No King's Deer

[Treeshark]

Should i later be subsidized for having said ducks and pond?

Certainly, depending on circumstances- isn’t that what the CRP program essentially does?

 

[Irrelevant]

I’m slow today. Is this in reference to R/NR disparity, or hunter/non hunter disparity?

regarding allocation: R/NR quota differences and economic disparity (14 vs 744 for a deer tag).
Democratic Management: I think the WDFW board is a prime example of special interest management vs demographics. But also, no way we spend the kinds of money we do one game species in a truly democratic system, at least not in WA.

 

[Treeshark]

Do explain, how does the landowner provide the habitat on public land?

Most game animals are transient.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sure, as long as they are only valid on lands owned by the landowner.

Getting a tag valid unit or statewide just because you own land is complete BS and antithetical to the idea that the wildlife do not belong to the individual but rather the public trust.

To me this is the best solution. It worked great in Ohio. They weren’t transferable which is another topic in and of itself but allowing someone the opportunity to hunt on their OWN land without cost makes sense to me. Giving them preference to hunt land they do not own outright, but rather equally own with the other fellow citizens, does not make sense.

This makes sense to me. As a landowner (of a certain acreage), I get to hunt my place. If I want to hunt the NF I can apply like everyone else. If I want to try to monetize it, I can. But it's only good on my place, which incentizes landowners to create/manage better habitat.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Most game animals are transient.

Got it. Glad we agree the landowners do not provide public land habitat, just private land habitat.

Let them hunt the animals on their land where the habitat they provide is. That is the fairest compensation.

 

[Treeshark]

Got it. Glad we agree the landowners do not provide public land habitat, just private land habitat.

Let them hunt the animals on their land where the habitat they provide is. That is the fairest compensation.

If they were transferable, that would be a good step in the right direction

 

[Irrelevant]

This makes sense to me. As a landowner (of a certain acreage), I get to hunt my place. If I want to hunt the NF I can apply like everyone else. If I want to try to monetize it, I can. But it's only good on my place, which incentizes landowners to create/manage better habitat.

However, this is also just another way to drive up land prices to the point where "locals" can't afford to live in the place they grew up. At least if they live in areas with good hunting. Thankfully Chelan County doesn't fit that mold!

 

[Big Sky Guy]

This makes sense to me. As a landowner (of a certain acreage), I get to hunt my place. If I want to hunt the NF I can apply like everyone else. If I want to try to monetize it, I can. But it's only good on my place, which incentizes landowners to create/manage better habitat.

Exactly.

I don't recall if there was a minimum acreage in Ohio, to me as long as you are following applicable hunting laws minimum acreage is sorta mute point. It's up to landowners to understand you may or may not be able to shoot on your 1, 5 or 10 acre property depending on how it was laid out/neighbors/HOA rules/archery/firearms etc.

 

[El Jason]

Certainly, depending on circumstances- isn’t that what the CRP program essentially does?

Not wholly, no.

 

[mtmuley]

Virtue signal received.

Not even why I don't use it but carry on. mtmuley

 

[Big Sky Guy]

If they were transferable, that would be a good step in the right direction

Hard pass. In Ohio it extended to immediate family, again, which makes sense to me, but those were in addition to, not transferred to the landowner(s) on the deed. Transferable = for sale.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Here is the snip from current Ohio regs. Looks like mostly the same but some changes in regards to LLC/Trusts which I don't recall but all still makes sense to me.

 

[El Jason]

regarding allocation: R/NR quota differences and economic disparity (14 vs 744 for a deer tag).
Democratic Management: I think the WDFW board is a prime example of special interest management vs demographics. But also, no way we spend the kinds of money we do one game species in a truly democratic system, at least not in WA.

Let’s back up for a minute. The Seven Sisters or Pillars are:

The “Seven Sisters”​

The “Seven Sisters” guidelines serve to provide more definition and clarity to these conservation concepts.

1. Wildlife in the Public Trust​

   The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone. Natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.
   
   

2. Elimination of Markets for Game​

   Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife are prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.
   
   

3. Allocation of Wildlife by Law​

   Wildlife is allocated to the public by law, as opposed to by market principles, land ownership, or other status. Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process, meaning everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use. Democratic processes and public input in lawmaking help ensure that access is equitable.
   
   

4. Wildlife Can Only Be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose​

   The killing of game must be done only for food, fur, self-defense, and the protection of property (including livestock). Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers (ie trophy hunting).
   
   

5. Wildlife is an International Resource​

   Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Many positive agreements and cooperative efforts have been established among the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and other nations for conserving wildlife.
   
   

6. Science is the Basis for Wildlife Protection​

   The North American Model recognizes science as the basis for informed management and decision-making processes. Research and tracking help us to best conserve our resources.
   
   

7. Democracy of Hunting​

   By law, every citizen of good standing has the opportunity to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

[El Jason]

To follow up on my previous post, what is opportunity? Does it need to be equal between residents and nonresidents? Some states are legally mandated to manage wildlife primarily for the benefit of residents.

It doesn’t say we all have equal opportunity. Also, we all have option to move if we wish to have a greater opportunity to participate.

That said, I vehemently disagree with huge price differentials between R and NR. All this does is promote further commercialization and moves us towards an egalitarian model.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

However, this is also just another way to drive up land prices to the point where "locals" can't afford to live in the place they grew up. At least if they live in areas with good hunting. Thankfully Chelan County doesn't fit that mold!

Maybe, but I hardly think landowner tags were a primary force in driving up land cost in Ohio over the last decade, a secondary or tertiary maybe?

 

[Nick87]

Maybe, but I hardly think landowner tags were a primary force in driving up land cost in Ohio over the last decade, a secondary or tertiary maybe?

More likely leasing, nobody's buying ground for the free landowner tag. Unless they can sell them like New Mexico.

 

[Irrelevant]

To follow up on my previous post, what is opportunity? Does it need to be equal between residents and nonresidents? Some states are legally mandated to manage wildlife primarily for the benefit of residents.

It doesn’t say we all have equal opportunity. Also, we all have option to move if we wish to have a greater opportunity to participate.

That said, I vehemently disagree with huge price differentials between R and NR. All this does is promote further commercialization and moves us towards an egalitarian model.

It says, "wildlife belongs to everyone." IMO that single phrase has both explicit and implicit meaning, explicity everyone can apply for access, but implicity that access is fair or at least fair-ish. MT allows EVERY MT citizen access to a deer, but only a fraction of the people from other states. In my mind, that is the very definition of "not everyone". To jump over to another topic where opportunity is highly valued yet only a small subset of people actually partipate... If someone had to drive across the state to vote, to take a day off work, or pay a small fee, or show their ID, would that still be an opportunity to vote? We, as a society, are not settled on that. Also, if you look at the last line of #3, to "ensure that access is equitable". But it's not, at least not universally.

The vast majority of people I meet can't fathom that I can afford a $1k elk tag in another state. And while I'm sure there are plenty of holes to poke in their daily budget, that's still a level of disposible income that not everyone has. Pricing people out, is effectly not giving them an opportunity.

and if we want to keep pointing holes in what NAM says vs how we actually operate:
-Does any state manage wildlife based on what the people want? Has any state even asked? In WA we likely would be significanly more on sea otters than deer and elk.
-"Science-based" is such a loaded term as to be irrelevant. Salmon are certainly not managed based on science with the goal of perpetuating a species.
-Killing for legitamate purposes: Except every varmit, I can't think of a single person who's killed a coyote and done anything with it. Let alone all the prairrie dogs or sage rats.
-Wildlife is only an international resource if it doesn't go into international waters, or doesn't need to walk across the border with Mexico.

But I don't think focusing on the specifics of NAM, which as several have pointed out, is just a set of guiding ideas finally written down many decades after it was implemented, is all that important outside of internet arguing.

 

[Irrelevant]

Maybe, but I hardly think landowner tags were a primary force in driving up land cost in Ohio over the last decade, a secondary or tertiary maybe?

Maybe not everywhere, but take MT, you already have people buying tophy ranches, and you have a lot of people who apply for a tag that don't get it. If you could buy 40 acres and get a transferable OW tag, that would definitely drive up prices.

 

[Nick87]

Does any state manage wildlife based on what the people want?

You ask that question amd you'll get 10k different answers. Juts take a look at any one of the Montana mule deer threads.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Maybe not everywhere, but take MT, you already have people buying tophy ranches, and you have a lot of people who apply for a tag that don't get it. If you could buy 40 acres and get a transferable OW tag, that would definitely drive up prices.

I’m assuming non-transferable. Not in favor of transferable/sellable landowner tags.