And this is where we fundamentally disagree--for all the reasons I've outlined from the very outset here and elsewhere. We don't owe our collective resources to people who are fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to own or purchase land. It is truly nonsensical, and betrays our sense of self-governance as opposed to swearing fealty to a king.
I'd sure love for people to start giving me free stuff in "recognition" for an ancillary benefit to what I do for a living, but I recognize that I'm not entitled to it. That kingly entitlement might make sense out east, but it has no place here.
As an aside, I'd strongly caution against saying Montanans don't understand or appreciate what we have. It rubs people with multiple generations of experience here the wrong way, and for good reason. We very much so do understand and appreciate it, that's why things are so good here. Generations of conservationists before us fought to get us to the point we are at now, which is a problem of abundance and distribution, not scarcity. And it is why we will keep fighting so hard against those who come here (for the many great opportunities we have) and then turn around and try and tell us they know what's best for us.
Jake,
respectfully, this is a bad take.
Landowner preference licensing has been a standard in western states since at least the early 1970's. Montana and Wyoming are the two Rocky Mtn states that don't have some kind of transferable license program (aside from all those lotto and auction tags everyone lobbies for) and their is no credible chance of getting those through either legislature, IMO. Montana - as a state that elected their leaders, legislators and executives, made the conscious decision to reward good stewardship of wildlife through Landowner Preference if you go to a draw (which is really when you only need LOP since a general license is guaranteed for every resident landowner). That is the democratic allocation of wildlife, even if you dislike the outcome.
If it weren't for landowners, introductions of elk in the Bitterroots, Breaks, Elkhorns, etc wouldn't have happened regardless of the clubs who ponied up the funds. It is landowners who help conserve those habitats by not subdividing them. It is private landowners who provide refuge for animals when the pressure gets to be too much. It was a private landowner in R2 that agreed to be the release site for the first sharp-tail reintroduction west of the divide in an effort to restore those historic populations. If it wasn't for landowners, R6 & R7 would likely still be over-issuing licenses for mule deer. If it wasn't for private landowners in Montana, you'd have 7 million fewer acres to recreate on. I think that kind of investment into the public trust is worthy of a license, personally on top of a payment for impacts from hunters. It's a small recognition of their stewardship, public engagement and community development. Equating LOP to "the kings deer" does both issues a grave disservice.
And because of all of that, it's private landowners who's bottom lines are negatively impacted by an abundant public trust resource. Landowner preference as MT does it is a very small token of appreciation for their outsized impact on wildlife abundance. Claiming that they seek a "kingly entitlement" is pretty tone deaf. Can it be better, absolutely. Is it an a sign of lordly entitlement? Hardly.
I have met no landowner, rich or poor, resident or non, who wants the "kings deer." To a person, they all have said that the egalitarian model is necessary and the best way to keep what we have today. But they all ask me this question, "why should I let everyone else hunt my place if I can't." I think that's a valid question. Especially when you look at the economic impacts that ranches play in rural communities (both resident and NR landowners). It may not be perfect and I think there's an unintentional downside to consolidation of ranchland in the form of raising barriers of entry for new farmers and ranchers, etc. That's all far larger than a licensing bitch, and I think that if we're honest with ourselves we'd recognize that range wars have been rolling in some form or fashion since El Chivato saddled up for Tunstall and went against Dolan in the Lincoln County wars or Tom Horn got framed for Willy Nickel.
Maybe we'd all be well served to re-read
Back from the Brink as well as Roosevelt's Hunting Trips of a Ranchman and Wilderness Hunter. Our history shows that wildlife wins when we find ways to work together, not tear each other down. It's easy to fall into combat mode. There's a ton of comfort in it, and it treats us like a nice 0 degree bag on a cold night but it's a false comfort. Combat is addictive. The adrenaline rush is real but so are the lows when it wears off. But then you're always left chasing the next thing to elevate your blood and keep you fired up. I hope you get as exhausted of constant conflict as I did but I hope it doesn't take you 20 years to get there. It's counter-productive to achieving lasting results that benefit all, in my experience.
