Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Makes me more likely to pull the dip on the next one
**** me once...
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Article
www.kunr.org
actual "report"
headwaterseconomics.org
Step 1: Don't have amenities...
As Mountain West towns risk being ‘loved to death,’ a new report offers solutions
More and more people are visiting and moving to cities and towns around the Mountain West, drawn by access to public lands and other natural amenities. That brings economic growth – and also growing pains. A new report aims to help communities address the challenges.
www.kunr.org
The Amenity Trap: How high-amenity communities can avoid being loved to death - Headwaters Economics
Amenity communities face unique challenges from waves of tourists and new residents. Proactive planning can help avoid being loved to death. Amenity communities face unique challenges from waves of tourists and new residents. Proactive planning can help avoid being loved to death.
headwaterseconomics.org
Step 1: Don't have amenities...
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,249
Article
actual "report"As Mountain West towns risk being ‘loved to death,’ a new report offers solutions
More and more people are visiting and moving to cities and towns around the Mountain West, drawn by access to public lands and other natural amenities. That brings economic growth – and also growing pains. A new report aims to help communities address the challenges.
The Amenity Trap: How high-amenity communities can avoid being loved to death - Headwaters Economics
Amenity communities face unique challenges from waves of tourists and new residents. Proactive planning can help avoid being loved to death. Amenity communities face unique challenges from waves of tourists and new residents. Proactive planning can help avoid being loved to death.
View attachment 277288
Step 1: Don't have amenities...
best part about that scene is one minute he's drunk as a skunk and can't stand up straight and literally next minute he's hopping around talking about "getting to work" like he just got 9 hours of sleep.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The West has too many visiting hunters - Writers On The Range
Hunting may be losing popularity nationally, but in the West the number of hunters is climbing. According to the U.S....
writersontherange.org
seeth07
Well-known member
Just goes to show that anybody can use any set of stats to specifically make their point.The West has too many visiting hunters - Writers On The Range
Hunting may be losing popularity nationally, but in the West the number of hunters is climbing. According to the U.S....writersontherange.org
I could write the exact same article with the title "The West is reducing opportunity for visiting hunters"
seeth07
Well-known member
Big Fin already made this point at the start of this thread so maybe I don't have to even write the article. And his exception of Colorado OTC as the exception very well might be out the door in the very near future.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The West has too many visiting hunters - Writers On The Range
Hunting may be losing popularity nationally, but in the West the number of hunters is climbing. According to the U.S....writersontherange.org
Good short article.
I believe the answer to this - non resident hunting specifically - is looking at hunting license allocation through the lense of The Public Trust and its beneficiaries. Something Big Fin has really illuminated, and something that has given me a much clearer way to look at things.
There's places like New Mexico, where an unacceptable portion of their elk go to folks who are not beneficiaries of the Trust. There's places like Montana, where nearly one-third of the hunters on the landscape are non-residents - and it shows. And then there's places like Arizona, where non-residents cannot draw more than 10% of any hunt for numerous species.
There's a whole conversation there, and I do increasingly have strong feelings as a beneficiary, and the father of beneficiaries, who I believe are being bent over - so there is that bias. But for me, it's time to tell nonresidents to accept a massive loss in opportunity, look inward to their own states and/or situations, and move on. The west's wildlife belongs to the westerners of each state. That for all intents and purposes, is a legal fact. The economic arguments are dubious, and the funding arguments aren't compelling to me in a way that seems insurmountable.
Non-residents are entitled to nothing when it comes to the wildlife of any given state. I'm fine with embracing that, and I know that won't be popular on a site full of folks who DIY hunt other states. Whether it is a percentage cap or a hard number, many states need a massive diminution in the number of NR hunters/fishermen who come in and buy chunks of the Trust that should be managed for the beneficiaries of each state.
Last edited:
I think that while there is some merit to the notion that Non-Residents are over-subscribed in some western states, it's also wildly misunderstood just what cutting those numbers mean to actual conservation funding.
You enter into a Sophie's Choice scenario given just how much conservation revenue comes from NR licensing. In states like Montana, that license revenue is tied to conservation and access programs that wouldn't be as robustly funded if those statutory earmarks went away.
It's also fairly short-sighted to view the public trust aspect in a selfish fashion - i.e. that only residents should be the beneficiaries of the resource, and honestly, it's an abdication of actual conservation work that happens through those license dollars for the sake of the optics of better hunting.
If folks really want to cut NR hunters, then they need to step forward with some actual financials to show how their plans are not going to result in a net loss of conservation funding and program work.
I know a lot of folks think that we shouldn't worry about the dollars, but without those, there are no biologists, wardens, access programs or programs like the Upland Game Bird Habitat Program, Wetland Mitigation Program & Habitat Montana (Just as an example - other states would lose significantly as well if you cut their budget with not make-up funding plan).
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I know Buzz and others are hypercritical of this point of view. But my give-a-shit over a wildlife related conservation issue in another state will wane when I'm excluded from utilizing that resource.
Good luck fighting all your fights internally.
I say that fairly tongue and cheek, but there's truth to it as well.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
You're largely right and I hear what you are saying.
I’m not saying it would be easy, and even more important, I’m not saying it’s currently politically feasible, but in terms of actual financial numbers which you have shared before, I haven’t seen any that seem insurmountable. Cap at 10%, charge those folks an ever-increasing premium and charge our residents more ( a number of license sales that also will be ever increasing and thus an ever increasing source of funding for the things you mention). I know it would take a lot of legislation, policy, maybe insurmountable change. It would be fair to ask me specifics and then point out how I don’t have any.
I am almost always an advocate for more funding for conservation via government, but I don’t think it is inappropriate to ask if the juice is worth the squeeze. Are things getting better because of all this non resident influence? Would they be far worse without? It's not obvious to me.
I also just don’t see it as selfish. I am trustee of regional governmental body managing that trust for our beneficiaries. It isn't complicated. Move here, deal with our wages,weather, and issues, attend the meetings, vote for our representatives, exist in the geography of the trust. That's how you get to be a beneficiary.
From what I have seen in the last 10 years in Montana, and what we know has already happened elsewhere, what other model through which the future of hunting for the little guy, the working man, the “average” trustee, has any meaningful and fair future at all – is there other than that of the Public Trust and it’s beneficiaries? If we talk about core values in regard to hunting and fishing, that's mine, and it colors my whole perspective.
All others sure seem like a slippery slope many have already slid down, and many here in Montana want to grease further and I have yet to see a framework that directly fights that as well as the State Public Trust of Wildlife.
Last edited:
I'm just focusing on the bolded part here: Yes, I do think that's a selfish interpretation of the public trust resource. Simply looking at it through the lens of what you want in terms of your recreational activities rather than what is the best outcome for the resource. That's the short-sightedness I'm referencing. (FTR - I don't think you are personally selfish, just that the argument is selfish in nature.)
Ideally, there's a blend of how states manage for NR opportunity as well as resident opportunity. There are also entire segments of wildlife management that aren't being covered in this discussion such as non-game funding, fisheries management, etc. I would think that if you asked a lot of hunters, they will say that their license dollars shouldn't go towards managing fairy shrimp and Myotis lucifugus but instead for large antlered mule deer and elk.
In the Montana example - the 90/10 split is more difficult because those B10's & B11's are tied to the access & conservation funding and they've been set at 17K & 6600 for a long time. The growth in MT is primarily in hunter days and around anterless animals. For some species, there are already a mandatory 90/10 split (antelope, Moose, Sheep, Goat). There exists a cap of 12K upland licenses that has never been hit. But, with your B10 & B11, you get an upland license, which isn't counted towards the cap. Meanwhile, the towns and hospitality industry of eastern Montana - just as much a beneficiary of the Public Trust Resource as any other citizen of MT has made it perfectly clear that cutting NR Upland and waterfowl licenses are not something they want to entertain since they make decent money during that time (which really is important to those local rural economies).
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I realize I'm kind of on a rant. I'm open to other ways of looking at it and don't mean to sound so righteous. So here's a guy who likes to hear himself talk.
Folks misuse the word "jealous" often. There's a difference between jealousy and envy, and if you pay attention you'll notice people misuse them. Jealousy, historically anyway, was a fear of someone taking something that's yours. Envy, on the other hand, is wanting something someone else has. A small difference, but a meaningful one.
I believe, and tell my kids, that neither are ever useful. They are feelings that when embraced, lend themselves to you being a loser. So I'll be a loser for a second.
Next year I get to take my oldest son hunting for the first time. He and I are jacked. Recently, someone from a thousand miles away came to this neck of the woods, paid an exorbitant amount of money for a tag, a further exorbitant amount of money for access to a ranch, and shot an elk. It happens all the time. And yet, that person hunted that elk at the pleasure of Montanans. Where is the threshold of folks coming in and shooting an elk that really belongs to the Sons of Montana? To my sons? To the beneficiaries?
When I look at this issue, I am somewhat driven by jealousy for Montanans and in particular, my sons.
I could talk more about economic arguments related to hunting and recreation as it pertains to communities as well. They are akin to how FWP counts elk and mule deer - they largely ignore the distribution.
Folks misuse the word "jealous" often. There's a difference between jealousy and envy, and if you pay attention you'll notice people misuse them. Jealousy, historically anyway, was a fear of someone taking something that's yours. Envy, on the other hand, is wanting something someone else has. A small difference, but a meaningful one.
I believe, and tell my kids, that neither are ever useful. They are feelings that when embraced, lend themselves to you being a loser. So I'll be a loser for a second.
Next year I get to take my oldest son hunting for the first time. He and I are jacked. Recently, someone from a thousand miles away came to this neck of the woods, paid an exorbitant amount of money for a tag, a further exorbitant amount of money for access to a ranch, and shot an elk. It happens all the time. And yet, that person hunted that elk at the pleasure of Montanans. Where is the threshold of folks coming in and shooting an elk that really belongs to the Sons of Montana? To my sons? To the beneficiaries?
When I look at this issue, I am somewhat driven by jealousy for Montanans and in particular, my sons.
I could talk more about economic arguments related to hunting and recreation as it pertains to communities as well. They are akin to how FWP counts elk and mule deer - they largely ignore the distribution.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
You are an expert on the specifics, Ben. I really appreciate your pushback and pointing out the issues.
Thoughtful & polite debate are the hallmarks of a functioning & good society. Plus, I love ya' man!
Focusing on the second part of this post only:
The person who just paid $1200 for the tag and who knows how much for the access actually does benefit you & your son. That tag and that access fee helps that land stay in production and not subdivided. That means habitat for elk that use public and private land, it means carbon fixing for climate resiliency and it means food production, a sustainable local tax base, economic diversity and most importantly, it means more elk for the next generation.
As you are jealous for Montanans, does that include the landowners, outfitters and others with whom you sometimes disagree? The economics of wildlife management are critical to Montana in general. Fishing economics top all others in this space, but the economics of NR's coming to MT either through guided operations or as DIY hunters, leasing hunt clubs, etc, all has a big effect especially in rural locations.
I think that when we take a more inclusive and holistic approach to the issue of NR crowding, you start to see a lot more commonality between the stakeholders even if they view the problem slightly differently. We saw that in during the lead up to the '23 session, and as a result of some really tough conversations, we managed to move the needle on a lot of this, which we'll start to see the impacts of in the 2024 season.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I could say a lot, and of course economics are complicated, as are secondary and tertiary effects, but I would say that I believe no beneficiary should be held above any other without very very careful consideration, which I do not believe has happened or is happening or in a way that looks back and assesses and corrects.
Things get top heavy real quick. I believe things are currently out of balance and grossly so.
To your last sentence, I want more of it. You and others did move the needle and for that I am grateful and hope for more.
I think we agree on the problem, it's just the solution that needs to be worked out.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
@Nameless Range I increasingly feel similar to what you describe above.
The public land hunter is fairly well damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; I've seen just about zero evidence to the contrary for the medium and long term. I dont' feel I'm violating my moral code by advocating for resident primacy in opportunity. So why wouldn't I?
If it's because of a loss of NR habitat and management support due to less connection to the landscape, I question the depth of that support then.
If it's because of a loss of NR dollars I'll take my chances. Double my tag prices, I'll pay it.
If it's because of a loss of NR money in rural communities, I'm not compelled that the current direction of increased leasing, outfitting, and landowner preference is significantly better for businesses in the long run.
Hunting another state's wildlife is and has been a socio-economic luxury. Some luxuries are great to have access to, but that doesn't mean they're inherently right or beneficial just because some people are used to them. The unfortunate reality is that public land, DIY hunters are screwed no matter where they call home. I believe that groups grasp on habitat, hunting, and their valuation of the resource is higher and better than other users.
Like brother Corb says..."Sometimes right isn't equal, Sometimes equal's not fair. There will soon be rows of houses on that ridge over there".
The public land hunter is fairly well damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; I've seen just about zero evidence to the contrary for the medium and long term. I dont' feel I'm violating my moral code by advocating for resident primacy in opportunity. So why wouldn't I?
If it's because of a loss of NR habitat and management support due to less connection to the landscape, I question the depth of that support then.
If it's because of a loss of NR dollars I'll take my chances. Double my tag prices, I'll pay it.
If it's because of a loss of NR money in rural communities, I'm not compelled that the current direction of increased leasing, outfitting, and landowner preference is significantly better for businesses in the long run.
Hunting another state's wildlife is and has been a socio-economic luxury. Some luxuries are great to have access to, but that doesn't mean they're inherently right or beneficial just because some people are used to them. The unfortunate reality is that public land, DIY hunters are screwed no matter where they call home. I believe that groups grasp on habitat, hunting, and their valuation of the resource is higher and better than other users.
Like brother Corb says..."Sometimes right isn't equal, Sometimes equal's not fair. There will soon be rows of houses on that ridge over there".
Similar threads
