With the character limit on Rokslide, I've quoted your last paragraph, as I think that summarizes your questions and critique. I will try my best to answer and I appreciate that you are honestly seeking an answer.
A few pieces of background. I started applying in every western state in 1995. I made a lot of personal financial sacrifices to start doing that, knowing my interest in hunting intriguing landscapes would be best served by building points in states where it helped. I subscribed to Bowhunter Magazine at the time. Dwight Schuh wrote an article about point systems evolving in the west. Then I read an article by Jim Zumbo in Outdoor Life that explained the Colorado system that had only started a few years prior. From that, I gleaned information from a media source the allowed me to start working toward hunts I otherwise would not have drawn over the last 25 years.
Was I supposed to close the gate after I got that information that was helpful to my drawing tags? Everyone of us learned somewhere along the way that these opportunities exist and finally dispelled the myth that you need to be filthy rich or hire an outfitter.
When does it cross the line from helpful information to too much information? My experience in getting tons of comments over the years is that when it is "new information" to someone, it is helpful. Once they have that information and they want less competition, it crosses the line to "too much information."
I think it is intellectually honest to ask, and intellectually dishonest to deny, "Why is it OK for me/you/us to have the information and knowledge today, but we should suppress distribution of that information that could benefit hunters who don't have that information?"
I pose that as a serious question that we all must ask. I would ask the same to Matt and likely will the next time I see him. I would go even further and ask, "Why should nobody else get to hunt these public lands other than those of us who are hunting them today?"
It's easy to see some hypocrisy or selfishness in comments that can be summarized as, "I've been hunting these public lands for years and I'm not part of the problem, but when someone else comes to hunt those lands, its a problem that we need to do something about?
Maybe I'm in the minority, but that seems rather selfish. And, I suspect a close introspection by most would have to admit a bit of selfishness in the frustration of having to share the lands and the tags with others, especially those newcomers who might not have been born into a hunting culture. Hell, when I bump into people on public land, I might kick the dirt and complain, but I quickly realize they are probably thinking the same thing about me being there on that day.
I want better draw odds. I want less competition for tags and hunting space. I want to hunt more often. We all do, but there is a lot of "I want" in that honesty. And when we take action to express the "I want" desires, I understand it, but I also see the selfishness it includes, even when I find myself feeling that way.
Point creep is surely a factor of today's western hunting. I do videos on point creep every year and I will be doing another one for release in January. What are the causes of point creep beyond more awareness and information, something I agree with you contributes to increased demand?
- Reduced herd numbers for most species, resulting in far fewer tags? Certainly
- Displacement of hunters from previously accessible private lands? Yes.
- Lost access putting more pressure on units with ample public land? Yes
- Is increase the rapid in western state resident populations changing allocation of opportunity and therefore point creep? Yes
I could add a lot more items adding to point creep, something that has increased every year since I started in applying in multiple states in 1995. It is going to happen so long as humans continue to breed like rabbits and more people move to western states.
So, since your question asks of me and my justification, here goes, knowing it might not be what folks want to hear.
My response, and one I think is lacking in Matt's comments, is that as our population grows, especially resident population of western states, efforts toward increased public access and better conservation are paramount. There is no greater cause to the future of hunting than access and conservation, at least in my opinion. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but in my 30 years of advocacy each year those two points increase in my priority. That is why my personal time and much of our content is focused on access and putting more elk in the hills, sheep on the mountain, and ducks in the air.
It comes down to some decisions, both collectively and individually - Are we going to fight over our piece of the smaller pie or try to make a bigger pie? Each person will make their own decision for each of the many different topics that come before them.
Those who have been through the B-school curriculums know the theories about abundance thinkers versus scarcity thinkers. The summary of that is people are programmed in two different ways; either to spend their efforts fighting for their share of a shrinking resource (focus on cutting expenses) or they spend their efforts working to increase the size of the resource (focus on increasing revenues). That theory applies in a lot of places other than just business.
For me, and I know some don't like this, our WHY of building advocates requires people to get out in the field and build that connection to public lands as a valued place that they are willing to defend and advocate for. To do that, requires providing information that gets them in the field, just like I got from Dwight and Jim and just like everyone of us got somewhere, somehow, along our path of western hunting.
This might piss people off even more, but I'm going to continue providing information that helps people get out and hunt these places I've been blessed to hunt. That's what I set out to do when I started these platforms. That's why I've worked this as an unpaid second job for the last fourteen years. That's why I've sunk a piss pot full of money into this effort. Not because I give a damn about likes, views, shares, or whatever. I want more access, more game, and new people coming to the fold to replace old farts like me who are not long for this earth. When the politicians come for the lands or the game, I want more people connected to hunting those lands and who will stand up against those efforts.
Many ask why I would provide information that could make my draw odds worse. Why I would want to have hunters out on these public lands. The simple answer for me, is that it is not about me and my opportunity. It is about making sure hunting continues long after I'm gone and there will always be public land for people to hunt on.
That's my honest answer in the allowed characters, knowing I'm probably going to get flamed for it. I appreciate you asking.
As to the point of CA, WA, OR, I'll address those in a later post. Same with
@cnelk comments on KS.
Thanks for the explanation.
