The King's Elk -- Op-ed in Wyofile

[Treeshark]

think you would be surpised.

No doubt there are many great people, and @antlerradar is a great representation of that- I’m making no argument there.

If you’re telling me that the average landowner in WY/MT is somehow more virtuous than those in NM/CO, and that is THE (singular) reason why LO tags cannot work in WY/MT- I’m just not sure we are going to agree on that.

 

[cgasner1]

No doubt there are many great people, and @antlerradar is a great representation of that- I’m making no argument there.

If you’re telling me that the average landowner in WY/MT is somehow more virtuous than those in NM/CO, and that is THE (singular) reason why LO tags cannot work in WY/MT- I’m just not sure we are going to agree on that.

A lot in mt would be that easy to see just look at upom or the bulls for billionaires that got smashed. If the residents of Montana wanted a program like this I’m pretty sure it would already be in place. If I was to bet money on it you won’t be buying a tag here any time soon

 

[Treeshark]

If I was to bet money on it you won’t be buying a tag here any time soon

You may be right- the next five to ten years will be interesting to follow.

 

[hank4elk]

Watching discussion.
No vitu in NM.

 

[TOGIE]

money is a devious and idolatrous monster.

doesn't take long for even the most principled to fall prey when the platter is presented.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No doubt there are many great people, and @antlerradar is a great representation of that- I’m making no argument there.

If you’re telling me that the average landowner in WY/MT is somehow more virtuous than those in NM/CO, and that is THE (singular) reason why LO tags cannot work in WY/MT- I’m just not sure we are going to agree on that.

The real danger is in thinking that landowners are a monolithic block. They are varied and nuanced. They are all running a business that provides a lifestyle that they treasure and an income that isn't all that awesome. Their overhead is massive and their stresses are based on a market and economy that is constantly squeezing them and the end user for profit. Add wildlife in that starts eating into your slim margins already, and I can see why folks want to cash in on licenses. Some of those landowners aren't struggling for revenue in any shape or form, while others are putting the 6th fuel pump in an 88 Chevy to keep it running long enough to get feed out.

If people want to remove the profit motive from landowners as it relates to wildlife, then the incentives that states offer must match the overhead, costs and inputs that landowners deal with in order to keep them from goin under while providing public recreation. Transferable licenses are attractive because it's a quick infusion of cash for some, and it's an easy way to get rewarded for stewarding wildlife for others, and others still want to give those opportunities away (see @hank4elk).

I am no fan of transferable licenses. They fly in the face of the egalitarian model that we've adopted as Americans. They reduce our conservation ethic down to a cheap dollar, rather than become an actual reward for stewardship, conservation and being a part of your local community. However, other states have approached the issue differently, and until there are acceptable replacements, landowners aren't likely to jump on the bandwagon of eliminating their pay day for lost forage.

NM<'s system is not equitable. CO's is in need of massive reform. NV & ID seem to have tight lids on their transferability programs and the NV folks will tell you to never go down that route. I agree. Transferable licenses reduce something that is ethereal and exists as a condition of the land to a crass economic transaction. As much as I celebrate and adore the ranching/farming lifestyle, the quality of life they seek to maintain shouldn't be on the back of others who are paying for a large part of the freight as well. The binary arguments between hunters and landowners tend to push down the thoughtful, more pensive approaches that can lead to bigger outcomes. The need to argue about who is right on an issue, rather than listen to those we disagree with on what their problems really are will always lead to more conflict.

A meeting that happened a few years ago that @Elky Welky & I were able to partake in had some ground rules that I thought were pretty solid. The chief tenant among them was to assume positive intent of all participants. Setting that table was key to getting some thoughtful discussion with no raised hackles. There will always be some who wish to incite conflict and chaos in any setting as it serves their purpose which is to keep people separated through imaginary lines and differences. It's up to us to reject that offering, and break out an uncomfortable handshake and some empathy before coming back with the reactionary impulse that is so easy to fall prey too.

 

[Treeshark]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post, Ben. While we may not agree on this particular issue, a lot of what you posted does resonate.

You used an interesting word that jumped out to me: egalitarian. I feel that many western states have abandoned any sort of egalitarianism from my personal NR perspective (when it comes to tag allotment).

I do not dispute that residents should not have the right to decide this for themselves. However, my viewpoint on things like raffle/auction tags, landowner tags etc has evolved primarily in response to that perceived “fairness” disappearing at an alarming rate.

 

[TOGIE]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post, Ben. While we may not agree on this particular issue, a lot of what you posted does resonate.

You used an interesting word that jumped out to me: egalitarian. I feel that many western states have abandoned any sort of egalitarianism from my personal NR perspective (when it comes to tag allotment).

I do not dispute that residents should not have the right to decide this for themselves. However, my viewpoint on things like raffle/auction tags, landowner tags etc has evolved primarily in response to that perceived “fairness” disappearing at an alarming rate.

but fairness never existed for the NR and it was never really part of the adopted model. the fact that it's less fair than it was should not be the deciding factor in your argument of spite.

you're just never going to convince folks that the more the system becomes capitalistic and the power continues to siphon it's way towards those with the most money that it becomes a more fair system. and the reason for that is because it's not more fair.

 

[Treeshark]

the fact that it's less fair than it was should not be the deciding factor in your argument of spite.

Maybe it should be, maybe it should not be- but it definitely is, just how I’m wired. If someone’s reaction to getting screwed is “thank you sir, may I have another?”, I personally think that is kind of being a b$&@!. (Sorry, that’s crass but the best way I can say it).

I am a bit surprised you would think it is your place to decide how I make that decision, honestly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post, Ben. While we may not agree on this particular issue, a lot of what you posted does resonate.

You used an interesting word that jumped out to me: egalitarian. I feel that many western states have abandoned any sort of egalitarianism from my personal NR perspective (when it comes to tag allotment).

I do not dispute that residents should not have the right to decide this for themselves. However, my viewpoint on things like raffle/auction tags, landowner tags etc has evolved primarily in response to that perceived “fairness” disappearing at an alarming rate.

I have never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend.


Thomas Jefferson, Hot Chocolate lover

This is the nuance. Egalitarian for residents, and less so for non-residents is a hallmark of a chief tenant of the Constitutional basis of wildlife management in the United States: Wildlife belongs to no one, and is held in trust for all. States refined that further by clearly making laws that have withstood constitutional challenges in terms of public ownership and privatization in states like Texas. Every state will tell you they follow the North American Model of Fish & Wildlife Conservation. Each state interprets that differently. However, every state that I am aware of simply manages their wildlife for benefit of it's citizens first, wildlife second, non-residents last. While NR's carry the freight for most funding, it's a recreational privilege - not a right - to hunt another state.

The rub you talk about comes in the form of the democratic allocation of the resource (another major tenant of the NAM) through either commission authority of through the legislatures. The hope is that there is always a thoughtful approach to those that are invited to enjoy the wildlife of another state, but the reality is unless we're talking about "making the pie bigger" then we're only talking about who gets to kill what, where and how. As a non-resident, you're best course of action against those who are not instituting programs you wish would happen is to use your dollars elsewhere. But as a non-resident, your right to hunt is limited to your own state of residence. Other states do not owe NR's the same consideration when it comes to allocation of that resource. So NR's are secondary to all things wildlife management, and their largess, generosity and ability to fund agency work is a testament to the work that state agencies do relative to attracting people to their state.

Wyoming in particular has been incredibly generous with Non-residents both in terms of number of tags and cost. Conditions on the ground are changing things and some people are using that turmoil to bring in long-standing policies that they've been trying for decades. The public of Wyoming has said no in enough mass and volume to repeatedly remind lawmakers who they work for when the sessions gavel out. The real question on transferability in Wyoming is not whether or not it helps landowners, but whether or not the few complaining have enough political stroke to usurp the voices of the people.

 

[TOGIE]

Maybe it should be, maybe it should not be- but it definitely is, just how I’m wired. If someone’s reaction to getting screwed is “thank you sir, may I have another?”, I personally think that is kind of being a b$&@!. (Sorry, that’s crass but the best way I can say it).

I am a bit surprised you would think it is your place to decide how I make that decision, honestly.

crying about losing something that was never yours.

and no, i'm not deciding anything for you, that's sort of a silly claim. you're allowed to have that opinion, and form arguments borne of that spite, and i'm allowed to point out that it's $*)Q!#@$ stupid...

in my opinion

 

[Irrelevant]

but fairness never existed for the NR and it was never really part of the adopted model. the fact that it's less fair than it was should not be the deciding factor in your argument of spite.

Idaho did not start limiting the number of non-resident hunters for deer and elk until 1972.

edit: http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/50YearsOfGameManagement.pdf
pg. 9

 

[TOGIE]

Idaho did not start limiting the number of non-resident hunters for deer and elk until 1972.

edit: http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/50YearsOfGameManagement.pdf
pg. 9

the states right to exclude, at any point, means it was never fair.

 

[Irrelevant]

the states right to exclude, at any point, means it was never fair.

You're ignoring reality. You said it never existed, when in fact, it did exist for 50+ years.

 

[Irrelevant]

count me in the camp that doesn't support the current allocation of wildlife for all the same reasons that I do support federal public lands.

 

[TOGIE]

You're ignoring reality. You said it never existed, when in fact, it did exist for 50+ years.

How much did licenses cost for each party?

If the management is for the residents benefit first, regardless of what the allocation is, it’s not fair.

 

[Ben Lamb]

count me in the camp that doesn't support the current allocation of wildlife for all the same reasons that I do support federal public lands.

I understand that sentiment, but those are two entirely separate things, with clear histories that lead people to see why decisions were made they way they were in each case.

From a legal standpoint, the management of wildlife is transferred to the states under various different statutes and constitutional authorities. This is a good read on the various authorities and where they draw their power from: https://www.animallaw.info/article/american-wildlife-law-introduction.

Curiously, under Roman law, their interpretation of "ownership" was far more egalitarian than the NAM is.

For public lands, no transfer of authority has ever been made in the same scale as wildlife and at the inclusion of states into the union, they gave up their rights to any unclaimed federal property. So the management of federal public lands has a pretty clear case law behind it relative to how they are to be managed.

it's a clear case of powers delegated to the state, versus power delegated to the federal government.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Maybe it should be, maybe it should not be- but it definitely is, just how I’m wired. If someone’s reaction to getting screwed is “thank you sir, may I have another?”, I personally think that is kind of being a b$&@!. (Sorry, that’s crass but the best way I can say it).

I am a bit surprised you would think it is your place to decide how I make that decision, honestly.

You arent getting screwed.

There is a finite amount of opportunity - priority is given to residents. The opportunities (esp for certain species) are decreasing and the interest is growing. You choose where you live and the associated benefits/drawbacks. Upsetting the whole apple cart and 100 years of the worlds best model because you dont like not getting a tag in an ever developping world is simply selfish. NR opportunity is the first to get cut. It has the most volume (people interested) so its the obvious and easy answer if something needs permits cut.

If NR were truly being exploited - every tag non resident tag would cost a lot more.

 

[Irrelevant]

How much did licenses cost for each party?

I don't know, but most of what I've seen is that NR were more.

If the management is for the residents benefit first, regardless of what the allocation is, it’s not fair.

That is clearly the case now, but I've never read anything that articulates that perspective historically, though it could be true. In general, from what I've read, which I'll admit, is rather limited, regulations used to be less geared toward benefiting R hunters at the detriment of NR hunters. That link above talks about completely closing hunting season in the Owyhee for a number of years to help the deer herd recover. That would be completely unacceptable now, you would first eliminate all NR opportunity, then reduce R opportunity, but even then likely never completely eliminate it. Then once populations recovered opportunity would first go to R, which again, was not what happened historically.

There are two ways to look at this issue. 1. Legally and 2. morally (self-admitted over-dramatization of the word).
1. Legally the states have a right exclude NR access to wildlife, it was decided a long time ago at the Supreme Court level, and thus they do exercise that control to benefit R hunters. I don't think they should, especially when, at least in the west, the vast majority of that opportunity is granted on lands we all own and pay for the management of.
If we consider that, legally the states have the right to exclude NR from State-owned public lands but they don't and almost no one would support that effort despite the fact the NR don't pay a lick into the management of State lands, I would argue it as a prime example of doing what is "right" despite the fact that they could, legally, manage exclusively for citizens of the state they choose not to.

I'm not interested in arguments strictly about legality; that's settled matter. But not everything that is legal is right, right? I mean there was a time it was legal to beat your wife. That never made it right. I know I hold my kids accountable to a higher standard than "legal".

 

[TOGIE]

I don't know, but most of what I've seen is that NR were more.

That is clearly the case now, but I've never read anything that articulates that perspective historically, though it could be true. In general, from what I've read, which I'll admit, is rather limited, regulations used to be less geared toward benefiting R hunters at the detriment of NR hunters. That link above talks about completely closing hunting season in the Owyhee for a number of years to help the deer herd recover. That would be completely unacceptable now, you would first eliminate all NR opportunity, then reduce R opportunity, but even then likely never completely eliminate it. Then once populations recovered opportunity would first go to R, which again, was not what happened historically.

There are two ways to look at this issue. 1. Legally and 2. morally (self-admitted over-dramatization of the word).
1. Legally the states have a right exclude NR access to wildlife, it was decided a long time ago at the Supreme Court level, and thus they do exercise that control to benefit R hunters. I don't think they should, especially when, at least in the west, the vast majority of that opportunity is granted on lands we all own and pay for the management of.
If we consider that, legally the states have the right to exclude NR from State-owned public lands but they don't and almost no one would support that effort despite the fact the NR don't pay a lick into the management of State lands, I would argue it as a prime example of doing what is "right" despite the fact that they could, legally, manage exclusively for citizens of the state they choose not to.

I'm not interested in arguments strictly about legality; that's settled matter. But not everything that is legal is right, right? I mean there was a time it was legal to beat your wife. That never made it right. I know I hold my kids accountable to a higher standard than "legal".

what is right and wrong on this topic is vastly, incomprehensibly, more subjective and personal than the morality of beating ones wife.