Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,202
To be clear. I am just as disappointed as you both. Theres almost no way for me to hunt where i grew up hunting, antelope especially.
Migration initiative on the ropes
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
To circle back to the original intent of the thread @BuzzH started, I think it is speaks to an important issue that some states are going to have to wrestle with more as time moves on, at least for the next few years.
Many of these programs provide critical support that we would all be far worse off without. What mechanisms do states have at their disposal to help manage their own wildlife in the absence (or reduction) of federal money?
Many of these programs provide critical support that we would all be far worse off without. What mechanisms do states have at their disposal to help manage their own wildlife in the absence (or reduction) of federal money?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,202
You going to answer my question? Tell me how we make it fair.
Laszlo Cravensworth
Well-known member
Very few mechanisms exist. Most states receive a smaller percentage of their wildlife management dollars from the state general fund, and some states even prohibit that.
The majority of license dollars goes to game management, and federal grant funds support research and non game biology for the most part.
If we just want deer and elk managed at the base level in regard to hunting then license dollars can likely limp that along. But if we're interested in things beyond what we can shoot a hole in it's going to be a very tough go without federal funds.
Non game biology and research like the migration initiative don't just get blank checks either. The vast majority of these projects went through competitive grant programs at the NSF, USFWS, or USDA.
I can think of several levers states can pull.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It isn't about "fairness". Life isn't fair and where that line is is different for every person. It isn't about equality either. Montana is a prime example of the problem. You want nice things - Blue ribbon trout streams, Block management, accessible public land, etc.- but the people of the state can't or don't want to pay for it. I think you would agree that Montana has become overly reliant on NR money. Unfortunately nothing was done to fix that in the last legislative session. Everyone just fights for their piece of the pie, which is crumbs at this point, and asks the NR to pay more, further contributing to the over-reliance. Then they get to come on social media and complain about all the NRs on the streams, in the woods, or even just trying to enjoy the scenery.
Regarding public land, this same picture is played out in most Western states to varying degrees. Large urban areas pay more in federal taxes which fund the budgets of these agencies. These cuts are not going to help. And for what? A couple of dollars in the average workers paycheck? It's incredibly selfish IMO (not directed at you specifically, just in general).
I’m not sure that’s the goal, at least not in terms of parity of opportunity. If it is, it’s not likely to ever be achieved.
As long as state are able to support themselves financially, it’s entirely their prerogative how they allocate opportunity. If they aren’t, they have some issues to resolve (see original subject of the thread).
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,202
Whats your goal? Im not seeing the value of what you perceive as a problem without a proposed solution.
Right now, there is an imbalance of exploitation of wildlife resources (state-heavy) and funding obligations (heavily reliant on federal funds). If we value the Public Trust Doctrine as it relates to wildlife as a resource held in trust for state residents, we should be celebrating opportunities to give states more autonomy in funding said wildlife management.
The solution to the imbalance problem I’ve outlined is for states to take greater ownership over the financial burden of managing their own wildlife.
This enables states to have greater autonomy and protects the sanctity of state ownership of the resource.
Laszlo Cravensworth
Well-known member
Let's hear it Mr. Cryptic
El Jason
Well-known member
You really should stop using this misnomer.
Just a few off the top of my head:
State Income Tax Increase
Resident Tag Fee Increase
Non-Resident Tag Fee Increase
Non-Resident Tag Allocation Increase
Auction Tags
Raffle Tags
Taxable/Fee Increase for Landowner Tags
Why do you feel it’s a misnomer?
I whipped that horse on here enough that i would have been disqualified from the race long ago.
I never asked for fairness or equality. I have however pointed out that almost with out exception the direction of western states in regards to tag allocations vs funding always trends to less NR opportunity’s at increased cost.
In the case of federal funding for this example as well as funding management of federal public lands in general, making the argument that all hunters should line up support it regardless of opportunity for use ( spare me the you can use it for bird watching and flower viewing comments ) is naïve at best, disingenuous is more realistic.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint as someone that wants to hunt and sees dwindling opportunities on the western landscape, what really do i loose if the public land deck gets reshuffled?
El Jason
Well-known member
While I don’t completely agree with everything, I feel this is a very fair synopsis.
You can only break it off in someone’s rear so many times before altruism is compromised. For a lot of folks, altruism was in short supply to begin with.
El Jason
Well-known member
Because it isn’t true.
I’m not sure I understand your point, but I would be happy to learn more about it if you have some time to explain.
El Jason
Well-known member
My point is it is not true. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
Because it isn’t true.
Thank you for posting, that was informative but I’m not sure it cleared anything up:
“Most states use trust or trust-like language in proclaiming their “sovereign ownership” of wildlife, meaning that wildlife must be managed in the public interest for state citizens.”
It seems that we are arguing over semantics, which rarely leads to the promised land for either side.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,202
Apologies in advance if this souds like birdwatching or wildflower smelling - but public lands a lot more than hunting to me.
Ive backpacked probably 100 miles and stayed overnight an amount i couldnt predict. I asked my wife to marry me on public land. My best childhood memories were spent on public land with my family. Ive often said if i no longer had the heart to kill elk, i would watch them rut and enjoy them regardless. There are viewing areas (with no hunting) that get an immense amount of traffic and interest just from that. Thats a lot to lose - even if i dont live here.
Decreased opportunity and increased cost isn't expressly the residents fault and many arent looking expressly to screw the NR. Wildlife are facing development preassure, increased interest from the average person, and increased interest from the wealthy who typically want exclusive access to their own or other land. Im not sure some of those things are worth focusing on - they are well outside our control and are side effects of an increased population, with increased access (in terms of ease to do it and understand it), and increased media.
One things for sure - PLT is only a silver bullet at killing everyones opportunity. To take a position that you dont care, because you pay 25x more to hunt than someone else just sounds selfish - even if its coming from a place of your own frustration and disappointment.
Research for wildlife benefits everyone - i guess im not sure im capable of being convinced on that.
Similar threads
