Then take it up with your state the fact that many B tags are unlimited or OTC for nonresidents.
I have zero issue being 100% pro gun and largely favorable toward smaller government and realizing that government plays a vital role in wildlife conservation and that the North American model only really works if wildlife is considered publicly owned and democratically allocated.
That’s one reason people buy suppressors.
At least in DC Red and Blue is looking more and more purple all the time with regard to actions. I do agree with @bsnedeker in one specific rea that he has mentioned and that is NR's receiving more tags than the cap. As a broad stroke statement I think that is a huge issue across the west. States need to set unit caps for harvest and set a pct or fixed number allocation for R/NR, I'm just going to call it 80/20 with a cap for example. Eliminate OTC and have a first and second draw. Any unissued tags at that point stay unissued for that year. Do away with all points programs and make it all random draw, all western states. Everyone at that point would have equal opportunity to draw a tag and it seems like it would spread the pressure as well. Give folks 3-5 years or something as phase out for accumulated points with the ability to shift points to different species so they can use the points. It wont work if all states dont buy in and we all know that isnt going to happen. Feds probably could force it for federal lands though.
I simply believe in federalism and that wildlife belongs to the state. End of story, the debate is over, close the book. I have points all over. I have a sister in MT and was planning a hunt in the near future. All this modification of allocation in all these states has the same negative impact on me and it does suck. However, I will stand behind my morals and be consistent that states such as MT should be able to allocate their wildlife however they want. I would assume a purest to the NAMWC like yourself would agree to that sentiment since the bedrock of the NAMWC is Public Trust Doctrine as defined in Martin vs. Waddell (the public maintains a common right to fish in navigable and tidal water because those waters and their underlying lands were kept in trust by the state for the common use of the people). In Greer vs. Connecticut, the court expanded PTD to include wildlife. Furthermore, the model lists private land owners and mangers as a key stakeholders in upholding the model. You're right, it isn't black and white; at least not so much that we get to cherry pick the parts of the model we like. It's extremely complex.
I'm anything but a whiner- I'm grateful as hell for a whole ton of things in my life. But... sounds like you think I should be just thrilled that MT is more than happy to stick to NR DIY hunters. I'm grateful for lots of things, but certainly not for getting bent over for preferential treatment of the rich. If you think I should be tolerant, even happy, about this deal... you're wrong and I'd argue you are the one who just isn't getting the big picture here.
If you were really worried about crowding, you’d be more worried about habitat and block management incentives and less about nonresidents.
Perhaps if you had a different attitude about nonresidents you’d have more allies in those fights.
Bsnedeker, my comment, and the comment I was responding to, wasn't about less for NRs (and subsequently more for Rs), it was about tags being set aside for the wealthy.
Do you think I should be upset that "wealthy landowners" who own property in unit 380 get to hunt the Elkhorns almost every year? I could apply for that tag every year for my entire life and never draw it, but because these folks have property they can hunt it every year... should I be outraged about that?
