The resident short game. Long term consequences?

[Lawnboi]

Come on guys it’s about the wildlife! We are supposed to just throw money at it even if we are completely disconnected with said resource.

Here you go, just cause you don’t get to shoot it dosnt mean it’s not important?

Grizzly Bear Foundation

Grizzly Bear Foundation is a registered Canadian charitable organization dedicated solely to the welfare of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Guided by science and Indigenous knowledge, we work collaboratively to support the conservation of grizzly bears through research, public education, and advocacy.

grizzlybearfoundation.com

I promise this is my only smart ass response for the day

 

[MattB]

0 for 2

Is 0 the setting on your sarcasm-meter?

 

[RMM]

Come on guys it’s about the wildlife! We are supposed to just throw money at it even if we are completely disconnected with said resource.

Here you go, just cause you don’t get to shoot it dosnt mean it’s not important?

Grizzly Bear Foundation

Grizzly Bear Foundation is a registered Canadian charitable organization dedicated solely to the welfare of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Guided by science and Indigenous knowledge, we work collaboratively to support the conservation of grizzly bears through research, public education, and advocacy.

grizzlybearfoundation.com

I promise this is my only smart ass response for the day

I think its cute they didn't use the entire scientific name because it doesn't make them sound cuddly

 

[MattB]

To me it’s the more you disenfranchise the NR and the less that continue to hunt the less likely the 1% of residents in the west will retain the overall right or pick up the lost funding. In reality wildlife can be managed without hunting as we see by declining populations and additional predation. These orgs that receive funding from many will lose favor to many as their hobbies shift, maybe they’ll move their donations to orgs that press for more utv trails on public as their new activity for annual vacations.

Who knows what the future holds but the long-term outlook as we see more and more groups disenfranchised doesn’t look great. So yes as more and more people stop hunting fewer and fewer will support the right as they won’t care, that doesn’t mean they don’t care about wildlife just means with no interest why step up for it.

States certainly benefit from NR dollars, some way more than others, but I don't think that this disenfranchisement will have a significant impact in DFG/DNR funding over time. States have levers they can manipulate to balance funding in terms of increasing R/NR license/tag fees, petitioning for general fund dollars, or even increasing NR opportunity if all else fails. Not rocket science.

I would disagree that wildlife can be managed without hunting. While there may be areas in the west where that is the case, that is the exception and not the norm. If predators were to increase to a level that replaced recreational hunting, there would be downstream impacts that would not be tenable (e.g. livestock losses, human/pet attacks) which would have economic and political implications. Add to that demand for tags, especially in the west, has never been higher.

What does have potential to improve the situation is higher game numbers. While that is challenging in many areas due to federal oversight on predator management and environmental factors, what can be done is to protect and improve habitat and augment populations through translocation. It obviously rubbed me the wrong way that the OP's first action was to eliminate his funding of groups who can make these sorts of projects happen. IMO it is short-sighted and frankly I don't think much of people who only contribute to causes if they see direct, tangible personal benefits that will result. Here in CA we have been adding water sources on military bases that will very likely never be hunted to benefit desert bighorn sheep. Why? Because it is the right thing to do for the resource, regardless of whether that improves one's ability to draw a desert sheep tag in their lifetime. But over decades it just might.

The whole post struck me like crying over yet-to-be spilled milk.

 

[Billy Goat]

This accurately describes waterfowl hunting in Arkansas. It went from the duck hunting capital of the world to a place where grown men punch 16 year old kids in the face because a kid beat them to one of the few open spots on public land…or boat ramps where locals vandalize cars with out of state plates and joke about it on Facebook. Club memberships are insane…was quoted 750k for a 1/10 membership in a flooded timber club with 600 acres….

Every year, more guys give up. Fewer ducks…more fights…less habitat…and the solution was for Game and Fish to ban non residents.

Not surprisingly…nothing changed and the same Aholes still fight in the woods…now they cut your tires because you are from the wrong county…and fewer hunters. Hotels closed, restaurants closed, jobs gone…and on and on.

sad deal, but predictable. Humans…

Then there's Reelfoot.


Where people are literally getting shot.

 

[tdhanses]

States certainly benefit from NR dollars, some way more than others, but I don't think that this disenfranchisement will have a significant impact in DFG/DNR funding over time. States have levers they can manipulate to balance funding in terms of increasing R/NR license/tag fees, petitioning for general fund dollars, or even increasing NR opportunity if all else fails. Not rocket science.

I would disagree that wildlife can be managed without hunting. While there may be areas in the west where that is the case, that is the exception and not the norm. If predators were to increase to a level that replaced recreational hunting, there would be downstream impacts that would not be tenable (e.g. livestock losses, human/pet attacks) which would have economic and political implications. Add to that demand for tags, especially in the west, has never been higher.

What does have potential to improve the situation is higher game numbers. While that is challenging in many areas due to federal oversight on predator management and environmental factors, what can be done is to protect and improve habitat and augment populations through translocation. It obviously rubbed me the wrong way that the OP's first action was to eliminate his funding of groups who can make these sorts of projects happen. IMO it is short-sighted and frankly I don't think much of people who only contribute to causes if they see direct, tangible personal benefits that will result. Here in CA we have been adding water sources on military bases that will very likely never be hunted to benefit desert bighorn sheep. Why? Because it is the right thing to do for the resource, regardless of whether that improves one's ability to draw a desert sheep tag in their lifetime. But over decades it just might.

The whole post struck me like crying over yet-to-be spilled milk.

Or is it lack of foresight, guess we’ll know in 20-30 years.

And fyi… I’ve helped raise over $1million for wildlife, hope you’ve done the same but i’m close to being done and just buying what i want till i can’t hunt, wildlife will be ok, we have plenty of Disney fans and camera only shooters.

While the west holds the most exciting hunting it also has the smallest resident population, how long till that doesn’t matter and the majority control what happens on public lands? Alienate all the NR in population centers and we’ll findout, it isn’t the sky is falling, just being realistic and not looking at the past.

How did it go for the dentist that shot a lion, Cecil was the lions name right? Obviously meaning keep pushing people away from hunting and see how many provide support for hunting, nationwide hunters represent maybe 10% of the population, in the west maybe 1%. In the end it’ll be a hobby for individuals that can pay to play, resident or not.

Also you’ll find the only likes you get are from residents of western state that don’t see the big picture or NR sucking up to western residents.

 

[Super tag]

Sorry Super tag, it’s not too late to move there. Idaho is one of the states that has way better res benefits than non res. It’s definitely a state people from the west coast look to move to.

Also very true, you can move here for sure, but the hunting isn’t what it was even five years ago, that’s all I meant, it is too late. Idaho will have to change the resident benefits before long, the writing is on the wall.

 

[tdhanses]

Also very true, you can move here for sure, but the hunting isn’t what it was even five years ago, that’s all I meant, it is too late. Idaho will have to change the resident benefits before long, the writing is on the wall.

For you it isn’t, for others it’s much better.

 

[dirtytough]

I don't disagree but our energy is pointed in the wrong direction. States will absolutely go to 90/10 eventually. If non-residents decide that is the straw that will cut off their funding to the organizations that work to preserve opportunities, improve habitat, and ultimately help sustain huntable populations, we will see a faster decline in overall opportunities imo.

After every state is 90/10, which state will go 95/5 first? Then 98/2? Oregon already is beyond 90/10. And I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying I believe it’s short sighted. Is it wrong to shift donations from wildlife to something you feel is as important, but isn’t paying for a playground for ungrateful people?

Making an empty threat about not getting drunk and spending 500 bucks with your buddies at an RMEF function really dosent hold water. Sorry but that's not going to sink the boat.

You comapin about my short sightedness than call to pull the plug on conservation because WY went 90/10 on tags you were never going to draw anyway. Get real. Don't act like you are the only thing standing in the way of elk being on the landscape. Your resolve is paper thin. Read this thread and tell me that's not the case.

I don’t drink. If I did who knows what I would post Just me not donating is nothing. I’m sure I’m the only person that has quit, right?

Posters are focusing on one of the most recent non res losses. It’s not just a one time loss. It is happening with more and more regularity across the western states.

That unfairness is a two way street. This whole uproar is over 90/10 for the big five. Those odds really didnt change much for you or I. They are in line with th e vast majority of western states. The wilderness law has been around from like the 1970s I think. I understand that you dont like the trajectory. It is a slippery slope like all things are, but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that's your choice. There will be bigger things coming that have a direct impact on NRs not just a precieved impact. When it's time to discuss those, folks that have called state game on federal land welfare and that want to boycott organizations like the RMEF, I just dont see enough middle ground.

Again it isn’t about the most recent 90/10 and it is. That’s just one more piece of the non res pie getting taken away. How small does a piece of pie have to be before it’s not worth scraping the pie plate. Instead just pick up that plate, toss it in the dishwasher, and find a different dessert.

Also, for some reason my memory is getting jogged. I could swear I have read on the net (so it must be true) that non res should figure their application fees are a donation for conservation. Maybe even strut around and pay ourselves on the back? I seem to remember that’s how it was presented/typed?

Summation of the OP: I want more access to resources that I am not willing to support financially.

Exactly. That would have saved me a lot of time.

Any person can enjoy our public lands at any time. Hiking, biking, quads ,snowmobiles, almost anything your heart desires, year round. What tag allocation number do you feel your entitled to?
If you are going to stop donating or participating in conservation organizations because you don't feel like you are getting enough out of it, where is your heart then? It doesn't sound like it's with the animals and their habitat.

I don’t feel entitled to any tags. I do feel residents are short sighted. Make it 100/0. It will just speed up hunter migration to the resident hunting paradises. Which will speed up loss of winter range.

I went to a banquet last night the wifey wanted to attend. We ended up donating $850 total. Maybe it’s wrong but I feel better about donating that $850 to something that absolutely will not benefit me, than WSF, RMEF, MDF, etc. Even though that $850 towards one of those places might benefit me in some way. I’m personally tired funding this play ground in multiple different ways and being told we should be happy with any little crumb we get. And if that crumb gets in half you aren’t disappointed. You are entitled, ungrateful, etc.

Plus according to the net aren’t our non res app fees donations?

Could be. Was the point that, in the face of diminishing wildlife habitat, the best course of action is to stop funding non-profit wildlife organizations which exist in part to protect and enhance wildlife habitat? That was another theme I picked up on.

If they are trying to protect wildlife habitat, maybe they should tell residents to quit making the non res pie so small non res hunters move to the resident hunting paradises? I’m sure more and more residents aren’t helping the habitat.



It’s funny how it’s Our wildlife. Until it comes to conservation orgs. Then “we are all in this together”.

 

[Super tag]

How does residents getting more tags result in less herd deletion?

Less tags is the answer there, not changing who gets them.

If anything I'd expect a lower success rate from non residents who don't know the area.

There won’t be more tags as the quotas are the same. Limited entry tags would just go to residents, not non res.

Changing who gets the tag is the answer, that’s the whole point. The number of tags won’t change.

The success rate probably wouldn’t be affected much because the limited entry tags are great tags and the advantage goes to the hunter In most cases, Late season, early, trophy units etc. I think the success rate would be unchanged for the most part.

 

[Cowbell]

tdhanses you seem enamored with our OTC General licenses in Wyoming, how about we give NRs all the General licenses they want and keep the LQ for Rs? General areas and LQ are not the same hunting for the most part. Residents want more access to the better licenses, not going to try and hide that.

Yes I would love to hunt region G mule Deer and have that general elk tag every year. I would give up all other LE options for that...

 

[Cowbell]

Summation of the OP: I want more access to resources that I am not willing to support financially.

Reading Comprehension is becoming a rare trait to find. More accurately summed: I am no longer willing to financially support resources that I no longer have access to...

 

[Cowbell]

Any person can enjoy our public lands at any time. Hiking, biking, quads ,snowmobiles, almost anything your heart desires, year round. What tag allocation number do you feel your entitled to?
If you are going to stop donating or participating in conservation organizations because you don't feel like you are getting enough out of it, where is your heart then? It doesn't sound like it's with the animals and their habitat.

Why would you support resources you can't enjoy? That money would be better invested in private land in that same state or your own to where you actually have access to resources. It's not about where your heart is. It's about being logical.

 

[Customweld]

Why would you support resources you can't enjoy? That money would be better invested in private land in that same state or your own to where you actually have access to resources. It's not about where your heart is. It's about being logical.

So to hell with deer and elk if you can’t hunt them in another state. Got it.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

There's currently a bill in both houses of Congress that will have direct effect on all the issues that the OP mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

 

[CJ19]

There's currently a bill in both houses of Congress that will have direct effect on all the issues that the OP mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Which bill is that?

 

[CorbLand]

After every state is 90/10, which state will go 95/5 first? Then 98/2? Oregon already is beyond 90/10. And I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying I believe it’s short sighted. Is it wrong to shift donations from wildlife to something you feel is as important, but isn’t paying for a playground for ungrateful people?

I don’t drink. If I did who knows what I would post Just me not donating is nothing. I’m sure I’m the only person that has quit, right?

Posters are focusing on one of the most recent non res losses. It’s not just a one time loss. It is happening with more and more regularity across the western states.

Again it isn’t about the most recent 90/10 and it is. That’s just one more piece of the non res pie getting taken away. How small does a piece of pie have to be before it’s not worth scraping the pie plate. Instead just pick up that plate, toss it in the dishwasher, and find a different dessert.

Also, for some reason my memory is getting jogged. I could swear I have read on the net (so it must be true) that non res should figure their application fees are a donation for conservation. Maybe even strut around and pay ourselves on the back? I seem to remember that’s how it was presented/typed?

Exactly. That would have saved me a lot of time.

I don’t feel entitled to any tags. I do feel residents are short sighted. Make it 100/0. It will just speed up hunter migration to the resident hunting paradises. Which will speed up loss of winter range.

I went to a banquet last night the wifey wanted to attend. We ended up donating $850 total. Maybe it’s wrong but I feel better about donating that $850 to something that absolutely will not benefit me, than WSF, RMEF, MDF, etc. Even though that $850 towards one of those places might benefit me in some way. I’m personally tired funding this play ground in multiple different ways and being told we should be happy with any little crumb we get. And if that crumb gets in half you aren’t disappointed. You are entitled, ungrateful, etc.

Plus according to the net aren’t our non res app fees donations?

If they are trying to protect wildlife habitat, maybe they should tell residents to quit making the non res pie so small non res hunters move to the resident hunting paradises? I’m sure more and more residents aren’t helping the habitat.



It’s funny how it’s Our wildlife. Until it comes to conservation orgs. Then “we are all in this together”.

I am just throwing this out there. If you have the financial ability to drop 850 bucks at a banquet, you can hunt the West every year without a doubt.

 

[CJ19]

I am just throwing this out there. If you have the financial ability to drop 850 bucks at a banquet, you can hunt the West every year without a doubt.

You are correct but i dont think that was his point.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

117th Congress HR2773

 

[Customweld]

Agreed- there seems to be confusion on this thread about everyone owning public land(true) and the state controlling the wildlife. All us citizens own the public land and can go to Wyoming or any other state and hike or camp, atv, whatever for free at anytime. Just because you can’t draw a tag every year doesn’t mean you don’t have equal access to public land. I have contributed to rmef for 30 plus years. I know of zero projects they have ever done in my area of Idaho and I know for certain they have done nothing in my hunting area. Over that time they have reintroduced elk to Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and they are successful enough to have seasons in all those states. I will never hunt there most likely ( I have put in for Kentucky draw ). I don’t care that I won’t see or shoot those elk I feel my support dollars have been well spent. If all you care about is being able to kill the elk yourself you are in conservation for the wrong reason in my opinion. Someone posted that elk on public land is welfare!? Wtf. The fact that we all own public land has nothing to do with tag allocation. Everyone can use public land equally resident or non resident. Tag sales fund the state’s wildlife management. I seen a few posts where people are a little confused.

Well said. I volunteer countless hours planting brush after fires, rolling up unused barbed wire fences and feeding when conditions require it. I haven’t hunted a general mule deer tag in about 10 years. I love seeing those grey ghosts and if I can give some back to them, I will. I may never hunt another general otc muley and that’s ok, but I can say that I’ve genuinely helped them as much as I could.