Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[seeth07]

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.....

Interesting point that I think brings this discussion to a reality that the resident DIY hunter and the non-resident DIY hunter are more alike and closer to being allies than some of the other evils in our world such as rich politicians creating legislation to benefit their rich supporters and legislation and changes that impact public lands and habitat.

Fighting over NR vs R allocation should be a bottom of the barrel discussion on this forum as we have better use of our time talking about more serious threats to what we all love to do - regardless of where we are from.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fighting over NR vs R allocation should be a bottom of the barrel discussion on this forum as we have better use of our time talking about more serious threats to what we all love to do - regardless of where we are from.

But there's so much political hay to be made with the issue!

 

[MNElkNut]

There is a threat out there that will take every hunter pulling on the oars together and that is Federal Land transfer. I fear, if western states circle the wagons and cut out NRs from enjoying western wildlife, by and large, NRs will lose interest in that fight. That scares me a lot as that is a game we cannot lose as there is no going back once it is lost and sold to billionaires. There needs to be continued efforts to making the pie as big as possible and sound wildlife management. There are gains to be made there. I just cannot see how excluding NRs is a long term winning strategy.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

There is a threat out there that will take every hunter pulling on the oars together and that is Federal Land transfer. I fear, if western states circle the wagons and cut out NRs from enjoying western wildlife, by and large, NRs will lose interest in that fight. That scares me a lot as that is a game we cannot lose as there is no going back once it is lost and sold to billionaires. There needs to be continued efforts to making the pie as big as possible and sound wildlife management. There are gains to be made there. I just cannot see how excluding NRs is a long term winning strategy.

If someone loses interest in something as paradigm-shifting as public land transfer because they can't hunt elk in CO/MT/WY as often, seems like they're just as self-interested as the resident who wishes to prioritize their own opportunity under the current management structure.

 

[Irrelevant]

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

My biggest problem with the internet is that it is too easy to argue and find conflict with people you know damn sure you like and mostly agree with.
...
I have always struggled with how we manage wildlife in this country, why it's treated differently than every other public resource. IMO, it's inconsistent and prone to exclusive and unfair use. And while I like to remind my kids life isn't fair, I also think there is value is trying to make something better and more fair. Though I've have spent the better part of the last year arguing the opposite, that access to wilderness areas should be unfair. I will say I don't mind NR having reduced access to a state's wildlife compared to Rs, but the idea of continuing to reduce NR access with the potential of completely eliminating that access someday... well, I do bristle to that concept. Especially when I think of all the effort I've put in advocating for wildlife issues in other states. I don't think there is much downside, in the immediate future, in your and Bret's point of view. It's just another form of protectionist thought. I do think it leads down a path that isn't going to lead to better hunting or better wildlife resources, it will create fractions within an already fractured contingent of wildlife and hunting advocates.

 

[Irrelevant]

If someone loses interest in something as paradigm-shifting as public land transfer because they can't hunt elk in CO/MT/WY as often, seems like they're just as self-interested as the resident who wishes to prioritize their own opportunity under the current management structure.

Okay, that's definitely the moral high ground, but is it the reality? As much as I bluff, I'll never stop supporting wildlife, here, there, or wherever, even if you cut out all my hunting options and forbid me from entering your state entirely.

Do people care about anything they don't know about? Can they know about it without access to it? I think we've all, somewhere along the lines, supported a concept that as hunters we love wildlife with a deeper appreciation simply because of that hunting relationship, than a classic wildlife advocate. If you remove that, or keep restricting it; if in the end you're left with only those who were "born into it" via residency, I just don't see where "we", where wildlife, win.

 

[MNElkNut]

If someone loses interest in something as paradigm-shifting as public land transfer because they can't hunt elk in CO/MT/WY as often, seems like they're just as self-interested as the resident who wishes to prioritize their own opportunity under the current management structure.

Absolutely. But the result is the same.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think in the long run, all opportunity for all contingents will be winnowed down. On a long enough timeline, it doesn't look great for anyone. I also think if wildlife were held in trust nationally, similar to public lands, I think the future of hunting would be worse off in the short and long term - just a function of demographic tendencies and trends.

We can wish for different models all we want. I don’t think them likely. Wildlife held in Public Trust by the States is the most salient and established model of our country. The residents of each state are the beneficiaries of those trusts. I'm interested in utilizing frameworks that actually exist in doctrine and law to argue for saving hunting for the average resident. I'm ok with a small portion going to nonresidents in the name of fundraising and their opportunity, but the well of wildlife that is Montana isn't big enough satiate populations of hunters orders of magnitude larger in 3 directions for a thousand miles than Montana itself. I think most with the skin of residency in the game feel the same. If I want a larger say in the wildlife of some other state, I can move there. This is no different than dozens of other geographically based Trustee/Beneficiary relationships.

Fair or not, this the current state of affairs and the one that will exist moving forward. The rest is just philosophical wind. I have yet to be shown another practical and realistic lens through which to look at the issue that doesn't quickly extend, and devolve, into economic primacy and second and third order slippery slopes that sound a sort of trickle down virtue and a cousin of the 3 Rs.

 

[Pucky Freak]

My next gun is an MILC

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Okay, that's definitely the moral high ground, but is it the reality? As much as I bluff, I'll never stop supporting wildlife, here, there, or wherever, even if you cut out all my hunting options and forbid me from entering your state entirely.

Do people care about anything they don't know about? Can they know about it without access to it? I think we've all, somewhere along the lines, supported a concept that as hunters we love wildlife with a deeper appreciation simply because of that hunting relationship, than a classic wildlife advocate. If you remove that, or keep restricting it; if in the end you're left with only those who were "born into it" via residency, I just don't see where "we", where wildlife, win.

I don't disagree; the dream for a regular joe/jane hunter -- or however we want to put it -- is worth something both tangible and intangible. I said as much to the Taskforce before they literally asked why I hate outfitters lol. I think there is value in a family from some urbanized state dreaming about hunting elk in Idaho and getting to make that a reality. I can still believe that it's their privilege and not their right. I still feel that hunting out of state is a luxury. We probably disagree on that in principle, which is fine.

You and I probably agree on the vast majority of topics around western population growth and what makes a meaningful outdoor experience. The evidence that I see makes me think that no matter what the whole thing is going in the same direction it has been, so I don't feel guilty anymore about working within the parameters in place to make what I can of it. That also doesn't mean "do nothing", but there are battles for each of us to pick to invest time and finances in.

Like I said, if WY/MT/ID/etc. doubled their tag allocation to NR's starting tomorrow, I don't see it changing what the west looks like 50 years from now in a meaningful way.

 

[Big Fin]

Wildlife as a State-trustees resource was settled in 1842. Martin v. Waddell. It was a right not granted to the Feds, so the USSC held that it is thus a retained right under the 10t Amendment. That does create some of the ancillary challenges @neffa3 jas mentioned. But, unlikely to change.

Another topic in the Public Trust Doctrine is that such is only applied to assets that are moving across landscapes, is hard to possess, and has public benefit. Water is where it was first applied. Water, like wildlife, moves across landscapes. That is why the PTD has not been applied to real estate, as real estate does not move and is a well defined property right under law. Using the legal basis for Public assets held in Trust, real estate does not meet the criteria that has been applied to courts.

I get that some want to equate the two, public wildlife and public land, but they are not the same from either a legal or Constitutional standpoint.

 

[Irrelevant]

Wildlife as a State-trustees resource was settled in 1842. Martin v. Waddell. It was a right not granted to the Feds, so the USSC held that it is thus a retained right under the 10t Amendment.

Are you sure?

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

www.umt.edu

Again, this is an incredibly long document that I have not made it all the way through yet, but the bits of peices I have made it through paint a much more nuanced picture that I have been previously lead to believe.

 

[Big Fin]

I have read that document. It’s been sent to me many times. I’ve asked legal experts on the topic. They view it as a bit of legal creationism. I guess if it is correct, these authors will take the action to implement their theory.

It is most often sent to me by groups who don’t like how MT manage the “charismatic” species. They would prefer a national system.

 

[Eric Albus]

From what I’m hearing out of R6 we may need not worry about mule deer management any longer.
With the insane amount of antlerless license all mule deer on public land may be eliminated, and if the 2 buck deal went through (haven’t heard how meeting couple night ago went) it’ll be tragic.
I’m hearing rumor of NR doe hunters going right to R6 headquarters complaining about being sold tags for something that is nonexistent.
R landowners are disgusted, every one of them I talk with. They won’t show up at FWP meetings, all citing same reason, “we are NOT listened to, so why go”.

 

[BuzzH]

Good luck fighting all your fights internally.

A small handful of us have been doing that for decades, and I don't see that changing much, if at all.

Sad too, because with zoom, teams, and online comments it's never been more convenient or easy for NRs to put their shoulder to the wheel.

They simply don't for the most part, however. They do bitch about allocations and residents pretty freely on hunting boards every chance they get though.

For the record, I'm not cutting slack to about 99.9% of residents that also have no excuse for never lifting a finger.

 

[BuzzH]

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.....

Duly noted, keep in mind that those pesky Residents are the reason this case is where it's at.

 

[antlerradar]

R landowners are disgusted, every one of them I talk with. They won’t show up at FWP meetings, all citing same reason, “we are NOT listened to, so why go”.

Landowners will do what they can, restrict access even more. The root cause of much of Montana's access issues can be traced back to management.

 

[Mallardsx2]

It's very simple.

Half of us need to go.

 

[woods89]

Duly noted, keep in mind that those pesky Residents are the reason this case is where it's at.

It's a joint effort for sure.

It's not a light thing to put yourself potentially at odds with the legal system, though, especially one as "friendly" as the local one that the criminal proceedings happened in, and 1000 miles away from home.