Pucky Freak
Well-known member
It seems that every time the demand of big game tags outstrips supply, we as hunters overwhelmingly gravitate the conversation towards the question of “who deserves a tag?”
Variously,
Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”
DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”
Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”
Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”
Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”
Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”
High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”
Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”
Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.
I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.
While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.
No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.
Variously,
Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”
DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”
Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”
Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”
Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”
Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”
High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”
Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”
Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.
I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.
While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.
No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.
