Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[woods89]

@Nameless Range I increasingly feel similar to what you describe above.

The public land hunter is fairly well damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; I've seen just about zero evidence to the contrary for the medium and long term. I dont' feel I'm violating my moral code by advocating for resident primacy in opportunity. So why wouldn't I?

If it's because of a loss of NR habitat and management support due to less connection to the landscape, I question the depth of that support then.
If it's because of a loss of NR dollars I'll take my chances. Double my tag prices, I'll pay it.
If it's because of a loss of NR money in rural communities, I'm not compelled that the current direction of increased leasing, outfitting, and landowner preference is significantly better for businesses in the long run.

Hunting another state's wildlife is and has been a socio-economic luxury. Some luxuries are great to have access to, but that doesn't mean they're inherently right or beneficial just because some people are used to them. The unfortunate reality is that public land, DIY hunters are screwed no matter where they call home. I believe that groups grasp on habitat, hunting, and their valuation of the resource is higher and better than other users.

Like brother Corb says..."Sometimes right isn't equal, Sometimes equal's not fair. There will soon be rows of houses on that ridge over there".

As a Midwest guy, this is painful to read, mostly because I can't form a good argument against it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"There will soon be rows of houses on that ridge over there".

'Sorry brother Corb, I live in the Gallatin ... and there already are sprawling mcmansions on the heretofore wildlife habitat ridges.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

As a Midwest guy, this is painful to read, mostly because I can't form a good argument against it.

And it's painful to write, because I have WAY more in common with a non-resdient DIY public land hunter than many resident hunters in my own state.

 

[Big Fin]

Every resident is a beneficiary of the Trust. Some residents are also important stakeholders that the Trustees must consider beyond just being a beneficiary. No non-residents are beneficiaries, but some are important stakeholders the Trustees must consider.

How the Trustees interact with stakeholders who can be vital to sustaining the Trust Corpus (wildlife) is often the rub and often where Trustees fail in the duties as a Trustee.

 

[Irrelevant]

IMO your (and I'm not quoting anyone specifically on this deliberately because much like Lamb, you guys as individuals all seem like great humans that I like and respect) stance brings to my mind the question of why we manage much of our public land resource at the federal level for all beneficiaries and think that is best, while wildlife resources that don't recognize boundaries, are managed almost exclusively by the State. The push by people to reserve our wildlife resource for "their" tribe by excluding others feels like we're trending toward the European/Texas model. Yes, I recognize that there is a legal standing much of it is based on, but legal and "right" aren't the same in my book.

Local control is great and important as locals are the ones dealing with and interacting with the resources on a more frequent basis, but if you're honest, all of your public resources, wildlife or otherwise, are currently subsidized by the rest of the nation. From clean air regs to clean water, public land, to roads. I think you might want to check you entitlement and make sure you're not getting out over your skis a bit too much.

I feel like I run into this locally regarding our recreation resource. We have incredibly high demand trails around here, 500-1,000 day users per day. We need to go to a permit system, but I have consistently pushed back on there being any form of "locals only" draw or access. I shouldn't be more entitled to that resource than someone else. Hell, I'm already reaping the entitlement rewards by simply getting to look at it every day.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'd also like to point out, there many people on here that have lamented the loss of habitat in the form of subdevelopments. Aren't Rs at fault for that? Aren't you (R) making the pie smaller while in the next breath also demanding more of it?

 

[Nameless Range]

IMO your (and I'm not quoting anyone specifically on this deliberately because much like Lamb, you guys as individuals all seem like great humans that I like and respect) stance brings to my mind the question of why we manage much of our public land resource at the federal level for all beneficiaries and think that is best, while wildlife resources that don't recognize boundaries, are managed almost exclusively by the State. The push by people to reserve our wildlife resource for "their" tribe by excluding others feels like we're trending toward the European/Texas model. Yes, I recognize that there is a legal standing much of it is based on, be legal and "right" aren't the same in my book.

Local control is great and important as locals are the ones dealing with and interacting with the resources on a more frequent basis, but if you're honest, all of your public resources, wildlife or otherwise, are currently subsidized by the rest of the nation. From clean air regs to clean water, public land, to roads. I think you might want to check you entitlement and make sure you're not getting out over your skis a bit too much.

I feel like I run into this locally regarding our recreation resource. We have incredibly high demand trails around here, 500-1,000 day users per day. We need to go to a permit system, but I have consistently pushed back on their being anymore form of "locals only" draw or access. I shouldn't be more entitled to that resource than someone else. Hell, I'm already reaping the entitlement rewards by simply getting to look at it every day.

I think if we just adhered to the current model of states managing wildlife for their citizens, then we really do run no risk of a European/Texas Model. If Public Trust being for State Beneficiaries is the north star, a benchmark we don't stray to far from, something tethered to, I actually think it protects us from that. It's when the money arguments come along, the secondary and tertiary trickle-down logic comes in, that anything goes becomes more of a possibility.

The ship has long sailed on wildlife being a nationally managed resource, and I know you aren't arguing for it and if we were starting all over I think some arguments of merit could be made.

A few posts ago, Big Fin used the word "stakeholders" as something separate from beneficiaries but still a consideration of Trustees. I suppose that may be a meaningful way to look at locals. I represent locals in more than one official position, and though I am not arguing for a sort of favoritism in terms of permits or opportunities, hunting or otherwise, I think locals are often sacrificed at the altar of the Gods of Recreation - their wisdom and values and experiences overrun. Folks from the outside come in and tell us about their great ideas for where we live. At a recent recreation summit a friend of mine attended, locals were spoken about in a way that made them sound like hurdles to be overcome. That's an aside, but I watch it happen now.

I'd also like to point out, there many people on here that have lamented the loss of habitat in the form of subdevelopments. Aren't Rs at fault for that? Aren't you (R) making the pie smaller while in the next breath also demanding more of it?

Hard to see how that is relevant to license allocation in respect to the Public Trust of Wildlife. Two totally separate issues when it comes to the actual policy of how many NRs we allow on the landscape.

 

[Ben Lamb]

A few posts ago, Big Fin used the word "stakeholders" as something separate from beneficiaries but still a consideration of Trustees. I suppose that may be a meaningful way to look at locals. I represent locals in more than one official position, and though I am not arguing for a sort of favoritism in terms of permits or opportunities, hunting or otherwise, I think locals are often sacrificed at the altar of the Gods of Recreation - their wisdom and values and experiences overrun. Folks from the outside come in and tell us about their great ideas for where we live. At a recent recreation summit a friend of mine attended, locals were spoken about in a way that made them sound like hurdles to be overcome. That's an aside, but I watch it happen now.

It's always interesting to see how people view these issues. The resident hunter has felt this way for decades, and consequently, so has the outfitter and landowner communities.

As far as that summit goes, it sounds from the reports I've heard that it was a missed opportunity. Too bad. A lot of the summer recreation folks simply refuse to acknowledge their impacts on wildlife - which - if we really wanted to light some fires - we'd be talking about LE Permits for hiking & biking in certain areas known for elk parturition, etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hard to see how that is relevant to license allocation in respect to the Public Trust of Wildlife. Two totally separate issues when it comes to the actual policy of how many NRs we allow on the landscape.

I think it is relevant to a great degree. You have to look at the entirety of the issue to determine the right choices to make in terms of management.

Loss of prime winter range, migration corridors, hunting spots close to town, etc are all contributing factors here. Less habitat means more people concentrated in what's left, leading to higher hunter use days and more crowding. It's all connected.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think if we just adhered to the current model of states managing wildlife for their citizens, then we really do run no risk of a European/Texas Model. If Public Trust being for State Beneficiaries is the north star, a benchmark we don't stray to far from, something tethered to, I actually think it protects us from that.

Based on the direction of state politics I highly disagree. You're reducing access to what is considered a public resource to a select group. W

Hard to see how that is relevant to license allocation in respect to the Public Trust of Wildlife. Two totally separate issues when it comes to the actual policy of how many NRs we allow on the landscape.

Are they? Maybe I'm on a high horse this morning, but I still have to sleep at night, and that usually involves more than a myopic view of a particular issue. You're proposing to punish NRs who subsidize the vast majority of the habitat your wildlife exist on because you're actively paving over all the non-subsidized habitat you have. You can't see the connection there?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Local control is great and important as locals are the ones dealing with and interacting with the resources on a more frequent basis, but if you're honest, all of your public resources, wildlife or otherwise, are currently subsidized by the rest of the nation. From clean air regs to clean water, public land, to roads. I think you might want to check you entitlement and make sure you're not getting out over your skis a bit too much.

I don't mean this in a snarky way and I'm not sure how else to say it, but check the entitlement "or what"?

When I think about futures that are legitimately likely to become realities, a more communal view probably does nothing to change them. Obviously that's just my opinion. We could give 10%, 20% or 50%+ of hunting licenses to non-residents and I am pretty confident it wouldn't change one thing about what the western US looks like in 50 years. Bigger forces at play, and not in favor of people like you and I.

There are pretty well-established sideboards that we operate in at present that are not "fair". I'm about done trying to re-figure the sideboards and will probably live out my days trying to operate happily within them for the benefit of myself and my family. That could be called myopic and pessimistic, and I wouldn't bristle at that. I'd also call it realistic.

 

[Nameless Range]

Are they? Maybe I'm on a high horse this morning, but I still have to sleep at night, and that usually involves more than a myopic view of a particular issue. You're proposing to punish NRs who subsidize the vast majority of the habitat your wildlife exist on because you're actively paving over all the non-subsidized habitat you have. You can't see the connection there?

My whole position is that one's standing within the trust, the beneficiaries of which are residents, is unaffected by things like:

Whether you live in an apartment or McMansion, how many jobs you create or don't, how much money you've donated to RMEF or haven't, how many hours you volunteer for conservation or sit on the couch, whether your yard is Kentucky Bluegrass or Bluebunch, etc.

The whole premise under which I am operating is that we should really try to treat all beneficiaries equally regardless of their social standings, other life facts, etc.

Every resident is a beneficiary of the Trust. Some residents are also important stakeholders that the Trustees must consider beyond just being a beneficiary. No non-residents are beneficiaries, but some are important stakeholders the Trustees must consider.

How the Trustees interact with stakeholders who can be vital to sustaining the Trust Corpus (wildlife) is often the rub and often where Trustees fail in the duties as a Trustee.

I understand what you seem to be alluding to, but I am trying to work out what is best under the current state of affairs in Fin's post above.

 

[seeth07]

It isn't even the end of hunting season and we are already fighting about non-resident allocations? Gonna be a LONG offseason folks!

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't mean this in a snarky way and I'm not sure how else to say it, but check the entitlement "or what"?

When I think about futures that are legitimately likely to become realities, a more communal view probably does nothing to change them. Obviously that's just my opinion. We could give 10%, 20% or 50%+ of hunting licenses to non-residents and I am pretty confident it wouldn't change one thing about what the western US looks like in 50 years. Bigger forces at play, and not in favor of people like you and I.

There are pretty well-established sideboards that we operate in at present that are not "fair". I'm about done trying to re-figure the sideboards and will probably live out my days trying to operate happily within them for the benefit of myself and my family. That could be called myopic and pessimistic, and I wouldn't bristle at that. I'd also call it realistic

I mean it from a big picture quality of life standpoint.

I'll look at myself. I'm living in one of the greatest places on the planet, almost exclusively because I have access to a vast swath of incredibly beautiful and giving public land estate that people in Kansas and Massachusetts and everywhere in-between are subsidizing for me without a choice. The least I can do is allow them an equal footing to this public resource, knowing full well, that it'll never actually be equal footing because I live here; I benefit every friggin' day from it. And sorry, but there's a pile of western entitlement to our public resources, and I don't, and never will, view wildlife as non-public resource wholly separate from the rest of our public resources and specifically public land. I do not think us westerners need to be hoarding it for ourselves. It just doesn't feel right, at least to me.

I mean to flip the argument around, the very idea that a Montanan couldn't/shouldn't come and enjoy our WA beaches to dig a bucket of razor clams, all because I need more clams; I need better access to those clams.

 

[Irrelevant]

Let's take it to the extreme, would you rather every non-resident interested in hunting Montana move to Montana? Does that actually make your hunting better? Is that better for the Wildlife Resource? This both is, and isn't, an extreme view. I know several people that have, or are, moving to Montana for access to better hunting (primarily shooting a forky on thanksgiving weekend).
...

Interesting and long read if you have time: https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/files/fishwildlifemanagementonfederallands.pdf
Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands: Debunking State Supremacy

Federal Land Agency Managers' Frequently Asked Questions About Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands

www.umt.edu

...

 

[woods89]

Let's take it to the extreme, would you rather every non-resident interested in hunting Montana move to Montana? Does that actually make your hunting better? Is that better for the Wildlife Resource? This both is, and isn't, an extreme view. I know several people that have, or are, moving to Montana for access to better hunting (primarily shooting a forky on thanksgiving weekend).
...

Interesting and long read if you have time: https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/files/fishwildlifemanagementonfederallands.pdf
Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands: Debunking State Supremacy

Federal Land Agency Managers' Frequently Asked Questions About Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands

www.umt.edu

View attachment 299831
...

It's an interesting argument. I personally am happy to continue living in the Midwest, and making a trip every other year to hunt elk currently. If I lost the opportunity to do so, there is no question that the idea of moving west would be rolling around in my mind. I don't think I'm alone in this.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I mean it from a big picture quality of life standpoint.

I'll look at myself. I'm living in one of the greatest places on the planet, almost exclusively because I have access to a vast swath of incredibly beautiful and giving public land estate that people in Kansas and Massachusetts and everywhere in-between are subsidizing for me without a choice. The least I can do is allow them an equal footing to this public resource, knowing full well, that it'll never actually be equal footing because I live here; I benefit every friggin' day from it. And sorry, but there's a pile of western entitlement to our public resources, and I don't, and never will, view wildlife as non-public resource wholly separate from the rest of our public resources and specifically public land. I do not think us westerners need to be hoarding it for ourselves. It just doesn't feel right, at least to me.

I mean to flip the argument around, the very idea that a Montanan couldn't/shouldn't come and enjoy our WA beaches to dig a bucket of razor clams, all because I need more clams; I need better access to those clams.

I guess it just doesn't bother me if I really like razor clams and couldn't come to WA and take them home. If razor clams, or killing an elk every year, or a great school system, an affordable home, fishing for tuna, going to NHL games, or great museums are that important to my quality of life I'll just have to make the sacrifices to live where I can do those things. I'm not going to wait for or ask for the rules to change, and hope that it all works out so everyone is content with their access to all the things they want.

Let's take it to the extreme, would you rather every non-resident interested in hunting Montana move to Montana? Does that actually make your hunting better? Is that better for the Wildlife Resource? This both is, and isn't, an extreme view. I know several people that have, or are, moving to Montana for access to better hunting (primarily shooting a forky on thanksgiving weekend).

If some people want to pull up roots and make their dream a reality good for them. At least they have a vested interest in the future of the resource and skin in the game. Of course if every interested NR hunter moved there the hunting would suck. If the antithetical argument is that tomorrow every tax payer has equal access to every big game tag in the country, is that future brighter? If the bottom line problem is more people than resources, no amount of card reshuffling will actually fix it.

Many theoreticals. Of all the real or perceived injustices that I might be privy to or able to change, this issue just isn't compelling to me. There is a path for those willing to pursue a huge variety of activity-based lifestyles to do so. It will likely be expensive and/or inconvenient, and like everything else won't last forever.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I think I'm getting fussy... @neffa3 I do appreciate your perspective and your points are fair.

 

[woods89]

Lest NRs totally get flushed, let's not forget that some Missouri boys may have helped a lot of residents land access opportunities, pending appeals.....

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think I'm getting fussy...

Sig worthy right there.