No King's Deer

[Irrelevant]

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

I'm fine with it as long as they're only good for that property.

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Treeshart - Have you ever bought a NM landowner tag?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I'm fine with it as long as they're only good for that property.

How can/should that be enforced?

 

[Elky Welky]

I'll briefly quibble with this notion that landowners "provide" habitat @Treeshark

They have habitat as an ancillary benefit to their operation, be it livestock, farming, or as an investment property. But it is very rare that they own the land so as to "provide" habitat. There are exceptions, of course (American Prairie comes to mind).

We don't owe someone our wildlife simply because their ownership of land happens to benefit the wildlife. And though many of them are good stewards of the land, the primary purpose of that stewardship is for livestock and farming. The fact that wildlife benefits is a bonus: and one many seem keen to monetize.

For example: Take someone who lives close to their work who walks to and from work every day. They work as an accountant. But because they walk to and from work, that reduces their carbon footprint, which benefits wildlife. Do they deserve an elk permit for that? No. Just because what they are doing happens to help, doesn't mean that is why they are doing it. They are doing it for a paycheck, plain and simple.

Someone buying up massive ranches for their personal playgrounds aren't in it for anyone but themselves, and this expectation that we should somehow be grateful to them for "providing" and show gratitude by giving away a public resource just rubs me the wrong way.

And it brings us right back to the topic, because it is the same logic as saying: bow to the King, because He "provides" for you.

 

[Treeshark]

We don't owe someone our wildlife simply because their ownership of land happens to benefit the wildlife.

That’s true, but landowner tags don’t allocate wildlife- they allocate a tag/voucher. In other words, an opportunity to pursue.

As you posted in your Pierson analysis, the pursuits of a game animal in no way confers ownership.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

How can/should that be enforced?

The majority of hunting regs are self/community enforced/reported at the end of the day, so same way those are enforced. When someone abuses it they may or may not get caught. No different than any other reg IMO?

 

[Elky Welky]

In other words, an opportunity to pursue.

Yes, and an opportunity that is no longer equitable because it differentiates between the haves and the have nots and reduces the opportunity of others.

And as others have (rightly) pointed out, the management of the wildlife is what belongs to us all, not the animals. Wild critters are just that: wild.

 

[Irrelevant]

How can/should that be enforced?

Have people in the field checking tags. Id setup strategic checkpoints that everyone had to go through. It's the same as any other law. Not everyone will follow it, and not everyone will get caught.

 

[Treeshark]

Yes, and an opportunity that is no longer equitable because it differentiates between the haves and the have nots and reduces the opportunity of others.

Equatable opportunity does not exist in Montana now (same can be said for many other states). However, landowner tags are open to everyone to purchase.

That represents a major step towards true democratization of opportunity.

 

[El Jason]

How can/should that be enforced?

No different than enforcing people who hunt with a landowner sponsored deer tag.

 

[El Jason]

Someone buying up massive ranches for their personal playgrounds aren't in it for anyone but themselves, and this expectation that we should somehow be grateful to them for "providing" and show gratitude by giving away a public resource just rubs me the wrong way.

Isn’t this a little presumptive? I think if you dig around you’d likely find some folks who bought ranches and truly want to provide better wildlife habitat.

Do they deserve anything for it? Personally, I’m okay with a landowner tag program that has habitat enhancement sideboards and the tag is not commercially transferable.

 

[El Jason]

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".

It says everyone in good legal standing has the opportunity to hunt and fish. It doesn’t say everyone gets an elk tag. I Will preemptively agree it’s easy to get semantical here.

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.

And that is a big part of my hang ups with auction tags, special draw tags and such.

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.

I’m in huge agreement with you on price differential. However, I can’t fathom owning a RzR or a wake boat. Or a brand new diesel pickup. But lots of folks do. I can afford a $1k elk tag because of financial prioritization. Are we pricing people out? Possibly and I think this is an issue where it’s easy to stray drastically.

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.

Colorado introduced wolves because of a citizen vote. Is this an example of what you are referring to? WA has done a ton for orcas because of what people want.

-"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.

This is an excellent example of NOT following the science.

-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.

Fair point. I think you could counter with agricultural conflict issues, but your point should not simply be dismissed.

-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.

Agreed. It’s not a binding set of rules. It’s a set of guiding principles.

 

[cgasner1]

Equatable opportunity does not exist in Montana now (same can be said for many other states). However, landowner tags are open to everyone to purchase.

If you’re not hunting Montana this fall that is your own fault. Even being a nr I could probably still find you some sort of tag you can purchase to hunt. So ya we have plenty of opportunities

 

[Irrelevant]

If you’re not hunting Montana this fall that is your own fault. Even being a nr I could probably still find you some sort of tag you can purchase to hunt. So ya we have plenty of opportunities

The reduction in wt doe tags was a bummer. I wasn't totally committed but definitely trying to get out there for birds and a doe or two.

 

[cgasner1]

The reduction in wt doe tags was a bummer. I wasn't totally committed but definitely trying to get out there for birds and a doe or two.

Isn’t that just 6-7 still have 5 other regions

 

[El Jason]

If you’re not hunting Montana this fall that is your own fault. Even being a nr I could probably still find you some sort of tag you can purchase to hunt. So ya we have plenty of opportunities

I could pickup cow tags in WY right now and be hunting tomorrow.

 

[Rack Daniels]

isn't this still, at least sort of, the kings deer? There may not be one single king that controls all wildlife but the reasource is still disproportionately shared with a minority user group that, again, from the outside looking in, is incredibly resistant to even discussing that disproportional allocation.

This part is not wrong lol

 

[Rack Daniels]

The disproportional allocation is R vs NR? Apologies if I misunderstand.

And huge landowners vs the public

 

[Elky Welky]

Isn’t this a little presumptive? I think if you dig around you’d likely find some folks who bought ranches and truly want to provide better wildlife habitat.

Do they deserve anything for it? Personally, I’m okay with a landowner tag program that has habitat enhancement sideboards and the tag is not commercially transferable.

Yes, it is presumptive and that’s fair. I did note that there are exceptions.

And by saying “habitat enhancement sideboards” that actually raises something very different: a fair trade. Because that means more is being given by the landowner than simply owning the land and then it becomes a deal with the public.

My point was more simplistic, in that simple ownership is not enough to warrant concessions from the people.

 

[cgasner1]

I could pickup cow tags in WY right now and be hunting tomorrow.

Sure we have cow tags probably multiple also wolf cougar bear and definitely some deer b