Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Big bucks for big bucks.

Promoting having habitat isn't a good thing? Like I said, it's the only good line in that bill
I didn’t say that. It sounded like you were insinuating that the revenue was being used directly on habitat. I don’t support the privatization of wildlife through programs like this, whether for incentivizing the protection of wildlife habitat on private lands or for any other purpose.
 
More landowners would buy tags if they could sell them, and those that buy them would likely have higher harvest rate, so habitat would have to increase quite a lot to leave general draw/public land opportunity the same, which I don't believe would be the case.

Seems the more likely scenario is more tags/harvest goes to landowners paying customers, and less for those trying to draw fewer remaining tags in a non landowner draw. I suppose this is why although not technically privatizing wildlife, it effectively does and I'd expect to generally see opposition here.
 
38% here in NM as noted in the article and I’m confident Brandon is already analyzing last year’s spreadsheets over that. You people thought this couldn’t happen to you? The NM model of privatized public resource is a real gem of corrupt western wildlife management. Once the Wyoming commission gets this hurdle cleared then they can move for ranch only and unit wide tags.
Yet don’t forget pronghorn! Unlimited private tags, all NM landowners thereby could get trespass fees. Not to be confused with OTC because NM public land antelope has no OTC. IT’s draw only for public!
 
Look what goes on in CO in the name of "access" with RFW.....public gets half-assed, very restricted, worst time frame access......landowners get a LOT of tags, get to set their own seasons for usage and make big $$$$$ respectively. All of this ON TOP of tags outside of RFW that are "private land only" :rolleyes:
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Forum statistics

Threads
114,420
Messages
2,056,843
Members
36,593
Latest member
Josho89
Back
Top