quo is the only way forward. Currently, they are WY's animals - no question about it. They can do whatever they want with them. They can give equal access to NRs, they can give NO access to NRs, they can exterminate big game to just above the ESA threshold, they can monetize the hell out of them with pricey tags, outfitter set-asides, governor tags, and One Shot events. Under this paradigm, arguing otherwise is pointless. The residents will understandably maximize their own utility from the asset they own - I don't begrudge them that - such is the nature of ownership. If they can make money with 20% NR tags they will. If they have happier citizens with 10% NR tags they will. Overlaying concepts like "greedy" doesn't really fit the conversation. As long as we accept that states should have full unmitigated rights to America's big game in the future (unlike America's waterfowl and large predators) then they will do what they will do.
I have suggested before that doing what's "right" within this framework might involve some different considerations, some that may even benefit WY and our public lands and wildlife in the long run, but have been roundly reminded that as a dirty NR my thoughts have no relevance. And as long as we accept the arbitrary continuation of the state's preeminent role then they are right.
However, like many members on this forum, I do not trust our 50 states to manage our public lands for the benefit of our people. I do not believe that the nation as a whole should write blank conservation checks to the states under the assumption they will manage these lands in the common interest. Most seem to agree with this as a core belief of public land advocates. In turn, I have learned over the years to not trust the 50 states to manage our public wildlife for the benefit of our people either. This is not so widely held, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
Nothing in the NAM or the law requires that the states continue to be the unquestioned sole unit of governance/ownership in the future. We have already taken prominent and important species away from them due to their failures to protect and preserve. Maybe it is time we do the same with the big game species. Big game are a public resource, but a public resource that might be best protected and funded at a national level - paid for by all the people, accessible to all the people. Why would this not be a core tenant of a modern NAM?
I'll tell you why, because most Americans don't care enough to upset the status quo, and there is a very vocal group of incumbents that benefit from it. Some tell us to go to hell, some tell us to eat cake, some tell us to enjoy our 10% and write the check, but they clearly are defending a system they sit on top of but don't fully fund. Most of the time in America, the "favored" interests prevail, but every once in a while the people say, "enough".
So while I know this will go nowhere, I for one advocate for more federal management of wildlife and believe that is entirely consistent with the NAM and DIY public lands hunting. I do not apologize for thinking this about our public lands, and I do not apologize for thinking this about our public big game. The power of 350 million Americans to protect and preserve our public lands and our public wildlife is greater than a half dozen self-interested states and their few hundred thousand vested beneficiaries that have convinced us to subsidize their special place in the food chain.
And it doesn't necessarily have to go as far as fully substituting the fed for the state. Maybe there are some more state/fed partnerships that could still allow a heavy local hand while expanding opportunities for many.
For example, one of the bigger failings of the current state by state model is not NR tag allocation or price, but the byzantine complexity of tag allocations across many states that create barriers to entry for the average NR citizen, and hugely benefits a minority of well-informed incumbents. Big game are a finite public resource and the status quo is allowing a small group to disproportionately hoard access. Fewer 10-12 tag hunters and more 1-2 tag hunters multiplies the number of vested public land/wildlife advocates five+ fold.
Instead, how about a model that leaves the day to day management of wildlife to the states with some federal oversight (local can be better if done well) including setting science-based population targets, but that we extend the PR tax to "backpacks/canoes/etc" and use those funds to pay the states for 15% of their tags for all species at a 50% premium over current NR pricing to create a national pool of tags. NRs could then apply with just modest administrative fees (like other park access).
The national draw would be fully random, on a single date (or rolling dates by species or region) and folks could choose modified state/unit preferences/1st choice/2nd choice/3rd choice just like now (it would be great to simply say my 1st choice is central WY and my 2nd is central Montana and my 3rd is northern NM). If you drew one year then you would sit out the next for 1st choice draw of that species (but could stay in for 2nd/3rd choice and for 1st choice on other species). No state "boondoggle rules" like outfitter requirements, etc. would be allowed to apply to the national pool tags. No PP Ponzi schemes. Fair, simple, transparent. More access for more citizens. More money to the states. More flexibility for NRs while allowing the state to maintain its carte blanche control on how to manage their resident system and 85% of the tags - landowner tags or not, PP Ponzi or not, etc., etc. whatever level of complexity those residents can stand.
A state could opt entirely out if they wished but then they would get no federal funding (PR or otherwise) for big game wildlife management [added: and their residents would not be eligible to draw in the national pool]. If they want 100% control instead of 85% control, they can pay the 100% bill - no free-riding in state or out of state.
For states that opt-in, some of that extra PR money could also go to buying (or enforcing) easement/access to landlocked federal lands for R and NR. If there is enough it could also help subsidize state WMA-style access programs (also benefiting R and NR). Maybe give landowners tax breaks or breaks on lease fees if they allow DIY hunting access in states that opt-in (thereby lessening pressure for landowner and outfitter tags). All kinds of possibilities arise when a broader nation has an interest in (and $$ to fund) new approaches.
None of this gets done if we leave it to the current state-alone model. And there is no doubt there would be little support from incumbents that are used to having 10 tags a year. But I think the current system is ripe for significant meltdown and loss of public mindshare in my son's lifetime. PETA is growing support far faster than RMEF or BHA. The pie is shrinking and DIY public land hunters are fighting amongst themselves, maybe it is time to start doing things a little different even if some of the vested incumbents don't get things 100% to their liking.
