Migration initiative on the ropes

[Irrelevant]

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.

But ask yourself if your love and affection for public lands, outside of hunting, are associated with their proximity, and if you couldn't access them on the weekend- say you lived in Arkansas, and only came out west for a week a year to enjoy your public lands with a tag in your pocket, why that person might not value your (westerner) ability to enjoy the full portfolio of public land uses. I share you feelings on the matter, but I find the more I evaluate my position, the less I can support the entitlement I'm granted by living where I do. Unfortunately what Treeshark and Trial are proposing would trade the equality of NR opportunities for the affluence of NR opportunities. Trial may have "unlimited" income potential, because he's a very smart capable human, but not everyone who enjoys hunting checks those boxes. And the US hunting experiment is based on the equality of the masses, not free-market, which is much more in line with the rest of the world.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Only came out west for a week a year to enjoy your public lands with a tag in your pocket, why that person might not value your (westerner) ability to enjoy the full portfolio of public land uses.

I cant stop anyone from enjoying public land recreation thats not hunting. But i pity the person whos only been on public land with a tag in their pocket. Theyve missed out.

 

[rogerthat]

The selfishness in hunting really is an ugly thing. This thread proves it. Public lands and the wildness they provide are the most valuable thing this country has. If you can’t see this, you need to reassess why you even hunt the west. You can go hunt any state any species right now in the west with a camera because of the public lands. No permission needed. I support any federal funding that benefits public lands and wildlife that use them. No deeper thought on the topic is needed if you drop the selfishness. We live in the “United States” although lately you couldn’t tell that.

 

[El Jason]

The selfishness in hunting really is an ugly thing.

In fairness, the selfishness is a two way street IMHO.

Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

The Wyoming NR tag thread seems like it's running the ragged edge of ending up a mud slinging match in the pig pen, so I'm starting a new thread, albeit a long one. A few caveats: 1) If you want to debate the particulars of the Wyoming legislation, go to that thread 2) You can be nice while...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

The selfishness in hunting really is an ugly thing. This thread proves it. Public lands and the wildness they provide are the most valuable thing this country has. If you can’t see this, you need to reassess why you even hunt the west. You can go hunt any state any species right now in the west with a camera because of the public lands. No permission needed. I support any federal funding that benefits public lands and wildlife that use them. No deeper thought on the topic is needed if you drop the selfishness. We live in the “United States” although lately you couldn’t tell that.

And more to the original point of the thread, which isn't about tag allocation or public land access, there is what I feel is a callous disconnect in our community around any animal or landscape that you can't shoot a bullet through or rip a hook into, or even hike through. The migration initiative isn't about hunting. It parallels nicely, but there is a lot more to wildlife science and conservation than what can be associated with hunting.

There is very little economic incentive around research on small rodents, conifer seed bugs, or salamanders but that doesn't make them worthless. Contributing to the body of knowledge that is science shouldn't be perceived exclusively through an economic lens.

 

[rogerthat]

In fairness, the selfishness is a double edged sword to a certain degree IMHO.

Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

The Wyoming NR tag thread seems like it's running the ragged edge of ending up a mud slinging match in the pig pen, so I'm starting a new thread, albeit a long one. A few caveats: 1) If you want to debate the particulars of the Wyoming legislation, go to that thread 2) You can be nice while...

www.hunttalk.com

Good point. I agree

 

[SaskHunter]

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.

This isn't a mathematical observation you've made. This was one of your suggestions: more NR tags.

Anyway, it's pretty gross how some individuals look at wildlife's value in terms of $ and not what it represents as a whole. We're stretching the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation" pretty thin and pushing the limits of its pillars.

 

[PoleX]

I try to stay out of these topics anymore because I've realized there's a lot people on this forum that know a lot more about these topics than me but I have a thought/question maybe some of you could shed some light on. I moved out west in 08 right out of HS. I hadn't spent a lot of time out west growing up but read and watched enough stuff to know I needed to see what it was all about. I've picked up all kinds of hobbies, fly fishing, mtn biking, mountaineering, skiing, hunting, etc. etc. I'm definitely a heavy consumer of our public lands. Even in my short time out west it's changed A LOT. Seems like its getting discovered at an exponential rate and there is obviously a limited carrying capacity. Can't imagine the change some of the old timers have seen.

I worked in the outdoor industry for most of my career and became aware of the Pitman Robinson Act. I'm not sure if you recall but a while back REI dropped Vista outdoor products due to them holding Savage arms in their portfolio because the product line had AR's in it. Vista sold off Savage and REI took their product lines back.

I remember thinking it was pretty hypocritical of REI at the time because I felt the Pitman Robinson act was putting all of the financial burden on the hunting/shooting industry but all the other recreational groups got to enjoy the benefits. (I know it's more nuanced than that and don't want to derail on this point).

Has there been any discussion to start expanding the Pitman Robinson act to all the other outdoor products that are designed for recreation on public lands. There are all kinds of industries that capitalize on the consumption of public lands (mtn bikes, sxs, dirt bikes, campers, roof top tents, off road industry, ect. ect.). Seems like an untapped well that could resort in substantial funding. I was driving through the desert country south of Salt lake city a couple weeks ago on a Suday, the number of campers, sxs, mtn bikes and other recreational equipment heading back to the city was insane.

 

[El Jason]

Has there been any discussion to start expanding the Pitman Robinson act to all the other outdoor products that are designed for recreation on public lands. There are all kinds of industries that capitalize on the consumption of public lands (mtn bikes, sxs, dirt bikes, campers, roof top tents, off road industry, ect. ect.). Seems like an untapped well that could resort in substantial funding. I was driving through the desert country south of Salt lake city a couple weeks ago on a Suday, the number of campers, sxs, mtn bikes and other recreational equipment heading back to the city was insane.

For decades. It never gets much traction or support.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I try to stay out of these topics anymore because I've realized there's a lot people on this forum that know a lot more about these topics than me but I have a thought/question maybe some of you could shed some light on. I moved out west in 08 right out of HS. I hadn't spent a lot of time out west growing up but read and watched enough stuff to know I needed to see what it was all about. I've picked up all kinds of hobbies, fly fishing, mtn biking, mountaineering, skiing, hunting, etc. etc. I'm definitely a heavy consumer of our public lands. Even in my short time out west it's changed A LOT. Seems like its getting discovered at an exponential rate and there is obviously a limited carrying capacity. Can't imagine the change some of the old timers have seen.

I worked in the outdoor industry for most of my career and became aware of the Pitman Robinson Act. I'm not sure if you recall but a while back REI dropped Vista outdoor products due to them holding Savage arms in their portfolio because the product line had AR's in it. Vista sold off Savage and REI took their product lines back.

I remember thinking it was pretty hypocritical of REI at the time because I felt the Pitman Robinson act was putting all of the financial burden on the hunting/shooting industry but all the other recreational groups got to enjoy the benefits.

Has there been any discussion to start expanding the Pitman Robinson act to all the other outdoor products that are designed for recreation on public lands. There are all kinds of industries that capitalize on the consumption of public lands (mtn bikes, sxs, dirt bikes, campers, roof top tents, off road industry, ect. ect.). Seems like an untapped well that could resort in substantial funding. I was driving through the desert country south of Salt lake city a couple weeks ago on a Suday, the number of campers, sxs, mtn bikes and other recreational equipment heading back to the city was insane.

Yes, and gear companies outside of the hunting world hate it.

I've seen folks associated with REI claim they already pay taxes and camping fees, so they do enough there. Groups like Patagonia push a narrative that they do significant philanthropy, which is great, but discounts the philanthropy that hunting groups do. We should absolutely have a backpack tax to help with the burden of conservation in America, and hunters would pay it twice, many of them happily.

 

[Treeshark]

I get the alure of expanding the umbrella of PRA, but this seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of how that money is allocated.

 

[rogerthat]

I get the alure of expanding the umbrella of PRA, but this seems like it could be a slippery slope in terms of how that money is allocated.

That was an argument I heard from the shooting hunting world that expanding it would take their power. I paraphrase but that was the gyst

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

But ask yourself if your love and affection for public lands, outside of hunting, are associated with their proximity, and if you couldn't access them on the weekend- say you lived in Arkansas, and only came out west for a week a year to enjoy your public lands with a tag in your pocket, why that person might not value your (westerner) ability to enjoy the full portfolio of public land uses. I share you feelings on the matter, but I find the more I evaluate my position, the less I can support the entitlement I'm granted by living where I do. Unfortunately what Treeshark and Trial are proposing would trade the equality of NR opportunities for the affluence of NR opportunities. Trial may have "unlimited" income potential, because he's a very smart capable human, but not everyone who enjoys hunting checks those boxes. And the US hunting experiment is based on the equality of the masses, not free-market, which is much more in line with the rest of the world.

It's been something like 22 years since I've been to the Smithsonian. If I lived in the area I'd be there regularly.

I sure as shit hope it's still there in the future so I can take my kids, and I hope it's well funded between now and then.

 

[El Jason]

That was an argument I heard from the shooting hunting world that expanding it would take their power. I paraphrase but that was the gyst

This is always the argument, but it’s contrary to public trust

 

[PoleX]

If I just zoom into mountain biking for a minute. 15 years ago there was like 3 brands. Specialized, Treck and Giant and you could buy a top of line bike for around $600 dollars. Fast forward to now and you're paying 5-8K for a top-of-the-line bike and you have about 10-15 reputable brands to choose from. Like I said above, go to the desert in the springtime and you'll see 45K Tacoma's with 8K roof top tents and 20K$'s in mountain bikes on the back. Seems like people are willing to spend on recreation. How do we capatilize on that?

 

[SaskHunter]

Has there been any discussion to start expanding the Pitman Robinson act to all the other outdoor products that are designed for recreation on public lands. There are all kinds of industries that capitalize on the consumption of public lands (mtn bikes, sxs, dirt bikes, campers, roof top tents, off road industry, ect. ect.). Seems like an untapped well that could resort in substantial funding. I was driving through the desert country south of Salt lake city a couple weeks ago on a Suday, the number of campers, sxs, mtn bikes and other recreational equipment heading back to the city was insane.

I've seen it on both sides of the border. Post-COVID, everyone and their dogs decided to enjoy public lands.

That included a huge group of people who have no idea how to behave in public, let alone on public... Provinces have had to find ways to fund the additional wear, tear and additional services required to run those wild places, or just cut services. Alberta went from free Provincial Parks access to a $90/year park pass and most Provinces/Federal passes had to have fee increases to barely sustain the work required to prevent parks from eroding away and becoming literal dumps.

To be clear, I'm all for it. From herds of ground stomping tourists to motorized vehicles, the landscape is getting used now more than ever. The bill should 100% be passed down to the consumers, all consumers, not just hunters...

 

[SaskHunter]

If I just zoom into mountain biking for a minute. 15 years ago there was like 3 brands. Specialized, Treck and Giant and you could buy a top of line bike for around $600 dollars. Fast forward to now and you're paying 5-8K for a top-of-the-line bike and you have about 10-15 reputable brands to choose from. Like I said above, go to the desert in the springtime and you'll see 45K Tacoma's with 8K roof top tents and 20K$'s in mountain bikes on the back. Seems like people are willing to spend on recreation. How do we capatilize on that?

 

[SAJ-99]

If I just zoom into mountain biking for a minute. 15 years ago there was like 3 brands. Specialized, Treck and Giant and you could buy a top of line bike for around $600 dollars. Fast forward to now and you're paying 5-8K for a top-of-the-line bike and you have about 10-15 reputable brands to choose from. Like I said above, go to the desert in the springtime and you'll see 45K Tacoma's with 8K roof top tents and 20K$'s in mountain bikes on the back. Seems like people are willing to spend on recreation. How do we capatilize on that?

Get them to pay an extra tax. Good luck. The short explanation is everyone wants someone else to pay for the things they enjoy.

https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Where-We-Stand-Excise-Tax-Final.pdf

 

[Irrelevant]

I wish there was a way that New Jersey soccer moms didn't have to subsidize the ownership and management of our public lands, which support everything I love to do outside. But I don't see another way. I selfishly hope they (the absentee funders) don't come out west, don't visit, and damn sure don't hunt or fish. And I recognize I'm an ass for feeling that way.

 

[PoleX]

I wish there was a way that New Jersey soccer moms didn't have to subsidize the ownership and management of our public lands, which support everything I love to do outside. But I don't see another way. I selfishly hope they (the absentee funders) don't come out west, don't visit, and damn sure don't hunt or fish. And I recognize I'm an ass for feeling that way.

The soccer moms I know would happily subsidize but you can also count on them being some of the heaviest users...Junky level useres from my experience...