teej89
Well-known member
Read the thread to the wife and she found it funny
Privatization of Wildlife Management
- Thread starter bailey68
- Start date
teej89
Well-known member
Andrew made it 12 days in the breaks this year and no mole skin! Impressive what proper fitting boots do haha
bailey68
Member
or land locked by individuals or groups having a common interest in turning a profit on a renewable resource. It's just sitting there with people ready to pay and come harvest it for you.
antlerradar
Well-known member
or public land gets pounded by hunters so hard that the most of game there is ether eliminated or relocates to private land.
BrentD
Well-known member
No way! I'm going to create a start-up called "Farming For Targets". It'll be great. Just like a county fair shooting gallery with real targets!
Yeah, right....
squirrel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Messages
- 709
After witnessing the results of "printing their way to prosperity" I would be in favor of a shake up in the status quo. I feel a hybridization would be a good first step though. The closed loop of gov't counts, gov't objectives and gov't tag allocation leads to a whole lotta public deception (in the private sector we call them lies)
Injecting a private, or better term would be "independent" "counter" would certainly help.
But I was told that i just can't see the deer, because i have no training, that "they" can see them cause they know where to look and how to look. I will say this about our new deer that only "they" can see, they are pretty sneaky cause i can't even see their tracks.
As long as lying POS's run or have veto over the count itself all the other dominoes can be made to fall nicely in any direction they see fit.
Injecting a private, or better term would be "independent" "counter" would certainly help.
But I was told that i just can't see the deer, because i have no training, that "they" can see them cause they know where to look and how to look. I will say this about our new deer that only "they" can see, they are pretty sneaky cause i can't even see their tracks.
As long as lying POS's run or have veto over the count itself all the other dominoes can be made to fall nicely in any direction they see fit.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
"Those professional wildlife managers don't know what they're talkin bout. There are no deer in that whole hunting district cuz I didn't see any, didn't get my buck, and I hunted four weekends there!"
There are already companies out there that manage wildlife on private property for a hefty fee. That includes managing the hunting, developing age classes, managing for what the landowner desires to have on his land, etc. Big bulls & bucks, lots of birds, tons of fish, etc. In a state like MT, that's roughly 70% private land, it's inevitable that a public resource that has significant monetary value be managed in a manner that brings a significant return to the person who controls access to that wildlife. That's how it works in Texas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Virginia and about 42 other states. Not sure about Puerto Rico or USVI/other commonwealths.
Wildlife managers who work for our state & federal agencies are tasked with trying to manage critters for all people. That is increasingly difficult in a polarized world, and especially when it comes to who gets to kill what animal. I doubt we'll ever see a style of wildlife management such as those employed in Europe or Africa, precisely because of our public land estate, but there are areas of each state where we've effectively been shut out from managing animals based on geography & land ownership.
Some states have worked to incentivize landowners with licenses, subsidies, payments, etc, and others have gone the opposite route, and allow landowners to claim wildlife as their own (TX, for example). In order to maintain the public resource, I firmly believe that a few things need to happen:
1.) We should have a federal bill ensuring wildlife as a public trust in perpetuity. End the debate about who owns wildlife. A federal bill would cover all states & commonwealths. Federal recognition that wildlife is a public trust means there's no longer room for states to enact legislation that strips the public's right to that resource away, and puts everyone on a level playing field.
2.) Honest dialog between user groups on paths forward for management. Wildlife absolutely have a cost to landowners, and while it is part of life to have them as a condition of the land, when wildlife become a nuisance & economic hardship, that shouldn't be acceptable to any of us. We've seen what happens when people sit down to negotiate in earnest, and when they do so out of self-interest only. It's easy to point to the failures of this model, but that kind of kitchen-table collaboration is what got us elk, deer, pronghorn population increases in the past. Hunters have a demonstrated track record of managing wildlife populations for both genetic abundance, and tolerance for others who have to live with those animals daily. Non-consumptive users continue to enjoy the fruits of landowner tolerance & sportsmen management practices, yet don't pay into state level systems, which leads to #3.
3.) Find better funding options. With the increased work-load our wildlife managers have through unfunded federal mandates, declining license dollars in many states, roller-coaster funding levels from PR, increased non-consumptive use from wildlife watchers/eco-tourism and changing landownership patterns (moving away from family farmers & ranchers to large landowners w/little care for the rest of us), there will have to be better funding sources found & enacted in order to conserve public land for wildlife use, and to pay willing landowners for the use of their land by humans who wish to hunt, fish, or recreate. There are billions of dollars of unmet conservation need out there. Tapping into the tourism sector through excise taxes, appropriating portions of taxes like vehicle rental, fuel, lodging, etc - or even giving wildlife a portion of new taxable income (like legal weed) would help alleviate that lack of funding, and help ensure better incentives for landowners who wish to engage in the conservation programs that could be set up or expanded with new funding.
Far too often we'd rather fight than win. I-161 is a good example. We're still fighting that war every time the session gavels in, and I would wager a bottle of tipple that we'll see more bills restricting the commission's role in season setting relative to elk permits in the next session based on the rumors & intel we're hearing from candidates for the Governor's office, and elsewhere.
Wildlife managers who work for our state & federal agencies are tasked with trying to manage critters for all people. That is increasingly difficult in a polarized world, and especially when it comes to who gets to kill what animal. I doubt we'll ever see a style of wildlife management such as those employed in Europe or Africa, precisely because of our public land estate, but there are areas of each state where we've effectively been shut out from managing animals based on geography & land ownership.
Some states have worked to incentivize landowners with licenses, subsidies, payments, etc, and others have gone the opposite route, and allow landowners to claim wildlife as their own (TX, for example). In order to maintain the public resource, I firmly believe that a few things need to happen:
1.) We should have a federal bill ensuring wildlife as a public trust in perpetuity. End the debate about who owns wildlife. A federal bill would cover all states & commonwealths. Federal recognition that wildlife is a public trust means there's no longer room for states to enact legislation that strips the public's right to that resource away, and puts everyone on a level playing field.
2.) Honest dialog between user groups on paths forward for management. Wildlife absolutely have a cost to landowners, and while it is part of life to have them as a condition of the land, when wildlife become a nuisance & economic hardship, that shouldn't be acceptable to any of us. We've seen what happens when people sit down to negotiate in earnest, and when they do so out of self-interest only. It's easy to point to the failures of this model, but that kind of kitchen-table collaboration is what got us elk, deer, pronghorn population increases in the past. Hunters have a demonstrated track record of managing wildlife populations for both genetic abundance, and tolerance for others who have to live with those animals daily. Non-consumptive users continue to enjoy the fruits of landowner tolerance & sportsmen management practices, yet don't pay into state level systems, which leads to #3.
3.) Find better funding options. With the increased work-load our wildlife managers have through unfunded federal mandates, declining license dollars in many states, roller-coaster funding levels from PR, increased non-consumptive use from wildlife watchers/eco-tourism and changing landownership patterns (moving away from family farmers & ranchers to large landowners w/little care for the rest of us), there will have to be better funding sources found & enacted in order to conserve public land for wildlife use, and to pay willing landowners for the use of their land by humans who wish to hunt, fish, or recreate. There are billions of dollars of unmet conservation need out there. Tapping into the tourism sector through excise taxes, appropriating portions of taxes like vehicle rental, fuel, lodging, etc - or even giving wildlife a portion of new taxable income (like legal weed) would help alleviate that lack of funding, and help ensure better incentives for landowners who wish to engage in the conservation programs that could be set up or expanded with new funding.
Far too often we'd rather fight than win. I-161 is a good example. We're still fighting that war every time the session gavels in, and I would wager a bottle of tipple that we'll see more bills restricting the commission's role in season setting relative to elk permits in the next session based on the rumors & intel we're hearing from candidates for the Governor's office, and elsewhere.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I have never met Squirrel, but judging by the pictures of the bucks he has taken and the sheds he has found I would venture a guess that he in not the kind of guy that spends a few weekends in the hills.
It is really disheartening when the professional wildlife managers tell people that have worked on the forest for nearly 30 years and been to every section on the forest that they don't know what is happening to the forest wildlife. It is sad when people that have hunted the forest for 40 years and spent thousands of hours in the field looking for game are told that all of a sudden they have lost there ability find deer, never mind a nice deer. Been there done that.
It is really disheartening when the professional wildlife managers tell people that have worked on the forest for nearly 30 years and been to every section on the forest that they don't know what is happening to the forest wildlife. It is sad when people that have hunted the forest for 40 years and spent thousands of hours in the field looking for game are told that all of a sudden they have lost there ability find deer, never mind a nice deer. Been there done that.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Many of us who have hunted areas of Montana for decades are disheartened by the lesser numbers and "trophy" quality of mule deer, and that does reflect some wildlife management with which we don't agree, but it is important to recognize and attempt to mitigate adverse conditions based on the reality of the commercial aspect of hunting and wildlife management. The Mule Deer Seminar held in Bozeman a few short years ago was dominated by presentations which emphasized the private land management of mule deer to maximize income from trophy hunting by scientifically analyzing and establishing programs to produce trophy deer and selectively harvest, based on habitat, carrying capacity, future potential, and above all else ... maximum income.
lynlan1819
Active member
- Joined
- May 27, 2019
- Messages
- 206
Hunting is all about money since about 1995,future hunters will need lots of money for any chance of hunting more than once every 10 years.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And the irony of that is the attitude of most hunters in wanting maximum opportunity, many tags, and hunting during the rut, all of which results in wildlife management that is all about hunting, taking, outfitting, trophy acquisition ... not wildlife management putting wildlife first.
antelopedundee
Well-known member
But you couldn't pay a $2100 tax obligation with 3 $20 hammers.
bailey68
Member
I agree in part, But that attitude has and continues to change. It has to an extent set an unintended result in that all of the above are now necessary to maintain the current wildlife management budget. let no tag go unsold, even though it may be counterproductive to the larger picture
I've challenged others who constantly whine in Utah to simply buy tags, then tear tgem up and go golfing.
Seems the "trophy" crowd only wants someone else to not hunt
They are a lot like the dems who yell for tax increase while taking max deductions.
Seems the "trophy" crowd only wants someone else to not hunt
They are a lot like the dems who yell for tax increase while taking max deductions.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Or the guy with 3 young kids telling me I need to vote yes on the upcoming array of school bond initiatives, and in the next sentence tells me how he is contesting the valuation of the big new house I just finished building for him. People are funny!
Similar threads
