No King's Deer

[Treeshark]

Explain how, again?

Sure thing. My responses are directed towards Montana and its wildlife resources, as it is the subject of this thread.

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.

-There are citizens outside of Montana for which this is not true.

3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law

-Not considered “Democratic” if a certain group of people gets greater rights than others, as @Elky Welky pointed out earlier.

5. Wildlife is an international resource.

-This one is pretty obvious under a state-owned wildlife legal structure.

6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.

-Montana residents have greater opportunity to hunt in Montana than do residents from other states. They also pay far more to do it than do state residents.

 

[cgasner1]

Sure thing. My responses are directed towards Montana and its wildlife resources, as it is the subject of this thread.

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.

-There are citizens outside of Montana for which this is not true.

3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law

-Not considered “Democratic” if a certain group of people gets greater rights than others, as @Elky Welky pointed out earlier.

5. Wildlife is an international resource.

-This one is pretty obvious under a state-owned wildlife legal structure.

6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.

-Montana residents have greater opportunity to hunt in Montana than do residents from other states. They also pay far more to do it than do state residents.

Honestly for me it kinda boils down to this. Until you actually purchase one of these tags I don’t really care what you have to say about it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Honestly for me it kinda boils down to this. Until you actually purchase one of these tags I don’t really care what you have to say about it.

Sure thing. My responses are directed towards Montana and its wildlife resources, as it is the subject of this thread.

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.

-There are citizens outside of Montana for which this is not true.

3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law

-Not considered “Democratic” if a certain group of people gets greater rights than others, as @Elky Welky pointed out earlier.

5. Wildlife is an international resource.

-This one is pretty obvious under a state-owned wildlife legal structure.

6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.

-Montana residents have greater opportunity to hunt in Montana than do residents from other states. They also pay far more to do it than do state residents.

Its pretty straight forward to me. If thats a better deal, why dont you ever do it?

 

[Treeshark]

Honestly for me it kinda boils down to this. Until you actually purchase one of these tags I don’t really care what you have to say about it.

No worries man, I get it- I’m just some dude on a hunting website. Different perspectives are cool with me

 

[Treeshark]

It’s pretty straight forward to me. If thats a better deal, why dont you ever do it?

This isn’t about what is best for me, it’s about what the best path forward is for everyone (as well as the wildlife resource).

 

[R.K.]

Does it concern you that the concept of state owned wildlife is in conflict with the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th pillars of the NAM?

Not state owned- held in trust by the state, for the benefit of the actual owners- the residents of that state.

 

[Treeshark]

Not state owned- held in trust by the state, for the benefit of the actual owners- the residents of that state.

Semantics, but yes- agree.

 

[R.K.]

Semantics, but yes- agree.

No, not semantics. Words actually matter, especially when it comes to legal matters. We must be precise in our descriptions, in order to properly defend against attacks intended to adversely dispossess us of the wildlife we, the people, own.

 

[MTLabrador]

Sure thing. My responses are directed towards Montana and its wildlife resources, as it is the subject of this thread.

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.

-There are citizens outside of Montana for which this is not true.

3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law

-Not considered “Democratic” if a certain group of people gets greater rights than others, as @Elky Welky pointed out earlier.

5. Wildlife is an international resource.

-This one is pretty obvious under a state-owned wildlife legal structure.

6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.

-Montana residents have greater opportunity to hunt in Montana than do residents from other states. They also pay far more to do it than do state residents.

First, the bleached bones of this poor horse are tired of the continued beating. I’ll never understand why nonresidents in Montana and Wyoming in particular feel so entitled.

Second, what’s currently stopping you from having essentially the same thing? Get a nonresident general elk tag and go pay some landowner a ridiculous trespass fee if that’s your thing.

Or go hunt New Mexico.

 

[Irrelevant]

Seriously, do you guys not see the glaring hypocrisy in NAM? It says one thing and does the other.

Just like politics, it's okay for your team to still be wrong, to make mistakes, or as is the case in this instance, be ideologically inconsistent.

I would love to see democratic management and equal opportunity, far more so than privatization of wildlife. I'm a huge fan of NAM, I just don't think that's what we have, and I really struggle that seemingly smart, articulate, well rounded ht-ers seem to get uber defensive on this topic and demeen any attempt of an intellectual discussion.

 

[cgasner1]

Seriously, do you guys not see the glaring hypocrisy in NAM? It says one thing and does the other.

Just like politics, it's okay for your team to still be wrong, to make mistakes, or as is the case in this instance, be ideologically inconsistent.

I would love to see democratic management and equal opportunity, far more so than privatization of wildlife. I'm a huge fan of NAM, I just don't think that's what we have, and I really struggle that seemingly smart, articulate, well rounded ht-ers seem to get uber defensive on this topic and demeen any attempt of an intellectual discussion.

Ht basically to me breaks down like this.

First group is non resident trying to take more for themselves.

Second group resident blaming nr taking more because they want to take more

Third group the quiet guys that are actually killing some very impressive animals.

The final group actually cares about the resources and just enjoy being outside.

The first 2 are the loudest on here and resources be damned they are more worried about what the other people are doing and not their own actual tags. If they spent more time worried about the season they have rather than screwing the other guy over would probably enjoy their fall a lot more. @Treeshark can say all he wants it’s for the “resources” I think that’s bull and he wants a market so saturated with tags he could afford one.

 

[Treeshark]

I’m not sure about all of that, but I’ve found that when we discuss ideas vs the people posting it tends to lead to a more productive discussion.

 

[cgasner1]

I’m not sure about all of that, but I’ve found that when we discuss ideas vs the people posting it tends to lead to a more productive discussion.

It’s a very broad stroke but it’s not far off group 1&2 have pushed 3 to post even less. I know quite a few dudes that lurk on here that are straight killers. Then throw in some politics even this thread “no kings deer” started on the day we had a no kings march in town.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ht basically to me breaks down like this.

First group is non resident trying to take more for themselves.

Second group resident blaming nr taking more because they want to take more

Third group the quiet guys that are actually killing some very impressive animals.

The final group actually cares about the resources and just enjoy being outside.

The first 2 are the loudest on here and resources be damned they are more worried about what the other people are doing and not their own actual tags. If they spent more time worried about the season they have rather than screwing the other guy over would probably enjoy their fall a lot more. @Treeshark can say all he wants it’s for the “resources” I think that’s bull and he wants a market so saturated with tags he could afford one.

Youre missing a few.

Outfitters.
Lobbyists.
Useful idiots.

 

[shb]

Landowner tags are right and good. Use em, sell em, auction them, give them to the 4H kids... whatever.

Just not unit wide LO tags.

 

[El Jason]

Seriously, do you guys not see the glaring hypocrisy in NAM? It says one thing and does the other.

Just like politics, it's okay for your team to still be wrong, to make mistakes, or as is the case in this instance, be ideologically inconsistent.

I would love to see democratic management and equal opportunity, far more so than privatization of wildlife. I'm a huge fan of NAM, I just don't think that's what we have, and I really struggle that seemingly smart, articulate, well rounded ht-ers seem to get uber defensive on this topic and demeen any attempt of an intellectual discussion.

What is the underlying hypocrisy?

 

[Treeshark]

Landowner tags are right and good. Use em, sell em, auction them, give them to the 4H kids... whatever.

Just not unit wide LO tags.

The challenge with that is many of the game animals that landowners are supporting do not reside on their land during hunting season.

 

[Gulf of America]

The challenge with that is many of the game animals that landowners are supporting do not reside on their land during hunting season.

That's just straight up not true here. Because public is so piss-pounded, if there are ever animals on a piece of private, they're there for our five week firefight.

 

[Treeshark]

That's just straight up not true here. Because public is so piss-pounded, if there are ever animals on a piece of private, they're there for our five week firefight.

In some cases, that’s certainly true.

Opening those lands up to public access via transferable landowner tags would be a great solution to the problem you’re describing, would it not?

 

[Forkyfinder]

In some cases, that’s certainly true.

Opening those lands up to public access via transferable landowner tags would be a great solution to the problem you’re describing, would it not?

I think youre missing the fundamental problem.

Those elk living there arent a problem. Theyre an asset.