These are always painful discussions to follow. They illustrate how much demand our society has put on the landscapes and what amount of opportunity the shrinking game numbers can provide.
I have seen shrinking opportunity happening since I started hunting multiple states. I see it in my home state. Most often, as numbers and opportunity shrink the default position is to argue about how to allocate the diminishing resource rather than the benefits of working hard to increase the resource.
I never expected western states to undergo the crazy population growth of the last 10-15 years. And I see it continuing. As that happens, I expect those residents to want more of their own wildlife opportunity and I had best accept that hunting out of state will become more and more difficult. As it becomes more difficult, I expect those with power and resources to try leverage the table to their benefit through more outfitter programs, more tags that allow one to buy a ticket to the front of the line, and the host of other machinations we see employed.
I fully respect, and anticipate, residents to do what they feel is best with their wildlife resource. I will adjust accordingly as that changes. Pertinent to the NM sheep topic, I dropped that many years ago when the price rocketed and the allocation dropped. No sense worrying about it. That is what the State of NM decided. I made my decision based on that.
There are some realities that aren't going to change. Wildlife is a scarce resource and getting more scarce as we breed ourselves, and the wild things, out of habitable space. States are provided the authority to manage wildlife, no matter who owns the ground it stands on. Non-residents provide a great amount of funding and advocacy toward the cause of wildlife they may never get a chance to enjoy. Residents of western states pay a huge price for their hunting in the form of economic opportunity costs. Society, including most hunters, is usually too busy until it's too late. We will spend more time arguing than working to improve the outcomes we argue about.
These are just realities I've experienced in years of being involved in hunting and conservation. I can ignore those realities, but ignoring them doesn't change them and likely doesn't result in any progress.
I've boiled it down to a few constants as it relates to my ability to have more hunting opportunity in my home state, or in states I dream of hunting as a non-resident. It takes animals and space to do what is my life's passion; hunting. That requires conservation work.
1. Conservation is always difficult - If it was easy we would have solved all the problems a long time ago. Hell, if it was easy, they'd call it "golf."
2. Conservation is always uncomfortable - No matter what cause you work toward for wild things and wild places, someone is going to be upset. Threads on this forum are often an example.
3. Conservation is always inconvenient - We never get to put it on our calendars when the threats will arise or when opportunities present themselves. It is easy to be too busy, and we are all busy.
4. Conservation is expensive - Always has been, always will be. It will get more expensive. You can't improve access with bake sales. Productive lands need management that isn funded by something more than selling calendars.
One thing I can do toward the effort of more animals and better access is to engage in conservation efforts that benefit wildlife in all places, not just my back yard. I contribute time and money to national groups, to state affiliate chapters, to (insert here), because I expect that doing so helps all wildlife populations, whether I get to hunt them or not, whether they increase in my home state or some other state.
Watching this dynamic unfold is probably the biggest reason for my expanding dislike of point schemes. Those schemes just slant the table in favor of old gray-haired farts like me and fertilizes the mindset of fighting over a scarce resource due to having paid "something" and with "something" comes an expectation. It is the human condition to expect a return for paying a fee.
Now, rather than focus on what we can do to increase wildlife, we have crazy talk of suing Wyoming for changes to their Big 5, because we paid something. We have people threatening they are done funding conservation groups/efforts because they will get a smaller percentage of opportunity. Again, part or the human condition. But, doesn't mean it is our best path forward.
Whatever happens in NM or WY or AZ or (insert here), the best way to increase the opportunity that can be shared with non-residents is to support more conservation efforts. A lot of that gets done by volunteerism and "boots on the ground" among locals. And a lot of it is funded by non-residents with generous contributions. The combination of "Time, Talent, and Treasure" from all sources has been a proven model for success. Fighting, litigating, and elbowing each other to get to the front of the line for the chance to shoot the last buffalo is hardly the path that we have all benefitted from.
I am grateful that the average Hunt Talker does more with their time, talent, treasure, and advocacy than any group of hunters I know. Countless numbers of you raise huge amounts of money for wildlife, you spend immense hours advocating and volunteering, and do all of it with no expectation that it results in any personal benefit. Thanks to all of you. You are helping the wild places and the wild things we need for this activity we all love.
Carry on .............