In fairness, nothing is really "free market" anymore. Everything is subsidized, taxed, tariffed, regulated, etc.
I don't know Eric, but I'd assume his support for the government picking winners and losers (in this case making sure his business is a winner) is not extended fairly across the market landscape. He probably only supports it when it positively affects him or things he supports. It's hypocritical sure, but the idea of self preservation he is essentially supporting isn't completely outside of our understanding and we can all probably empathize if applied to something similar in our own lives. The problem here is in this specific case it affects a public resource and the public's access/opportunity to it, there is a slippery slope argument for many of these bills. It's not like the government subsidizing wind power and the vast majority of us just kinda go along without really being affected. These bills will have real impacts to a public resource that will be felt by the public...especially the ones who aren't wealthy.
That doesn't make him right...these bills are dog shit and he knows it. He just has his outfitter hat on so it makes him bias. If he was a run of the mill "DIY hunter" like the majority of the hunting public, he'd be upset about these bills too. He previously claimed he'd follow the economics in that example, but we all know that's horseshit too. No hunter out there (guided or unguided) buys a tag, fills gas, buys groceries, pays a taxidermist, buys hunting equipment, and gives so much in terms of time, effort, and personal resources to pursue their hunting passion on annual basis all for the benefit of the state's economic well-being. Nor do they defer their opportunity to a state's economic well-being. It's a ridiculous notion to presume anyone does because no one does. Seriously, find one person who hunts or guides who can honestly say,"I don't actually like doing this, I just do it because it's good for the economy" or "I'm okay with less opportunity so someone else and the state can make more money off my publicly owned resource." .............................................No One.
We do it because we like hunting and those things are required for us to go and participate. When it comes to hunting economics we only go out of our way to support things that we perceive to directly and positively impact the resource so us and future generations can keep enjoying it.
That's what especially troubling about this 4 out of 7 bill. They are literally ensuring that the majority of the decision makers will be making decisions based off economics and private interests. Same with 143 and 505...its a decision based off economics and private interests. Not science, not the greatest good for the greatest number, not the public (since it's our wildlife), not the landscape....its all based on money....who gets it and who doesnt. DIY Sportsmen lose. None of this is saying that landowners farmers/ranchers shouldn't be involved. They most certainly should have a seat at the table.
Personally, I am of the opinion that a healthy population of people DIY hunting is good for society. It's good for us to be in touch with the natural world, to see wildlife, the whole god damn bucket full of stuff that comes with being outside in the wilderness and putting meat in the freezer that you packed out yourself...it's good for the human spirit. None of that stuff takes dollars and cents into consideration. So it only makes sense that when we base decisions purely off dollars and cents...it doesn't generally turn out well.....that is unless you stand to benefit monetarily. See how that works?
missoulian.com
