El Jason
Well-known member
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 making your point
3) If you can't be nice, start your own thread
4) Budget shortfalls for fish and wildlife agencies are a very real thing. It's not cheap to manage land, build accesses, conduct surveys, make habitat improvements, all while paying your employees a decent wage
Also, let me preface this with the following: these are my opinions only, and I realize we all make our choices in life with respect to our choice of careers, where we live, how many kids we have, and the hobbies we choose to devote out time and resources to. @rwc101 asked me to expand on my thoughts relative to this issue, so this is my attempt to do so. @mottlet pointed out some very valuables things in his post, and hopefully will chime in on this thread.
Let's also clear up a few non-negotiables:
1) States absolutely have the right to restrict NR hunting
2) States absolutely have the right (and some have a legal mandate) to manage its wildlife resources primarily for the benefit of its residents
3) Land ownership status is irrelevant for the purposes of differential treatment for resident and NR hunters.
If you don't believe these, go do some reading on case law before you come back. This link is a little dated, but should get you started in the right direction: https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...=1&article=1055&context=mulr#:~:text=Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the,is typically a recreational activity, such as elk,
Moving forward, I made a prediction we are witnessing the death spiral of the North American Model. Maybe it's a bold prediction, maybe it's pure bullshit, maybe it's hyperbolic, but regardless of your thoughts on that I stand by my prediction. The NA model is fairly well understood, I'm not going to dive into it. It's easy enough to read up on it.
How is this related to NR hunting? It's simple. The NA model relies on participation and advocacy to make it work. If no one participates, no one advocates. If no one advocates, the resource suffers unless there is a financial incentive to promote or propagate it. How do you make someone care about something they have no personal connection to? How many of you participate in community issues that have no bearing on your life? It's human nature, and is understandable. I'll care a lot more about school issue in our district than in the neighboring one, unless I have a personal connection to it.
It's no different with wildlife issues. How many people care about management issues they can't personally relate to? People are much more likely to have a vested interest if they have experienced something relative to the issue(s) at hand. I can guarantee you I care a lot more about the Missouri River breaks having spent a lot of time out there, and have experienced it as a direct participant in hunting and fishing.
So does this mean a NR is entitled to a tag? Hell no. That's not my premise here in any way, shape or form. Does it mean it should be easy to get a tag? Nope. My issue is the real or perceived race to max out NR big game tag pricing. NR tag prices have far outpaced my wage increases over the years, but that's another topic for another thread. The price in states I hunt and have hunted have pretty much quadrupled in the last 20 years.
I mentioned in the other thread I feel it is very important to the success of the NA model that the commoner is a part of this process. I stand by this 100%. When the commoner is no longer part of the process, hunting is now a pastime relegated the to the affluent. Will this end hunting? Hell no. It just means hunting will become an increasingly irrelevant aspect to conservation, and will be guided by money instead of conservation and altruism. It really already is, hence my earlier prediction about the death spiral.
When the commoner is no longer part of western big game hunting (for some this may be their only view into the world of elk, mule deer, or antelope hunting), then they are disenfranchised and no longer take part in the NA model on a national or regional level. Then, we have an increasingly shrinking subset of the population that cares in any way about conservation, hunting and wild places. It's unreasonable to fully expect people to care about things they are disenfranchised from and have little to no hope of participating in. Some will for sure, but to think people across the board will is simply delusional.
I don't know the answer to this issue. If I did I'd be getting rich on consultant fees and I wouldn't GAF what tag prices were, because I could afford any and all of them. As it is, I pick and choose very carefully. My caution is this. @wllm1313 hit on this when he said funding the NA on non-resident prices is a dangerous thing. He's absolutely right.
When you rely on an egalitarian system to fund your agency, you've basically said "it's okay in limited amounts". Kind of like justifying a once a week trip to the whore house. Where does it end? We need to raise more funds, so let's add this governor's tag. Let's raise NR prices again. Let's add another governor's tag. It's hard to keep perspective when you're in the driver' seat, but if you take 20k foot view you can see the shift in who is participating in the NA model. If you're not careful, you end up like Utah.
When money becomes the influencer in wildlife management, everyone loses.
1) If you want to debate the particulars of the Wyoming legislation, go to that thread
2) You can be nice while making your point
3) If you can't be nice, start your own thread
4) Budget shortfalls for fish and wildlife agencies are a very real thing. It's not cheap to manage land, build accesses, conduct surveys, make habitat improvements, all while paying your employees a decent wage
Also, let me preface this with the following: these are my opinions only, and I realize we all make our choices in life with respect to our choice of careers, where we live, how many kids we have, and the hobbies we choose to devote out time and resources to. @rwc101 asked me to expand on my thoughts relative to this issue, so this is my attempt to do so. @mottlet pointed out some very valuables things in his post, and hopefully will chime in on this thread.
Let's also clear up a few non-negotiables:
1) States absolutely have the right to restrict NR hunting
2) States absolutely have the right (and some have a legal mandate) to manage its wildlife resources primarily for the benefit of its residents
3) Land ownership status is irrelevant for the purposes of differential treatment for resident and NR hunters.
If you don't believe these, go do some reading on case law before you come back. This link is a little dated, but should get you started in the right direction: https://scholarship.law.marquette.e...=1&article=1055&context=mulr#:~:text=Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the,is typically a recreational activity, such as elk,
Moving forward, I made a prediction we are witnessing the death spiral of the North American Model. Maybe it's a bold prediction, maybe it's pure bullshit, maybe it's hyperbolic, but regardless of your thoughts on that I stand by my prediction. The NA model is fairly well understood, I'm not going to dive into it. It's easy enough to read up on it.
How is this related to NR hunting? It's simple. The NA model relies on participation and advocacy to make it work. If no one participates, no one advocates. If no one advocates, the resource suffers unless there is a financial incentive to promote or propagate it. How do you make someone care about something they have no personal connection to? How many of you participate in community issues that have no bearing on your life? It's human nature, and is understandable. I'll care a lot more about school issue in our district than in the neighboring one, unless I have a personal connection to it.
It's no different with wildlife issues. How many people care about management issues they can't personally relate to? People are much more likely to have a vested interest if they have experienced something relative to the issue(s) at hand. I can guarantee you I care a lot more about the Missouri River breaks having spent a lot of time out there, and have experienced it as a direct participant in hunting and fishing.
So does this mean a NR is entitled to a tag? Hell no. That's not my premise here in any way, shape or form. Does it mean it should be easy to get a tag? Nope. My issue is the real or perceived race to max out NR big game tag pricing. NR tag prices have far outpaced my wage increases over the years, but that's another topic for another thread. The price in states I hunt and have hunted have pretty much quadrupled in the last 20 years.
I mentioned in the other thread I feel it is very important to the success of the NA model that the commoner is a part of this process. I stand by this 100%. When the commoner is no longer part of the process, hunting is now a pastime relegated the to the affluent. Will this end hunting? Hell no. It just means hunting will become an increasingly irrelevant aspect to conservation, and will be guided by money instead of conservation and altruism. It really already is, hence my earlier prediction about the death spiral.
When the commoner is no longer part of western big game hunting (for some this may be their only view into the world of elk, mule deer, or antelope hunting), then they are disenfranchised and no longer take part in the NA model on a national or regional level. Then, we have an increasingly shrinking subset of the population that cares in any way about conservation, hunting and wild places. It's unreasonable to fully expect people to care about things they are disenfranchised from and have little to no hope of participating in. Some will for sure, but to think people across the board will is simply delusional.
I don't know the answer to this issue. If I did I'd be getting rich on consultant fees and I wouldn't GAF what tag prices were, because I could afford any and all of them. As it is, I pick and choose very carefully. My caution is this. @wllm1313 hit on this when he said funding the NA on non-resident prices is a dangerous thing. He's absolutely right.
When you rely on an egalitarian system to fund your agency, you've basically said "it's okay in limited amounts". Kind of like justifying a once a week trip to the whore house. Where does it end? We need to raise more funds, so let's add this governor's tag. Let's raise NR prices again. Let's add another governor's tag. It's hard to keep perspective when you're in the driver' seat, but if you take 20k foot view you can see the shift in who is participating in the NA model. If you're not careful, you end up like Utah.
When money becomes the influencer in wildlife management, everyone loses.
