Why the NR HATE?? Let's fix it!

[406huntermt]

Totally agree, that why I say let it happen now. As soon as we have more of a free market influx the sooner opportunity’s will open up and the sooner states foot the bill the quicker that will happen.
Or …
And easy fix a clear and fair mandate as part of federal funding packages.
80/20 is fair and keeps NR money flowing into state agency coffers for fish and wildlife.

90/10 is more then fair and it certainly isn’t going anywhere in states that already have it! Keep whining it’s a good look for you

 

[sndmn11]

Good post but I do not know what you’re asking me.

I am asking if hunters make supporting each other transactional, or quid pro qo, where does that get us?

I'm not picking on @100 others and I agree, that what I have quoted from what he has shared is a harsh reality.

@sndmn11
Thats the harsh reality of it. Only shared assets are going to be fought for. Not saying it's right, but people aren't going to get up in arms about losing something they could never participate in anyway. Colorado has a massive backing to support elk and deer hunting because its been so generous for a long time. Meanwhile if South Dakota was voting to shut down elk hunting, very few hunters outside the state would spend any time fighting it since they could never apply in the first place and it was never on their radar. They'd be concerned about the precedent it sets, but they're not going to call or show up.
(SD was just an example, not whining about wanting to hunt their small population of elk)

To clarify my question, @robby denning and using the above, I am fearful of hunters' attitudes about only supporting things they directly benefit from. When "we" train hunters' mindset that their support of something should only take place when they have an immediate benefit from it, we end up with in-fighting because our desire to help is tied to a personal reward. When that personal reward diminishes or is seen as being "unfair" support wains and "we" lose. Example: less support to oppose a hypothetical South Dakota elk hunting ban.

If we want hunters to have a stronger presence politically we need more hunters, and we need more hunters who are active voters. I think "we" as hunters should have the view that the Resident Hunter, regardless of what state they are in, is the priority to sustaining our hobby. Let's take care of them, keep them in the field, and make sure they are invested in the future of hunting.

 

[S.Clancy]

No shit Sherlock. But if you think hunters are going to keep supporting public lands in states that are increasingly padding there budgets with NR funds while residents of the states take more and more opportunities. You got another guess coming.

Let the market decide. There is no limit to amount of money I can earn. And I guarantee state control will open up free market opportunities.

Virtually no hunters actually stand up to support public lands. A slightly larger portion of them stand up to do anything to support hunting.

 

[Trial153]

So does that mean that states that have less then 40 percent of public land should be punished as well for not maintaining enough public land for me as a nr to come hunt on?

I agree 80 20 sounds like a good split between residents and nr.

There are a few residence that are greedy but not all of us and I would say a majority of the ones I am around don't give a crap or really even know what the current split is. Alot of the taking is driven by outfitters trying to get clients easier which are usually wealthy nr hunters.

As far as sending all federal land to the states it's a bad move for the diy guys. states like Wyoming could easily crank up there cost for tags and force everyone to go through outfitter if nr and you would please the residents and give the outfitters all the business they can handle I think you know that is the outcome though just seen your comment above

Honestly I think states that have less federal/ read publicly subsidized lands should have more latitude for allocating tags. I am trying to look at this from a fair perspective. If the rest of the country isn’t picking up the tab then I don’t believe they should have as much as say in the allocation.


What we have here is states and the residence of states being subsidized, because most of the funding for their wildlife agencies are being paid for by nonresident dollars and matching pit and Roberts funds . You have the majority of land who is management is being paid for through federal tax dollars that come from residence in all 50 states.

 

[TVW]

Virtually no hunters actually stand up to support public lands. A slightly larger portion of them stand up to do anything to support hunting.

Sad but true.

 

[Dos Perros]

I like to say if you don’t like me coming from Florida to hunt Elk or Whitetail in your state don’t come down to fish in mine state

And nobody better be coming to Kansas for our round women!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Virtually no hunters actually stand up to support public lands. A slightly larger portion of them stand up to do anything to support hunting.

I sat through a lot of Montana FWP Commission meetings over the years. They leave you with anything but a good taste in your mouth about the average hunter.

 

[Deadspace]

You must not be looking hard then.

There’s probably some truth to that. I don’t run into a lot of people when I’m hunting.

 

[Trial153]

90/10 is more then fair and it certainly isn’t going anywhere in states that already have it! Keep whining it’s a good look for you

Keep sucking on the tit of nonresident funding, and federally subsidized lands to hunt state wildlife. It’s a good look for you

 

[robby denning]

I am asking if hunters make supporting each other transactional, or quid pro qo, where does that get us?

I'm not picking on @100 others and I agree, that what I have quoted from what he has shared is a harsh reality.


To clarify my question, @robby denning and using the above, I am fearful of hunters' attitudes about only supporting things they directly benefit from. When "we" train hunters' mindset that their support of something should only take place when they have an immediate benefit from it, we end up with in-fighting because our desire to help is tied to a personal reward. When that personal reward diminishes or is seen as being "unfair" support wains and "we" lose. Example: less support to oppose a hypothetical South Dakota elk hunting ban.

If we want hunters to have a stronger presence politically we need more hunters, and we need more hunters who are active voters. I think "we" as hunters should have the view that the Resident Hunter, regardless of what state they are in, is the priority to sustaining our hobby. Let's take care of them, keep them in the field, and make sure they are invested in the future of hunting.

Ok, and yes, all for putting Res above NR in particular states but when 50% plus of Colorados CPW budget is from NR elk licenses, it's hard to impossible to make those $ up with just Res.

and as far as "more" hunters needed? I like how John Stallone of HOWL puts it: "I don't necessarily want more hunters, just more "active" hunters from the pool we already have"

 

[406huntermt]

Keep sucking on the tit of nonresident funding, and federally subsidized lands to hunt state wildlife. It’s a good look for you

For all I care everyone should hunt their own states and then we wouldn’t have this giant bitch fest arrive every other month… that’s all you’re doing right now is bitching! What solution have you brought forward? Absolutely nothing, because nothing a non res does is going to change what the state and the residents decide to do! Good luck with whatever you’re trying to accomplish because it won’t go anywhere anytime soon! Until then cough up the money to hunt where ever you want or don’t because that state won’t miss you or your money due to there being 10 other non res to take your spot

 

[WeiserBucks]

that state won’t miss you or your money due to there being 10 other non res to take your spot

There isn't 10 folks lined up to take a spot, there's 100's and sometimes 1000's depending on the tag.

 

[406huntermt]

There isn't 10 folks lined up to take a spot, there's 100's and sometimes 1000's depending on the tag.

I was just using a number

 

[Trial153]

For all I care everyone should hunt their own states and then we wouldn’t have this giant bitch fest arrive every other month… that’s all you’re doing right now is bitching! What solution have you brought forward? Absolutely nothing, because nothing a non res does is going to change what the state and the residents decide to do! Good luck with whatever you’re trying to accomplish because it won’t go anywhere anytime soon! Until then cough up the money to hunt where ever you want or don’t because that state won’t miss you or your money due to there being 10 other non res to take your spot

I offered a solution a federally mandated allocation. But that wouldn’t work because I am realist. Residence will not be satisfied until they have 100% of the allocation that is their goal.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

For all I care everyone should hunt their own states and then we wouldn’t have this giant bitch fest arrive every other month… that’s all you’re doing right now is bitching! What solution have you brought forward? Absolutely nothing, because nothing a non res does is going to change what the state and the residents decide to do! Good luck with whatever you’re trying to accomplish because it won’t go anywhere anytime soon! Until then cough up the money to hunt where ever you want or don’t because that state won’t miss you or your money due to there being 10 other non res to take your spot

^^^^^^^^^^
Us vs Them: exhibit A

 

[Trial153]

I say give it to them let residence have 100% of the tags and 100% of the bills let them pay for the public land that their state owned wildlife lives on. Let them pay for 100% of the efficient wildlife budget. You want the whole pie pay for it.
And we’ll see how fast the tags end up on the free market.

 

[TVW]

I say give it to him let residence have 100% of the tags and 100% of the bills let them pay for the public land that their state owned wildlife lives on. Let them pay for 100% of the efficient wildlife budget. You want the whole pie pay for it.
And we’ll see how fast the tags end up on the free market.

This argument would have a lot more merit if the only use for Public Land was hunting....

 

[WeiserBucks]

Residence will not be satisfied until they have 100% of the allocation that is their goal.

Who, specifically, is trying to eliminate NR tags?

 

[Trial153]

This argument would have a lot more merit if the only use for Public Land was hunting....

Let’s the state issue hiking and birdwatching and camping permits for all I care.

 

[MTN BUM]

For all I care everyone should hunt their own states and then we wouldn’t have this giant bitch fest arrive every other month… that’s all you’re doing right now is bitching! What solution have you brought forward? Absolutely nothing, because nothing a non res does is going to change what the state and the residents decide to do! Good luck with whatever you’re trying to accomplish because it won’t go anywhere anytime soon! Until then cough up the money to hunt where ever you want or don’t because that state won’t miss you or your money due to there being 10 other non res to take your spot

And this. This is why we are going to keep getting our asses kicked by anti's. Because we would rather spend time and effort bashing each other than actually having a productive conversation or trying to make anything better.

Lucky for us the Roosevelt generation didnt have this attitude. Too bad for our kids that its now prevalent, they are screwed.