Last night I referenced talking today with Jim Posewitz’s son, Andrew, who I worked with on the Montana Public Trust Coalition. Randy did a podcast with him on that effort. He sent a looong email to me this morning. I don’t speak for him and don’t quite track some of this, so I’m cutting and pasting the whole thing:
“Interesting discussion and thanks for the heads up on the bill and the thread. I read the hunttalk thread this morning and this bill bothers me for a host of reasons and I will do my best to articulate them. I don’t have a ton of time, so apologies for stream of consciousness.
I am certain my dad would have opposed this bill. I have read through the string and here are the items I find most troubling and philosophically inconsistent with my father’s views and teachings.
1. This bill is written to serve commercial purposes. It does not serve the resource. Hunters for generations put the resource first, even at the expense of their individual opportunity. This bill deviates from the very thing that made the North American Model the unique success it has been. Hunters put the resource first and themselves second, this is a reversal of that success.
2. Hunters in Montana have been a north star on commercialization historically. Outfitter guarantees were removed by ballot measure of this reason. We have proudly resisted the movements to commercialize. Recently we have begun seeing an effort to have wildlife policy written to satisfy commercial interests. History tells us what will happen when we monetize this.
3. There are many perversions of the North American Model out there as people have twisted the words ever so slightly to match their own values. Don’t fall for that; this is a direct move to commercializing wildlife. Go to the original work from Dr. Geist (even when he tries to refer you to my dad’s work), before people started twisting it around to serve their purposes.
4. The debate of better or worse than 454 is a false debate. Both serve commercial purposes and send us back in time; towards a model of opportunity as a product of wealth or birthright. Regardless of what side you land on, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
5. The debates of resident vs non-resident, DIY vs guided are also false debates, each trying to claim right to the resource for commercial purposes, which is to be kept in trust for all of us. Opportunity should be afforded on an equal basis, not preferentially to landowners and or the wealthy which this bill does. Wild things owned by all citizens should not be “traded” between constituencies in exchange for anything, including money and access.
6. This is what happens when you put dealmakers in place to dictate resource management decisions. My dad believed viciously in what he termed the “democracy of the wild” and this bill flushes that down the drain by awarding tags on the basis of what dealmakers think is the best deal they can get for their individual constituents. This is where long term failure lives under the guise of short-term success. This is a step down the worst possible road for Montana and it saddens me to see any organizational support for this. This step is mimicking a step taken in all those states who have commercialized wildlife. Although I don’t like the split in the conservation community at the very moment when we ought to be coming together, eventually values slide too far out of alignment with our philosophy and our history to continue to collaborate.
I suspect as this becomes more well known, the remainder of the conservation community will rise to oppose this, it may not matter on this bill, but it will help guide us all going forward.”
) and my reply wasn’t targeted towards you, just a general observation.
