it is for youth.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 333
There is still plenty of public value for wildlife that is found on private land - enough that I do not see any merit to willingly abandoning the NA Model to try and 'negotiate' away the public trust. To use your analogy - I'm perfectly fine letting that cake sit in a locked safe where both the landowner and the public can only look at it unless or until they come to a fair and amicable way to divy up slices of that cake.
brocksw
Well-known member
Obviously, not all landowners do this but, I remember a time when the idea wasn't to monetize every single thing under the sun.
I'm not saying it all needs to be charity, and I'm not opposed to a landowner getting some kick back once in a while or having incentive for certain things. But the idea that it's okay to hold wildlife hostage until the landowner has the monetary incentive for every damn thing you can think of....well that's a one way ticket to the European model. If you support the European model coming here, then you're the selfish man and greedy interest Theodore Roosevelt warned us about.
What's especially frustrating is when the landowner holding the "combination" has the audacity to complain about the cake taking up too much room in his safe but he won't let the DIYer onto his land or through his land to take care said problem.
That's 100% correct.
No and no.
Private land tags should be higher. Quality is higher.
We should do the exact opposite for NR hunters. We have more demand than tags as it is and the resource is suffering.
There was a time when ranching was more profitable. I think many branches dont neccesarily want to lease. They have to in order to stay solvent.
BEEF is really cheap these days
brocksw
Well-known member
It's possible. However, living in ND I know plenty of ranchers. Some do quite well, some don't....kinda like in any other business or industry, not everyone is the Jeff Bezos or Michael Jordan of their game. I haven't seen any correlation to their success or lack thereof and whether or not they let people hunt on their land or drive through there land to access public land. .
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,579
Neffa , if you want to see a change in the way elk or deer are managed the FWP and the commission is going to have to incentivize private landowners to provide access.
The punitive measures of the past have been proven to not work. Thanks past strategy we (all sportsmen) have lost a lot of access. The so called pro-sportsmen’s groups have helped broaden the chasm. I don’t know how to post a sign that is hung up on several private ranches, but it says thanks to FWP, MWF and a couple more groups, Hunting is no longer allowed by the public. From this I have deduced we might need to try different tactics to gain access. Maybe I’m missing something?
The punitive measures of the past have been proven to not work. Thanks past strategy we (all sportsmen) have lost a lot of access. The so called pro-sportsmen’s groups have helped broaden the chasm. I don’t know how to post a sign that is hung up on several private ranches, but it says thanks to FWP, MWF and a couple more groups, Hunting is no longer allowed by the public. From this I have deduced we might need to try different tactics to gain access. Maybe I’m missing something?
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
What are the punitive measures I keep reading about? I’m not familiar with that program.
brocksw
Well-known member
Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage
Nemont, you make a valid point. This is perhaps something that will be regretted at a later date if it goes to 7 members. I like the idea of each Region having a rep., as only ppl living in their region have a firm grasp on the problems in that area. Being a little worried about a Dem. Gov...
www.hunttalk.com
Attachments
Desk Pop
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,483
I think another piece of this conversation is on F&G agencies' spending. I am not coming out and saying there are huge wastes of money and they are inefficiently run because while I can think of small examples, I do not look at their books so I do not truly know... but I would dare to venture that if someone from the business world saw the books on some of these agencies, they could do some slashing and yet still remain effective.
As soon as we start talking about funding conservation, I think that is a question that must be asked. Conservation is expensive, but it is more expensive if it is not efficiently run. Take for example the Kuiu bighorn sheep relocation project. It worked fast and effectively because it was done by a business and not a bureaucracy. While there are many moving parts to something like that, they are still moving a few animals from one place to another place. This happens every day, all over the world in the private sector. Agencies create red tape for themselves and then take much more time and money to do a project because they trip over it every step of the way. I am all for funding agencies properly, but we would be remiss as a group of sportsmen if we do not have accountability in spending as a part of the conversation.
Do you ever hear about these professional athletes making millions a year that go broke and say they don't have enough money and need more? At no point does the athlete consider spending less money as a means of having more. Point is, if the entire conversation is about how they are getting their money versus how they are spending it, I think we are missing half of the puzzle. The reason this is pertinent is that if the conversation is only on incoming money, then eventually every tag will just be auctioned to the highest bidder because after all, that is the way to fund these departments with the most money.
I get sick every time someone talks about "market value" of a tag. The true market value would be auctioning each and every tag. We are nowhere near that (but almost halfway there in Utah). Prices will continue to rise well above the inflation level and will price people out while there will still be enough demand to sell every tag or damn close to it. And like the OP said...it is hard for people to advocate for something they do not participate in. I agree with OP. I do think that the NA conservation model is in peril to some extent because of this. Some of the most dedicated advocates for public land and public hunting and conservation are the ones who travel to hunt. Finding a middle ground between NR and R license fees would help... But as soon as a F&G agency whispers about maybe adding $3 to a resident elk tag, nearly every resident has a rolling-on-the-floor-kicking-and-screaming-come-apart.
As soon as we start talking about funding conservation, I think that is a question that must be asked. Conservation is expensive, but it is more expensive if it is not efficiently run. Take for example the Kuiu bighorn sheep relocation project. It worked fast and effectively because it was done by a business and not a bureaucracy. While there are many moving parts to something like that, they are still moving a few animals from one place to another place. This happens every day, all over the world in the private sector. Agencies create red tape for themselves and then take much more time and money to do a project because they trip over it every step of the way. I am all for funding agencies properly, but we would be remiss as a group of sportsmen if we do not have accountability in spending as a part of the conversation.
Do you ever hear about these professional athletes making millions a year that go broke and say they don't have enough money and need more? At no point does the athlete consider spending less money as a means of having more. Point is, if the entire conversation is about how they are getting their money versus how they are spending it, I think we are missing half of the puzzle. The reason this is pertinent is that if the conversation is only on incoming money, then eventually every tag will just be auctioned to the highest bidder because after all, that is the way to fund these departments with the most money.
I get sick every time someone talks about "market value" of a tag. The true market value would be auctioning each and every tag. We are nowhere near that (but almost halfway there in Utah). Prices will continue to rise well above the inflation level and will price people out while there will still be enough demand to sell every tag or damn close to it. And like the OP said...it is hard for people to advocate for something they do not participate in. I agree with OP. I do think that the NA conservation model is in peril to some extent because of this. Some of the most dedicated advocates for public land and public hunting and conservation are the ones who travel to hunt. Finding a middle ground between NR and R license fees would help... But as soon as a F&G agency whispers about maybe adding $3 to a resident elk tag, nearly every resident has a rolling-on-the-floor-kicking-and-screaming-come-apart.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Eric, part of owning land is that critters live on it. If some landowners want fewer critters then they should allow more access for hunters. The idea that the public should pay the landowner to allow access to reduce the critters they think are overcrowded is ludicrous. They should just learn to deal with wildlife or sell to someone else because they clearly aren't cut or for it. It's so basic.
brocksw
Well-known member
There's always going to be excess fat that could be trimmed when talking about government spending. That just comes with the territory. But that needs to be taken in with some context and scale. I think in general, and I'm speculating here, that most of the western states wildlife agencies do a fairly good job budgeting and spending. Could be some exceptions and I'm sure it's not perfect but. Anyway, some of that frugality is on purpose and some of that is because many of those management agencies have been hamstrung by their legislatures, usually for reasons that make you scratch your head, but almost always for control.
The federal government is a different story....truck load after truck load of fat that could trimmed and we'd be all the better for it in many ways. But again, don't let that make you think Federal land management agencies are all fluff and wasteful spending. The USFS's annual budget is like 1/800th of the total federal budget and has been that way decades. The USFS is under funded. That's on purpose. Guys like Ted Cruz make sure it's underfunded so they do a crappy job and have trouble getting their job done correctly...then Ted turns around and tells everyone we should sell all the public land because its poorly managed. Anyone who is actually paying attention knows why it looks that way.
Last edited:
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Unable to produce summary of punitive measures. Gotcha. Thanks.Bill with no sporting reps, three landowners on Commission one vote from passage
Nemont, you make a valid point. This is perhaps something that will be regretted at a later date if it goes to 7 members. I like the idea of each Region having a rep., as only ppl living in their region have a firm grasp on the problems in that area. Being a little worried about a Dem. Gov...
4ohSick
Well-known member
I'm sure a someone from the business world would be disgusted to look at any government agency's books, but that's because government agencies aren't there to make a profit - they exist to provide a public service that benefits everyone. But speaking for Montana, FWP gets a lot more value in their road projects than the DOT because they deal with less red tape and have to make smaller chunks of money stretch further.
brocksw
Well-known member
There might be a larger issue you're getting at. In the case of the Wy thread. Wy will increase revenue with that proposal. However, Buzz had stated that the Wyoming Game and Fish was good on funds and was not in desperate need of them and had no list of projects that they couldn't afford to fund with current revenue. I believe him and have no reason to think he wouldn't know.
So if that's the case, why increase fees?
This is where I get concerned about WY taking revenue opportunistically simply because it can. In that thread, Buzz and the other Wy residents supporting it, might be right. Maybe it is justified this time. No one can argue that the new prices would put them in line with the rest of the states. Sounds fair enough. Where will that extra money go? If it just sits in a "savings account" that's justifiable to a certain point, but is WY missing the forest for the trees by increasing the price of admission on a public resource simply because they can get it. Are they turning management into a revenue prioritized model versus a public resource model focused on the resource? Some of this we won't know until the next price hike. I believe the time it takes for that to happen will be somewhat indicative of what the priority is, as well as what there spending looks like after the hike.
Also, if many of these agencies are hamstrung in how they spend money; limited on land purchases, limited on easement purchases, etc, then perhaps we should be supporting other funding measures to fill in those gaps and not tag price increases.
I'm under no illusion that tag prices will stop going up. But, when managing a public resource and the traditions surrounding that resource hang in a balance, I think we have to be very careful about chipping away at the price of admission. I believe there is a little negligence on the part of hunters just blindly accepting this.
The prices paid to producers are certainly cheap. Retail is not.
Wyoming should take the opportunity to increase fund. In fact they should be obligated to.
The market should drive the price for NR tags, period. Selling more of a consumable resource for less just doesnt make sense.
Desk Pop
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,483
Then let's auction each and every tag off to the highest bidder and get the actual market value for each tag. That is market value. It will tell the absolute highest amount each tag is worth on the open market.
That would assure they wouldn't be selling more of a consumable resource for less.
