Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,331
My observation is that we are NR in 49 states and we choose which 49.
Big bucks for big bucks.
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
Transferable tags are an incentive because they can be converted to cash. I'm certainly not opposed to paying producers for solutions, but not with transferable tags. It's called principles, not stubbornness.
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
With regards to the article, if you can't make money raising sheep, maybe switch to cattle or something else, besides selling the public wildlife.
Nice try, but I said that I don't support the privatization of wildlife through programs that provide landowners with transferable big game tags. The important omissions from your statement are underlined.I admire your principled stance on not using big game tags as a financial tool.
Unrelated, but do you have any details on the next RMBS tag raffle? I am interested
Auction and raffle licenses are another important discussion, which we've had here numerous times. I can take them or leave them, and I don't think they are all created equally. In Colorado, I know that all of the money raised for CPW goes back on the ground, because I've sat on the project advisory committee for the last 15 years. And every 5 years I provide a summary to the State of how we have spent our portion of the tag revenue. If auction and raffle tags went away, we would continue to fund projects with revenue generated in other ways.
Exactly the point I made earlier. You support the kind that benefits you and oppose the ones that don’t. You can add whatever qualifier you want- both mechanisms take a tag from the public, allocate it to a specific entity, which in turn uses said tag for financial gain.
That is a totally normal human emotion, but let’s not pretend it’s something other than that.
Last edited:
Here in NV there are landowner tags and they go for lots of $$$. The problem I have with them is that they are valid for the entire unit where the landowners' property is located, not just the private property.
They should be limited to ONLY that particular property.
They should be limited to ONLY that particular property.
seeth07
Well-known member
Yes but in this case there could develop a conflicting principle. On one hand, you have the principle that sheep belong on the mountain. On the other hand, you don't want wildlife to be hunted under means of the authorization being sold at market price.
What if what you are currently doing and the methods to achieve the first isn't enough? We aren't getting many more of those sheep on the mountains in the last few decades are we?
If I offered you removal of every single domestic sheep from every possible acre of private land that is currently threatening sheep and in exchange all you had to do was grant authority for a single, one time landowner tag, your decision about what to do would tarnish one of your principles while keeping the other in tact.
BuzzH
Well-known member
This bill isn't going anywhere but in the dust bin.
You're welcome, in advance.
My only other comment is that these poor down-trodden landowners have at minimum 3 ways to profit just as much from hunting my public widlife.
1. Lease to an outfitter or individual.
2. Charge day rates and or enroll in the HMA program.
3. Outfit your own property, you don't even need an outfitters license.
Stop being a lazy, dead beat victim, you can profit from my public wildlife without transferable tags.
You're welcome, in advance.
My only other comment is that these poor down-trodden landowners have at minimum 3 ways to profit just as much from hunting my public widlife.
1. Lease to an outfitter or individual.
2. Charge day rates and or enroll in the HMA program.
3. Outfit your own property, you don't even need an outfitters license.
Stop being a lazy, dead beat victim, you can profit from my public wildlife without transferable tags.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,331
Why arent there transferable tags in Wi?
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,620
Without using the money for the poor landowners who might lose it all, make a case for passing this. I don't think it's possible.
Depending on what pool they are drawn from, they provide an economic benefit to the residents of Wyoming.
In addition, they benefit the wildlife through increased landowner tolerance and incentive to improve habitat.
seeth07
Well-known member
There are. Want some? I got a bunch of WT tags I can give you - for free.
I believe this is the part you edited? I don't remember what you said earlier, but is the bolded part what you took away from what I said? If it benefits me, good, if not, bad? You sound like you're just trying to stir it.
Everything has a scale, and most of the pages-long arguments that happen on this website are based upon where individuals draw their own line on the scale. My line on this issue is that we don't give the public wildlife resource to a private entity for private profit. Your line might be that we sell all of the public wildlife resource to the highest bidder and use that money to fund conservation. We will each advocate for our own position and we will both abide by what those in power decide. I don't see the point in arguing about line positions on HT, but clearly there a lot of people who do.
You are trying to pinpoint exactly where my line is on the scale by presenting wildly fantastical hypotheticals, while I'm saying that I don't support the privatization of wildlife through programs like that which is proposed in this bill. I don't support the CO LPP, or the CO RFW program, or the CO BSAP program, or the NM EPlus program, or the UT conservation permit program either. You bring me a real scenario that benefits wild sheep and we will both find out where my line is located. Nothing is black and white like you and Treeshark want to make it, but I have yet to see a private transferable tag program in which the juice is worth the squeeze.
That is part of the point I was trying to make earlier, I agree.
I have gone on a safari regarding my own thoughts on this issue. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of these issues are indeed NOT black and white- our own position plays a part in our individual lines we draw, although it’s uncomfortable to admit that at times.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,331
Have to be a resident, right?
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,620
Top one is using the selling incentive.
Bottom one is a pipedream.
Forgive me, but I’m not sure what you mean by this?
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,620
Economic benefit...if you mean that people are gonna spend their money in Wyoming cause they bought a tag there. I just don't see it on a scale big enough to make a difference.
Got it, thanks
I get not acknowledging a benefit because the scale is seemingly too insignificant.
Are you equally willing to overlook a perceived inequity if it the scale is equally insignificant, or is that your line?
Similar threads
