Mind experiment for tag allocation?

[Tom]

Here's an exercise idea, essay idea, whatever, for discussion.

You're part of the wildlife advisory board, for a round table discussion to advice the leaders for wildlife tag use.

There are two districts with tags to be given out, to make it simple, for discussion. The west and the east district. The people of the kingdom have set asside some widlife habitat for all the people of the west and the east.

The west habitat is 50% for all the people of the kingdom. The east is 10%, as more people were there, when the habitat was set asside. Another 25% of each of the west and the east districts is for use of the general people in that district. The remainder of the habitat in the west, 25%, and the east, 65% is for use of individuals in those districts, i.e. landowners, but other citizens may obtain permission from the landowner, whoever it may be, to use a tag there.

Suppose we have 100 tags in the west and 100 tags in the east to allocate however we think it is fair. Say, the population in the east and west is 75% and 25% of the people of the kingdom/ two districts, i.e. more in the east district.

How should we advise that the leaders give out the tags at the round table discussion? I guess we have to advise each of the prince of the east and the prince of the west seperately on what to do with the 100 tags in those districts, but we answer to the leaders for the whole kingdom. All the animals are locked up in the kingdom, they can't escape, like its the earth say.

What do we tell the prince of the west? What do we tell the prince of the east? Their choices are give a tag to an east or west disctrict citizen, and to denote where the tag be used, kingdom habitat, district habitat, or landowner habitat in each district.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

No brainer , You tell the people in the east to stay home and hunt their areas and leave the people in the west alone . You explain to the prince of the east that the good people of the west already sacrifice too many tags to greedy outfitters and application services for lazy slobs who only hunt for vanity and self-glorification , i.e. name in a record book or picture in a magazine.

You then reward the people in the west for all the time , effort and $ they give to habitat improvement projects in their states by allowing them to manage their own wildlife .

Then you have George Taulman beheaded and all of his sub-guides publicly flogged .

 

[MarvB]

Tom there are times that you just flat bust me up

 

[Washington Hunter]

Tom you just try to make things too complicated. |oo

Think of this issue from a non-hunter's (or anti's) point of view. What type of hunting do the majority of non-hunters (clueless people) support? What they do support is hunting for meat. They do not support "trophy" hunting. How do you think non-hunters (which probably make up about 90% of our population) think of somebody who flies across the country and spends $5000 to kill a deer? Surely they will see it as "trophy" hunting (which it is.) I'm not against trophy hunting or hunting in states other than the one you live in, because of course I do it myself. I'm just saying hunting needs to remain something the average guy can afford, so people need to have the ability to hunt close to where they live. It's just not right for non-residents to have an equal chance at tags when there aren't enough tags even for the residents of that state. Doesn't that make sense? I'm not sure why you're so concerned about non-residents' rights, as you are always talking about all the opportunites you have in Texas. Why would you ever want to hunt in any other state if Texas is as wonderful as you make it out to be?

 

[Washington Hunter]

Then you have George Taulman beheaded and all of his sub-guides publicly flogged .

I also have to say I definitely support this idea. hump

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm with FCB on this one except I think there ought to be a drawing to see who gets to behead George, with the proceeds to go towards habitat.

 

[Washington Hunter]

BHR, Great Idea! I would have to support that also, in the name of habitat!

 

[Michaelr]

W.H.>>Right on the money.

Tom your a retard.

 

[Tom]

FairChaseBen, One of the others at the round table says ask not how to reward just the habitat managers of the west, but how to reward the whole set of habitat managers in the east and the west. I have a dream, that there will be a fair method devised to reward them all. Lynching, that's the old way, we have a round table discussion in this mind experiment.

WH, its not so complicated, a few percentages. The west could get the 25 and 25 of state and private in there district. The east could get the 25 and 65. The 50+10 could be divided 25, 75 like the population. Then, in this example, it comes out 33% of tags for the 25% of the people in the west and 67% for the 75% in the east. The west still gets more, but its more fair to those who provide the federal habitat, etc. Non hunters can understand travel, seeing other places, hunting other game, that's why the citizens of the east and the west set asside the 50% and 10% in this experiment.

Also, its true I can get more game in my home state, for less money, and its better. I just like to see other places, meet other people, experience other places in the outdoors, not just in pictures, hunt other game too. Whenever I do it, I usually say to myself, man that cost me a lot of money and a lot of time. It was fun though and I have good memories. Sometimes, I get some game too.

Rewarding the habitat improving people, that's good. Can't we do that for the west, the east and the landowners somehow, in this mind experiment?

michaelr, "your"? you mean "you are" or "you're", get educated, think.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Tom ,
You can wake up now your dream has come true , you're getting 15% of our tags this year !

 

[Tom]

The costs are something else to consider. 15% for one state is good, compared to a state at 3%. Look at Nevada costs. Resident deer and antelope, 30 and 60, average $45. Non-resident deer and antelope, 240 and 300, average $270. 15% and 270 is 4,050. 85% at 45 is 3,825. The non-residents pay more of the bill, it looks like than all the residents. The non-residents should get more credit for all that money and wildlife support there, when you look at it that way, right?

When you look at it from an east versus west point of view, the majority in the east can let that kind of unfair hunting go by the wayside when the non-hunters bring it up for a vote. That might kill western public hunting, that disparity, that's a concern. Sad to say, but looking at the facts, its there, right?

What's the answer to that?

 

[Michaelr]

Tom,
whats is wrong with things the way they are?
Like I said in an earlier post. Keep it cheap to hunt at home so you can afford to take your kids, That is the only way we will recruit enough youngsters to keep our hunting rights.

If you price the average Joe out of hunting, you are going to loose your hunting privledges at the ballot box. There will not be enough youngsters introduced to hunting at a young age to sustain our numbers. We already compete with a thousand other things from sports to nintendo.
My take is that you are a selfish S.O.B. that just wants to be able to hunt when and where you please, with no consideration to the sport or its future.

 

[Tom]

michael, you paid what, $28 bucks for an elk tag in Idaho? You're the one not supporting hunting enough. Get it, the residents are ripping off the rest, not you in particular, but residents don't pay their share, that's the idea, get it?

Show me some numbers where they do? Hell, I've hunted in Idaho twice. As I recall it was about $100 for the liscense and $350 and $250 for the elk and deer tag. Take that for two years from a non-resident. $700*2=$1400. A guy like that has supported animals in Idaho the equivalent of 1400/28=50 years of an elk hunting resident. Who's the SOB there?

 

[AZ402]

Hey Tom......

 

[Washington Hunter]

I do think resident hunters should be willing to pay higher license fees so non-residents can't use that against them. After all, resident license fees in most western states are a very small fraction of the cost of hunting, when you factor in the price of gas, guns, optics, camping equipment, etc.

But whatever the fees are, residents should be entitled to 90% of the tags.

 

[Michaelr]

Tom,
It is your choice to hunt Idaho and pay non res prices, I have no problem paying non res prices if I decide to hunt in another state. But in my home state I still want to be able to hunt with my wife and kids, to be able to make it a family adventure and to make sure my boys get as much oportunity as possible so that they will be hunters and not tree huggers.
If I have to pay non res type prices that isn't going to happen.
And I am sure that there are ALOT of guys in the same boat.

 

[Tom]

AZ402, is that you on the left or the right or are you an impersonator now? Say something intelligent.

michaelr, that is a legitimate concern, I see that. I would agree to a discounted youth hunt and tag. I'm used to that though too, like in Texas, a non-resident adult liscense for everything covered by the $50 resident liscense is $300, but the ederly and the youth liscense that covers the same, whitetails, turkeys, mule deer, exotics(including hogs) is only $6. Any non-resident can hunt exotics and hogs for $45.

I'd vote for that bill to charge non-residents whatever you want, if it added a clause that the residents pay, at least the costs for their tags to support the animals. If you take a 1000 lb animal for $28, that's less than 3 cents a pound. That's a pretty poor welfare case that gets meat for 3 cents a pound.

AZ402, what's your thoughts on distributing the tags in this experiment? Can you think as good as you can name call and post funny impersonator pictures? Lets see some thoughts, you joker?

 

[AZ402]

If this thread was anything but a joke, I'd make some serious comments.

 

[Tom]

Well, I hope the joke gets settled with some serious thoughts.