Migration initiative on the ropes

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

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.

Amen to that.

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

Cute.

 

[Trial153]

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.

I don’t mind paying more. I never said i wasn’t willing to pay more. I said that I have no realistic opportunity.

My hope is the PLT if it happens leads to more opportunities via free market.
For example this year i am going elk hunting for the season with a tag i realistically wouldn’t ever obtain if it wasn’t for a free market opportunity.
I have friend going this year on his first moose hunt, after i convinced him that he is throwing good money after bad at licenses fees for an opportunity that most likely will never happen. A couple years of planing and reallocating money and his dream hunt it coming true.
Next year I will be hunting two animals in canada that I would most likely will never have an opportunity at in the lower 48 again, all because of the free market.
There is no limit to the amount of money i can earn, however there is a limit to the amount of time i have in life to experience the things i want to.

 

[El Jason]

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.

It is absolutely not semantical. If you can’t differentiate between ownership and trust-beneficiary then I can’t help you.

 

[Treeshark]

It is absolutely not semantical. If you can’t differentiate between ownership and trust-beneficiary then I can’t help you.

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.

 

[El Jason]

https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/files/fishwildlifemanagementonfederallands.pdf#page=111

When states have argued that their “ownership” of wildlife necessarily trumps that of the federal government, the Supreme Court called state ownership of wildlife a “19th-century legal fiction.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979). (See pp. 907-911).

You left out some important context.

 

[SAJ-99]

My hope is the PLT if it happens leads to more opportunities via free market

What is this “free market” that you envision?
In different types of “free markets” someone eventually tries to manipulate them to their advantage.

 

[Treeshark]

https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/files/fishwildlifemanagementonfederallands.pdf#page=111

You left out some important context.

I appreciated reading the two opinion pieces you posted, but we are indeed just quibbling over semantics at this point.

 

[El Jason]

I appreciated reading the two opinion pieces you posted, but we are indeed just quibbling over semantics at this point.

You are simply being obtuse at this point.

 

[TOGIE]

@Treeshark do you also advocate for the gutting of federal funding for everything else that occurs in a state? urban and especially rural healthcare, higher education, infrastructure, water projects, social support?

the imbalance and so called subsidies exist in all of these other arenas just like with federal public lands and wildlife. so why stop there? states should pick up the tab at nearly every turn, no? is this not the proper end to your logic? or is this only a problem for you with wildlife and things that benefit wildlife?

 

[Treeshark]

is this not the proper end to your logic?

To whatever degree a states’s resources allow, yes of course.

Again, I am not challenging the notion of federal support in a vacuum here. I am pointing out and analyzing the imbalance in the relationship between the exploitation of resources by states vs the funding provided by the federal government.

 

[El Jason]

I am pointing out the imbalance in the relationship between the exploitation of resources by states vs the funding provided by the federal government.

I think you are grossly over estimating the research funding provided

 

[Treeshark]

I think you are grossly over estimating the research funding provided

Perhaps, not sure. But your post is a great redirect to the original intent of this thread, which did make it seem like the research funding was substantial/important.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Perhaps, not sure. But your post is a great redirect to the original intent of this thread, which did make it seem like the research funding was substantial/important.

Its whats called a good investment. A small (relative) amount that yields a good return.

 

[Treeshark]

Its whats called a good investment. A small (relative) amount that yields a good return.

For sure, I agree. I am hopeful the states will be able to step to the plate to provide the funding needed for these valuable initiatives to continue.

 

[SaskHunter]

Non-Resident Tag Allocation Increase

This has "there's not enough money, print more money" vibes.

The landscape and wildlife can only support a finite number of hunters.

Delenda Carthago est

 

[Treeshark]

This has "there's not enough money, print more money" vibes.

The landscape and wildlife can only support a finite number of hunters.

True, but you can manage that with simple math right?

90+10=100
75+25=100

More money for states to use towards wildlife management for the same amount of hunters.

 

[Forkyfinder]

For sure, I agree. I am hopeful the states will be able to step to the plate to provide the funding needed for these valuable initiatives to continue.

Ive got an idea.

Lets just delete any and all NR permits for elk, and auction them off.

Free market, right?

 

[Treeshark]

I’ve created a monster

 

[SaskHunter]

True, but you can manage that with simple math right?

90+10=100
75+25=100

So what you're saying is more NR tags to the detriment of Rs. Why not write that from the get go?

 

[Treeshark]

So what you're saying is more NR tags to the detriment of Rs. Why not write that from the get go?

Just a simple math observation. The financial solutions are best left up to the individual states, I can’t control what they decide is best for their own residents.