BuzzH
Well-known member
Just keep in the back of your mind that you're not a real hunter or conservationist if you "shoot a cow out of a field"...just ask rjthe"hunter".
Devaluing Non-Residents
- Thread starter rjthehunter
- Start date
- Status
perma
Well-known member
I had four WY NR tags last year. I was suffering.
BuzzH
Well-known member
By rj's theory, my friends shouldn't have been able to find a tag here...read his OP:
Why should I donate to a corner crossing cause when WY and the residents want to keep all the tags for themselves?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Shoulder sore from recoil, or your back from packing dead animals?
perma
Well-known member
Yeah
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Liver from the fireside libations?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,075
@BuzzH I guess I don't see any value on picking on anyone for their lack of harvest... Lots of people learning about where they hunt, how to hunt, etc.
Is there something useful you want to comment? Or just troll @rjthehunter for the HT likes?
Is there something useful you want to comment? Or just troll @rjthehunter for the HT likes?
Finally a sig worthy comment.
Fair enough, but we get the point lol.
It doesn't come across as principled to not help out on that issue at all if it won't mean more opportunities to shoot something. I would have donated my $20 to the GoFundMe if it was in Rhode Island or somewhere else I never planned on going solely because I felt it was a right/wrong issue. Some things are just bigger than hunting I suppose.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Equity or share are good synonyms. It's important to note the trust is a statewide resource. Localized economic benefits (there's that word again) in Scobey that we may consider, should not be to the detriment of a guy sitting at home in Sula. Like I said, this absolutely is very complicated, as a case could be made that economic benefits to the Dead Horse Bar will ultimately make their way across the state. I guess something I struggle with is that entertaining second and third order effects really allows for a lot of claims and favoritism - justified or not.
This isn't directed at you, Ben, and I'm just thinking of it now so forgive me.
An analogy.
I’m a part of a geographically based trustee/beneficiary relationship – that being our local VFD. Per the MCA, for the protection of the district and its citizens.
Imagine a man owns business X in our district. That business employs a ton of locals, some of which are VFD members, and in turn, generates a lot of cheese for the tax rolls – a good portion of which goes to the VFD for better equipment and gear, ultimately bettering the protection of the district.
Now, that man also owns a business 2 districts over, and that business is on fire. If that business 2 districts over burns down, he’ll be ruined – his business X in our district will shutter its doors, and we will lose firefighters and revenue – a big net loss for the mandate of our existence.
But at the exact same moment, a trailer in the local trailer park has ignited. It belongs to your average local. The owner cuts wood for a living, is not a member of the VFD, and barely pays taxes. We can put one of these two incidents out, but not both at the same time.
A very logically sound case could be made that we should load up and head 50 miles down the road and let that actual citizen of the district’s trailer burn to the ground. We're talking about decisions that benefit the whole district down the line, and it’s just about the bigger picture.
But that would be wrong, and dereliction of duty to the citizens of the geography we do what do for. Somewhat analogously, sometimes I feel like folks in the world of wildlife are arguing that we oughta head down the road and allow that guy's to trailer turn to ash. He just doesn't do enough economically on the side.
.
A lot of truth in that statement.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, that anyone complaining about no opportunities for NR hunting in Wyoming is a no-hunting tool with an ax to grind. He's not hunting here because he flat doesn't want to, has ZERO to do with tag availability.
Just coming up short on a hunt happens, you've missed the point.
Complaining that WY residents are not affording NR's mountains of opportunity is wrong headed and an outright lie.
Guys like rjthe"hunter" complaining because NR's have no opportunity here and that residents keep all the tags for themselves, is ridiculous.
It's also why I think the meateater article is falling flat for me, they're complaining about the cost of a special fee for limited buck and bull tags, while ignoring the mountains of opportunity that exists here and has stayed flat or increased very little in cost for a long time. That includes the regular NR full priced fees, the reduced priced tags as well as NR youth fees.
Last edited:
No worries @Nameless Range - it's wildly complicated and becomes moreso when we start to really think about it. Right?
There is no simple solution. Which why folks have to approach the conversation with empathy for the other stakeholders otherwise we end up where we've been for the last 40 years: At war.
There is no simple solution. Which why folks have to approach the conversation with empathy for the other stakeholders otherwise we end up where we've been for the last 40 years: At war.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,075
I think his complaint is that it is increasingly challenging to get a desirable tag for an affordable price as NR. He's not wrong, especially when history is used as the datum.
I may have missed where he said his lack of opportunity was related to harvest.
I also imagine you'd feel a lot different if you'd have invested years and dollars into something to have your opportunities cut dramatically by the legislature. I haven't (only hunted as resident in WY and MT), but it's not hard to see how things are becoming less desirable as a NR.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Google would remind one that the constitution trumps statute.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,641
If a guy wants to sleep on the railroad tracks, don't blame the conductor when he lays on the whistle.
seeth07
Well-known member
I think part of the point that the article was trying to make is that its not that there won't be 10 guys behind the person not willing to fork over the cash to play. It's about losing advocacy for the resource through the support that hunters provide nationwide. Less people applying, less advocacy. In my opinion, this topic has nothing to do with the cash flow into game and fish agencies. They will get their money, it just might be coming from less sources and also from less likely sources that support DIY public land types. I'm purely speculating here but in say Montana or Wyoming, isn't a lot of resident hunters the DIY, public land types? So while you may see less NR at your local honey hole chasing elk as a result, the hunter that now took that tag is sitting in a fancy lodge smoking cigars after his lobster dinner talking to his ranch landowner buddy how they can get a higher outfitter allocation using their pocket books to influence politics. Cause remember, that's the cash cow now since NR license and PP purchases aren't doing it anymore.
The ebb & flow of the allocation to NR's isn't going to change, and while I'm in agreement that the flow of NR opportunity has over-reached in many states, the drastic over-reaction is what is going to cause a massive issue in terms of splitting a powerful, if small, group of stakeholders.
And that is 100% about the resource first. Non-residents are a massive subsidy to resident hunters. To think that doesn't benefit the public trust in multiple ways ignores reality, just as the push tp punish NR's bears little reality in terms of being something that is feasable in most western states.*
*UT, CO, NM, WA, OR, CA excluded. No offer if void where prohibited.
All I got was some damned lamp tool. The Jensen Toll S3339 Lamp Tool.
But just as appropriately, the USA Outfitters Case would have been what I cited.
- Status
