BuzzH
Well-known member
I think all landowner tags in Wyoming, whether R or NR should come out of the NR quota. Of course they should stay non transferable to anyone but the landowners immediate family like they are now.
Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's already in place...I just think the tags should all come from the NR quota.I would imagine many land-owning, outfitter and non-hunter trustees would disagree- but that’s for you guys to figure out.
As a NR stakeholder I’m just glad to see it being discussed
Yep I know.
You’re a beneficiary. One of several hundred thousand, but you get a vote. I’m not, so I don’t. All good.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's how the game is played.
I agree with you here, and if I was in your shoes I would probably share some of the same opinions.
I’m not sure if it’s what @Big Fin intended as the goal of this video/thread, but it has served to paint a more clear picture of what NRs should and should not expect, support and contribute when it comes to hunting big game in western states.
Last edited:
Exactly. It should be a good wake up call for nonresidents.
Support and put your money towards anything and everything that gets tags onto the free market.
Especially PLT to states, because nothing will infuse parity quicker than that.
BuzzH
Well-known member
As if that's a departure from what you and treeshark have always done.
That honesty thing you yapped about, try it yourself.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not a stretch at all. Stakeholder has a wide definition. In the corporate world, anyone with an interest in the viability of a company is a stakeholder. Shareholders (owners), suppliers, customers, employees, etc are all stakeholders. From that perspective, it fits.
Have fun lobbying your one congressman .
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Change is inevitable. And all change is usually based on some Faustian bargain. (Please look up the definition if you need to, because it applies in spades in this discussion). Maybe for a R of one state the moral sacrifice is transferrable landowner tags, while for others the benefit is R/NR % allocation vs outfitter tag %. For a NR (particularly on HT) it may be NR DIY allocation versus NR outfitter allocation. Understanding this will help frame why changes take place in the regs. We all make these bargains, because change is inevitable.
seeth07
Well-known member
You sure it wasn't to get some more views on it? Like seriously, he has participated in dozens of threads on this topic and all of the same posts that show up on those other threads are right back here. Nothing has changed, its the same ole argument and if there is one thing that I've learned its that even wasting my time reading these threads is a waste of time and no one is going to change their mind on this topic.
It's kind of a shame really. I see some very intelligent people in the group, to only be blinded with tunnel vision.
Everyone needs to remember, there's a 1000 ways to skin a cat. Just because you do it one way, doesn't mean there isn't another way.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I agree. I think BF was trying to disarm the "stupid" with facts about trusts and stakeholders and such. We all have learned that you can't argue against stupid on the internet. That is reserved for the statehouse...lol.
I'm not even sure what "my mind on this topic" is at this point. NRs get plenty of opportunity in exchange for paying a hefty fee. Change in direction? Not going to happen. More here means less there. It is supply and demand.
In the example of WY, regardless of what we debate here, as a NR I have no direct say. I don't see the point in attacking @BuzzH. FFS, he is not the problem, in ANY way. And bitching on HT just pushes him towards thinking NR hunters are whiners. I can't blame him on that either.
Make an argument for an alternative. $$$ is the only thing NRs have to fall back on. And people bitch about that trend too. Again, find people that you agree with on big stuff and work on the details. This is ridiculous. We aren't even debating new ideas.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's what national orgs are for...with chapters in every state. Plus, I have a pretty good reach in DC.
Take out the pen and notepad.
Last edited:
You're correct, the purpose of posting the link with a thread here was to get views on the video, as the video provides an explanation, in one place, of how the systems evolved and how we got to this point. Many people seem to ignore that history and the law/cases that apply to the bifurcation of wildlife trusteeship from ownership of the land wildlife might be standing on. Some know that law and history, and as @noharleyyet mentioned, they can still express their frustrations.
The video is also an attempt to get people to focus on increasing herds. The fights over R/NR allocation do nothing to increase herds. Increased opportunity benefits all parties, regardless of residency. Our debates and tussles over these allocations are far less contentious when there are more animals on the landscape.
It sound smug when I say it, but the reality is, if I want to double my chances of burning my 20+ NV sheep points, I am far better off helping double the number of sheep in NV than arguing about a point scheme or complaining about the laws and cases that support the right of NV to limit NRs to 10% of the tags (even less if they wanted to).
I get the frustrations expressed by residents in the very generous western states and the frustrations expressed by non-residents who don't have access to elk and other western critters in their home state. I am a non-resident when I apply in WY, ID, CO, NV, UT, AZ, NM, and AK, making these same issues applicable to me. I also happen to be a resident of a western state, so I stand with a foot in each of the two classifications; beneficiary and stakeholder.
I also did the video to emphasize the point @Sytes picked up on. Ownership of land has no connection to ownership/beneficiary interest in wildlife. The theory of "I'm a US Citizen and some of that wildlife lives on Federal land" is not based on law.
Thus my MT example, of 2/3 being private land. Would the same people making the Federal land argument support 2/3 of the moose, goat, sheep, deer, elk, pronghorn tags being allocated to landowners? I doubt it.
And yes, I understood the risks of posting this would result in continuation of spats that have been ongoing for some time.
@Treeshark has summarized the few disappointing options available, so long as herds continue to decline. I'd rather focus on increasing opportunity for everyone by increasing herds.
ismith
Well-known member
Are you really telling a lawyer to be honest?
D_Walt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
- Messages
- 711
And what would be the best organizations to be involved with/donating to in order to “increase herds”? For the average guy, where a couple hundred bucks a a year makes a difference? What organizations have had demonstrable success with assisting in the growth of herds?
Is it even feasible to think that deer/elk/antelope herds can sustainably be pushed above what they are now? Other than the specific herds that were hammered last winter is there actually any room for growth for public land deer/elk/antelope?
More people, less game, less available habitat = NR hunting diminishing rapidly, followed by Resident opportunities. And none of that is going to change, at best the rate of decline might be mitigated, perhaps a bottom will be found and an equilibrium will be achieved, but the “Golden Era” of NR public hunting is rapidly coming to a close; kudos to those who got theirs during that time frame, but the game is changing and those kind of opportunities are going to be gone like a sea of buffalo.
The future of hunting opportunity is on well managed private land, for a fee. Down here we’ve been living that for 50 years. Great hunting if you can afford it or if you were born to the landed gentry.
Is it even feasible to think that deer/elk/antelope herds can sustainably be pushed above what they are now? Other than the specific herds that were hammered last winter is there actually any room for growth for public land deer/elk/antelope?
More people, less game, less available habitat = NR hunting diminishing rapidly, followed by Resident opportunities. And none of that is going to change, at best the rate of decline might be mitigated, perhaps a bottom will be found and an equilibrium will be achieved, but the “Golden Era” of NR public hunting is rapidly coming to a close; kudos to those who got theirs during that time frame, but the game is changing and those kind of opportunities are going to be gone like a sea of buffalo.
The future of hunting opportunity is on well managed private land, for a fee. Down here we’ve been living that for 50 years. Great hunting if you can afford it or if you were born to the landed gentry.
- Status
