I propose the “Fair opportunity in America’s Outdoors Act”

[cmahoney]

I think we understand, most of us know that if we want to hunt Moose Sheep or Goats in Lower 48 we will have to buy an auction tag. We also see LO and Auction tags becoming the new Higher means NR subsidy.

If you restrict NR, NR shouldn’t have to buy a license to apply. That’s just a Con to inflate hunting lic numbers for funding, and line pockets. That’s my number one issue.


One thing to think about,
Less NR hunting means less generational votes whom don’t care about western wildlife

Think about it, TX sales almost 2x more hunting licenses then the entire population of WY. That’s just TX, what about Penn, etc

How are NR going to vote on national issues or conservation funding when all people do is bastardize us for wanting to hunt in America.

So you think 90/10 is fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cmahoney]

I think we understand, most of us know that if we want to hunt Moose Sheep or Goats in Lower 48 we will have to buy an auction tag. We also see LO and Auction tags becoming the new Higher means NR subsidy.

If you restrict NR, NR shouldn’t have to buy a license to apply. That’s just a Con to inflate hunting lic numbers for funding, and line pockets. That’s my number one issue.


One thing to think about,
Less NR hunting means less generational votes whom don’t care about western wildlife

Think about it, TX sales almost 2x more hunting licenses then the entire population of WY. That’s just TX, what about Penn, etc

How are NR going to vote on national issues or conservation funding when all people do is bastardize us for wanting to hunt in America.

Another reason for these vastly public land states to charge more. My state for example has 3 million people and yours has 29. Big difference in revenue there as far as resident license sales. And I would imagine those big private operations take care of some game management so the state doesn’t have to spend the money there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nate4789]

If capitalism rue the day with regards to wildlife, hunting as we know it would cease to exist.

 

[wildwilderness]

Agreed, we are all lucky to live in a country with awesome big game opportunities. Not all of us can pick up and leave family, businesses, careers, etc because we want to hunt a different state.

It might be a terrible idea, but you didn’t tell me why. I didn’t claim to have all the answers, I’m just a guy that wants to hunt all over this great country.

I’ll admit I didn’t read all the threads here BUT if you want to make a REAL change to hard to draw species- Then you need to increase Supply!!!


Since you are talking a Federal Act, then let’s think of Federal Land that either Supply NO OPPORTUNITY or very restricted (Discriminatory?) access to hunting…..

What about National Parks, Monuments, Military Lands, etc and a controversial idea- Indian Reservations? All receive Billions in Federal Funds!

Many of these lands hold vast numbers of hard to hunt wildlife, and would put a dent in whole points game!!

 

[cuerro viejo]

Another reason for these vastly public land states to charge more. My state for example has 3 million people and yours has 29. Big difference in revenue there as far as resident license sales. And I would imagine those big private operations take care of some game management so the state doesn’t have to spend the money there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So

Another reason for these vastly public land states to charge more. My state for example has 3 million people and yours has 29. Big difference in revenue there as far as resident license sales. And I would imagine those big private operations take care of some game management so the state doesn’t have to spend the money there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

 

[tdhanses]

So

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

We are definitely headed to the European model in the next 20-40 years.

 

[cmahoney]

So

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

The cost disparity isn’t as big as it’s made out to be everywhere, it cost me $80 less a year to apply in my state than you. I’m happy to pay, take a look at a guzzler map and see where your money goes. I still have to disagree with you on the 90/10, what do you think it should be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cmahoney]

So

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

As far as the “so” you brought up Texas as a comparison which is not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JBrown1]

Since you are talking a Federal Act, then let’s think of Federal Land that either Supply NO OPPORTUNITY or very restricted (Discriminatory?) access to hunting…..

What about National Parks, Monuments, Military Lands, and a controversial idea- Indian Reservations?

I would not want to see anyone push to open Indian reservations to hunting. That land is basically privately held in trust by the Native American group names in the treaty. So I see it as their lands, that they should control as they see fit.

Now hunting in national parks, national monuments, and military land? I absolutely love that idea. There is not reason that these lands should be closed to hunting.

 

[tdhanses]

I would not want to see anyone push to open Indian reservations to hunting. That land is basically privately held in trust by the Native American group names in the treaty. So I see it as there lands, that they should control as they see fit.

Now hunting in national parks, national monuments, and military land? I absolutely love that idea. There is not reason that these lands should be closed to hunting.

Let the feds manage them and issue the licenses, everyone on an equal playing field.

 

[Silveroddo]

After seeing this thread at 16 pages in length, but sampling several pages and seeing a distinct lack of memes I can only deduce this must be a total buzz kill and not worthy of further investigation.

 

[cuerro viejo]

As far as the “so” you brought up Texas as a comparison which is not comparable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t disagree with you on that, but you brought up Texas initially on cost factor

 

[cuerro viejo]

The cost disparity isn’t as big as it’s made out to be everywhere, it cost me $80 less a year to apply in my state than you. I’m happy to pay, take a look at a guzzler map and see where your money goes. I still have to disagree with you on the 90/10, what do you think it should be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know what’s fair. I think 70/30 would be more inline though. But what percentage of total cost does NR including auction tag buyers make up of the income… if it over 10% there is a huge disparity

 

[cuerro viejo]

After seeing this thread at 16 pages in length, but sampling several pages and seeing a distinct lack of memes I can only deduce this must be a total buzz kill and not worth further investigation.

Yes and no. There are some really good and heart felt responses on both sides and some just shittey dumb on both side also. Looking past the self absorbed ones, it’s a pretty good discussion

 

[cmahoney]

I don’t disagree with you on that, but you brought up Texas initially on cost factor

I was referring to your license sales comment about PA and TX. So should everyone be in the same draw? No resident advantage in any state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rifleman86]

I think we understand, most of us know that if we want to hunt Moose Sheep or Goats in Lower 48 we will have to buy an auction tag. We also see LO and Auction tags becoming the new Higher means NR subsidy.

If you restrict NR, NR shouldn’t have to buy a license to apply. That’s just a Con to inflate hunting lic numbers for funding, and line pockets. That’s my number one issue.


One thing to think about,
Less NR hunting means less generational votes whom don’t care about western wildlife

Think about it, TX sales almost 2x more hunting licenses then the entire population of WY. That’s just TX, what about Penn, etc

How are NR going to vote on national issues or conservation funding when all people do is bastardize us for wanting to hunt in America.

This is one of my number one issues with decreasing NR opportunities. It means less and less people who care about hunting based conservation and the public lands they inhabit, and thus less people vocal about preserving them on the national level.

So

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

Agreed 90/10 isn’t ideal, but it seems palpable, or at least I thought so, to most residents. I just want to stop the bleeding so to speak.

I agree it’s a dim outlook and we’re rapidly headed toward the European model. It’s going to hit the NR DIY guys first, that’s the low hanging fruit, but the resident tags aren’t far behind IMO.

 

[CJ19]

View attachment 393087

 

[SummitsCalling]

One thing to think about,
Less NR hunting means less generational votes whom don’t care about western wildlife

Think about it, TX sales almost 2x more hunting licenses then the entire population of WY. That’s just TX, what about Penn, etc

How are NR going to vote on national issues or conservation funding when all people do is bastardize us for wanting to hunt in America.

Something the people keep pushing 90/10 don't seem to grasp or they do they don't care because by the time they leave this earth they've gotten another 1-2 ram tags. All they care about, not the lasting damage of not having another generation to protect hunting. WY will be the next CO in 20-40 years, MT will get there quicker, but then what? People will want help from others but they have nothing to say, because they don't have anything to protect, R got what they wanted, less voices.

This is one of my number one issues with decreasing NR opportunities. It means less and less people who care about hunting based conservation and the public lands they inhabit, and thus less people vocal about preserving them on the national level.

Agreed 90/10 isn’t ideal, but it seems palpable, or at least I thought so, to most residents. I just want to stop the bleeding so to speak.

I agree it’s a dim outlook and we’re rapidly headed toward the European model. It’s going to hit the NR DIY guys first, that’s the low hanging fruit, but the resident tags aren’t far behind IMO.

I agree. 90/10 has divided, what the otherside wants. Hard to stand up for a state you only get to hunt once every 10 years and have the priveldge of being gouged to do it. But hey, it's "their" animals. As long as they get 4 elk tags, 6 antelopes yearly and another 1-2 rams before they die, all seems worth it to some. Once a voice disappeares you don't get it back.

 

[diamond10x]

it’s kind of comical when the guys dog on you being from TX and our public lands then you explain to them that our public lands are actually dang good hunts, better than most private property, the cost, and ZERO license plate discrimination the conversation changes real quick.

So

I don’t think 90/10 is remotely fair especially with overall cost associated to be part of that 10%.

There is going to come a time in the not so distance future NR arent allowed any allocation. NM is headed that way quickly. Zero NR sheep tags is up for vote. It’s trickle down from there.

When it happens NR funding will be gone and their will be a big middle fingers to any conservation groups that send funds to those states. It will be a trickle down that eventually eliminates legal hunting for all those but the wealthy.

You will always have a few auction tag guys, but most those guys are one and done.

It’s a dim picture in my mind.

This is exactly what a lot of guys aren’t understanding. Case in point, there’s constant calls to support this season, that method, our access all the time on this forum. Asking for any and all hunters to please help and support. People won’t forget how they have been treated and then those people will wonder why they can’t get any support. Last time I checked we’re all Americans but I guess some have forgotten that.

 

[4ester]

Something the people keep pushing 90/10 don't seem to grasp or they do they don't care because by the time they leave this earth they've gotten another 1-2 ram tags. All they care about, not the lasting damage of not having another generation to protect hunting. WY will be the next CO in 20-40 years, MT will get there quicker, but then what? People will want help from others but they have nothing to say, because they don't have anything to protect, R got what they wanted, less voices.




I agree. 90/10 has divided, what the otherside wants. Hard to stand up for a state you only get to hunt once every 10 years and have the priveldge of being gouged to do it. But hey, it's "their" animals. As long as they get 4 elk tags, 6 antelopes yearly and another 1-2 rams before they die, all seems worth it to some. Once a voice disappeares you don't get it back.

To be clear in that 90/10 legislation the big 5 go to once in a lifetime…..And everyone in that 5 year wait period to reapply are done too. So one ram and done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk