Bingo.
WY preference point increase
- Thread starter Addicting
- Start date
Bingo.
And shitcan the idea of transferable landowner tags. mtmuley
Get those NR tags expensive enough (for conservation) so that they’re essentially OTC and I’m with you dude
Bullshot
Well-known member
I'm not pleased to say I can begin to see Treeshark in a former life as a railroad man justifying exterminating the bison, just to prove himself a "logical" man. Or someone trying to figure out how to stuff more passenger pigeons in a barrel to ship out to market. Progress, get with it or get outta the way. And hopefully a handful of buddies make a few extra bucks while at it, cause if they don't we all know someone else will. So get it first. You're not always wrong about causes and effects but your proud glee at this topic ("I should charge for such insight") is wearing thin a little. This is a supposed to be a love of public hunting and wildlife conservation site but now we have a subset celebrating a made up BCM. Some have lost the plot of why we came here in the first place, why Big Fin's programs and encouragement resonated with the every day American DIY hunter. Sad crap that we argue against our brethren and invent new ethics of exclusion rather than fight tooth and nail to retain what inclusion we still had. Your children will surely not have the opportunities you so casually are willing to give up, or take from others. This is about more than a single price increase. The true colors come through in so much more of the writing from the same cast of characters across various forums, over years. Prove me wrong.
The BCM was created for the same reason the NAM was- to protect our wildlife and hunting heritage into the future by safeguarding it against its biggest contemporary threats.
Times are always changing. We should celebrate (or at least respect) progressive, modern thinking- without it, we would be stuck in the past.
I apologize for offending with the “I should charge” comment- it was tongue-in-cheek to certain members. I should have been more self-aware of how that would have been perceived.
Bullshot
Well-known member
And thats why I started with "I am not pleased" to say anything disparaging about you. You are well researched. And typically polite. But the "factions" developing around out of state opportunities, of which only one aspect is cost, are troubling to many and for good reason. Count me among the troubled. Thank you for acknowledging the perception.
I am too. But it’s hard (and unproductive) to ignore the reality, especially as a NR.
Where do you predict things stand with states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Colorado five years from now in terms of opportunity and cost?
Me personally: I think NR opportunity will continue to shrink and NR cost will continue to rise sharply vs. resident cost. With downward supply in most instances, this all makes sense and is as it should be.
I find the points game increasingly stupid. I would trade much higher tag prices for better odds and predictability. At least then it’s a decision vs an ever-decreasing chance. Plus, the state wildlife departments get more money (which hopefully is well spent towards increasing supply) and residents would be largely unaffected.
Last edited:
Bullshot
Well-known member
I think the paradigm of residents (only the hunters) being unaffected is no longer very defensible in this age. Everyone pays taxes and lives somewhere. Presumably those taxes and other local contributions of time and engagement are put to good local and national use, regardless of the ecological distribution of mule deer or elk. Every state has some resource that other out of state Americans may enjoy or use (beaches, forests, oceans, airports, parks, roads, ports, monuments, and yes wildlife). Treating the wildlife alone as such an exception, and as the currency to pay back residents (and only a minority of any state's residents at that) serves thin self interests (and is becoming more apparent to non-hunters) and thus more unsustainable every day. Threats to hunting from other residents and businesses grow every day (ballot initiatives, PETA, posting of properties, privatization of fed land, development and industrialization, etc) Better to raise all tags across the board and sell equally than to fall into this engineered paradigm if R vs NR when it comes to prices and quota. I don't ask for any particular benefit, but it is insane that this system is so egregiously off center, to the ultimate detriment of wildlife and hunting culture, I believe. NR are told loud and clear and (gleefully too often) we have no vote, no say, no influence. That is true, but doesn't HAVE to be true. We have deeply shared interests and love of wildlife hunting, history, and tradition and the beautiful states we don't happen to live in. By working towards exclusion, be it by location or economic status, and by celebrating the barriers to involvement and voices of NR on issues of wildlife and hunting, the deep reserves of allies amongst us is methodically partitioned, undermined, and weakened. When the time comes to support, fund, and defend one another, we'll simply be unable to muster a cohesive interest group, with ranks likely thinned, and discouragement and in-fighting at a peak.
Bullshot
Well-known member
If I were a forward thinking resident hunter, I'd be a little worried about what happens when the other 80+ percent of non-hunter residents say "I'm tired of paying $10/lb for ground. Or I am opposed to killing wildlife. Or I'd like to see more cougars. And where's my actual financial cut of this resident wildlife benefit"
Bullshot
Well-known member
Not sure how many resident elk hunters there are in Wyoming, maybe 50,000?
If each bought a tag for $400 (a STEAL all day long!) that's an additional 20,000,000 for conservation.
Probably 100,000 hunters in Colorado. A cool and easy extra 40 million in funding.
Buy land, install tanks, research CWD, fund pensions.... lots of good stuff.
Who's supporting such a truly modest proposal? Crickets. That's who.
And what would be the arguement against?? Pricing out the little guy? Please, doesn't work when NR says it, shouldn't work there. Don't have a couple hundred to hunt elk? Then let a NR willing to pay 5x as much to take it and fund conservation in YOUR state. There is plenty of money in these states to afford the premium hunting offered. Charge NR whatever you feel like, but the charade of essentially free resident big game tags is cheapskate, selfish, BS, if ever there was.
Great. Now I'm the one sowing division.
If each bought a tag for $400 (a STEAL all day long!) that's an additional 20,000,000 for conservation.
Probably 100,000 hunters in Colorado. A cool and easy extra 40 million in funding.
Buy land, install tanks, research CWD, fund pensions.... lots of good stuff.
Who's supporting such a truly modest proposal? Crickets. That's who.
And what would be the arguement against?? Pricing out the little guy? Please, doesn't work when NR says it, shouldn't work there. Don't have a couple hundred to hunt elk? Then let a NR willing to pay 5x as much to take it and fund conservation in YOUR state. There is plenty of money in these states to afford the premium hunting offered. Charge NR whatever you feel like, but the charade of essentially free resident big game tags is cheapskate, selfish, BS, if ever there was.
Great. Now I'm the one sowing division.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's a kid that should have learned to read and not fell asleep in math class.
All kinds of cheap cow tags to be had every year in Wyoming to see if you like elk hunting long before you decide to buy a single point.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Except you would be wrong about the opportunity for NR shrinking in Wyoming for elk. We issued more elk tags to NR last year than ever...
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's not exclusion, you're looking at it wrong.
As a NR it doesn't fuggin' matter how much you pay for a tag or point you will never have the influence over another states wildlife you feel you should have.
The job of wildlife advocacy is for Residents of each state to take care of. My contribution as a NR to a State is strictly funding. I'll take care of that piece (providing more funding), while you as a Resident influence your legislature, commission, etc to support the wildlife. I don't know those people, you do. Further, they are not inclined to give a chit what I tell them as a NR.
We aren't exclusive, we just provide different things to the over-all goal.
I also dont expect any resident to give me as a NR special consideration because I pay more for a tag. What I do expect is for you to advocate for WILDLIFE from the money I provide. Finally, from a few decades of advocating for wildlife, its infinitely easier for me to cut a check to fund another states wildlife than deal with the legislature, commission, etc.
Last edited:
Thus my use of the word “most” vs “all.”
Addicting
Well-known member
175 posts in and we haven’t discovered anything new except the same old characters championing their same old stances. Think this one has ran its course and needs to be taken off the notification list.
Bullshot
Well-known member
No objection. For my part sorry for fueling any flames. I do think this thread, differs from others, in that the original discussion about increased fees seems to have tapped a nerve about just how gratuitous and untethered this annual rite of passage has become from one state or another. "They do it because they can" seems apt, more so than "we do it to be fair, or to influence behaviors, or to fund a known need with a budget shortfall". So if the arguements have just become senseless noise, which I agree they probably have, it's only in natural response to the arbitrary trajectories that have been chosen in each states approach to cost control, value, distribution, and justification. More is better. Period. And NR will pay it. Period. If you like hunting out west as we all do, we have choices. Do it. Don't. Do it quietly. Or maybe harmlessly and toothlessly rant a bit on a forum. Cheap entertainment for some. Annoying to others. I see which way I fell today, so sorry again!
Similar threads
