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

[2ski]

TLR

NR's are exactly like everyone wants to accuse antis of. You compromise and they just want more. You want an 80/20 split? Tomorrow you'll be asking for 70/30. And the next day 60/40. Those are just facts.

I hate the argument we have to stick together on all topics hunting. Oh do we? Just because one person holds a belief of something doesn't mean I have to go along with it, under the guise of saving hunting. There's so many ethical questions in the hunting world and you can always find someone that wants to do it the opposite. I mean a host did a pod where he used SCI to try to lambast BHA because they didn't come out and say everyone should hunt bears. So what. They're a positive influence in the hunting community. And you could tell the SCI guys were like uh we just want to talk about our org.

People saying "but I don't care if everyone comes to my state to hunt". Sure you don't. Your state sucks.

 

[CorbLand]

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.

Is there a set goal of NR? I keeps seeing people say that 80/20 is "fair" but has that been substantiated?

 

[Trial153]

Who, specifically, is trying to eliminate NR tags?

Residents of states that keep advocating for lower and lower NR tag allocations will not be satisfied till they have them all. If you look at historical allocation numbers, you will see that the ratios never go up. If you can’t see the writing on the wall you’re not looking very hard.

 

[2ski]

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.

Yawn. This is more of the "we all have to think like I do for the good of hunting" fantasy.

 

[2ski]

Residents of states that keep advocating for lower and lower NR tag allocations will not be satisfied till they have them all. If you look at historical allocation numbers, you will see that the ratios never go up. If you can’t see the writing on the wall you’re not looking very hard.

Why should the ratios go up?. If they never have gone up from what they were set why should they? Because you said so?

NR's are so concerned about the funding of the states? They are concerned with opportunity and only that. Let's be honest.

 

[TVW]

Why should the ratios go up?. If they never have gone up from what they were set why should they? Because you said so?

NR's are so concerned about the funding of the states? They are concerned with opportunity and only that. Let's be honest.

They shouldn't. Especially with the increase in population a lot of Western States with good hunting are seeing.

 

[2ski]

Residents of states that keep advocating for lower and lower NR tag allocations will not be satisfied till they have them all. If you look at historical allocation numbers, you will see that the ratios never go up. If you can’t see the writing on the wall you’re not looking very hard.

Or it's time to wash your glasses. Those are just smudges on your glasses. Not the writing on the wall.

 

[MTN BUM]

Yawn. This is more of the "we all have to think like I do for the good of hunting" fantasy.

No not really. I dont care if you think like I do. Just care that we spend our time and energy attacking the anti movement, and not attacking ourselves for them

 

[Trial153]

Why should the ratios go up?. If they never have gone up from what they were set why should they? Because you said so?

NR's are so concerned about the funding of the states? They are concerned with opportunity and only that. Let's be honest.

I never said other wise.

Like I said, take the whole pie would be willing to pay for it .

 

[Archer86]

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.

That really doesn't make much sense you have a state that doesn't maintain enough public land but you want to give there residents more ie reward them with a higher resident preferance because they don't maintain public land in there home state.

Yeah it is. and 94 percent of those nr paying are non hunters do you want them to have a say in how hunting tags are managed if you want to claim there dollars shouldn't they have input as well? Seams like nr have a misconception that residents of western states don't pay pittmans and Robertson funds. I can guarantee you residents of western states pay just as much as NR HUNTERS it seams like the nr hunters want to claim all nr funds as they paid them in and that's not the case there are plenty of nr that don't hunt that pat in to pr funds. Also pr funds are equally distributed based on certian criterias one is a qualifying license sold to nr so that is currently factored in to the allocation of pr fundnds.

I do think 80 20 is a good split and we should start with idaho first and none of this up to bull sh!t straight 80 20.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Really? You think the anti hunting groups are going to kill hunting in states like Utah and Idaho? Give me a break…These states know how much money they raise from hunters - unless these anti groups are willing to replace the lost income it isnt going to gain any traction. You guys need to stop spreading false news.

 

[bozeman]

If the 50 or so ppl posting on this thread can't agree, do you EVER think a plan for western states will happen? hahahaha.....

 

[svivian]

Grasping at straws with the argument about public land and who is paying for it. 15million hunters isn’t what’s keeping public lands open in western states. I see a lot of “because there isn’t enough swings on the playground for me let’s get rid of the playground” going on. Hard to take those opinions or arguments seriously

 

[idahodave]

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

Can we all at LEAST agree this is fooking hilarious?

If we can't find common ground in this brilliance, we are surely doomed in this attempted, internet Kumbaya.

 

[Trial153]

That really doesn't make much sense you have a state that doesn't maintain enough public land but you want to give there residents more ie reward them with a higher resident preferance because they don't maintain public land in there home state.

Yeah it is. and 94 percent of those nr paying are non hunters do you want them to have a say in how hunting tags are managed if you want to claim there dollars shouldn't they have input as well? Seams like nr have a misconception that residents of western states don't pay pittmans and Robertson funds. I can guarantee you residents of western states pay just as much as NR HUNTERS it seams like the nr hunters want to claim all nr funds as they paid them in and that's not the case there are plenty of nr that don't hunt that pat in to pr funds. Also pr funds are equally distributed based on certian criterias one is a qualifying license sold to nr so that is currently factored in to the allocation of pr fundnds.

I do think 80 20 is a good split and we should start with idaho first and none of this up to bull sh!t straight 80 20.

You’re missing the point if a state doesn’t have as much public land then it’s not being subsidized by the federal government and the states animals are not living on the Public land.
States like that should have more leeway in how they allocate tags because the residence of the state own the wildlife and they pay for the land that it lives on.

On states that have a higher percentage of public land, which is paid for by the federal government, meaning the taxpayers of the 50 states. Those states should have a mandatory 80/20 split. And if they’re not willing to do that, then let the state pick up the bill and let them pay for the management and the ownership of all the public land that their wildlife lives on..

 

[WeiserBucks]

we should start with idaho first and none of this up to bull sh!t straight 80 20.

This relates to what I had posted earlier, if it's such bullshit then don't apply.

 

[MTN BUM]

If the 50 or so ppl posting on this thread can't agree, do you EVER think a plan for western states will happen? hahahaha.....

Truth bomb.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Or it's time to wash your glasses. Those are just smudges on your glasses. Not the writing on the wall.

what state are you a resident of?

 

[Archer86]

This relates to what I had posted earlier, if it's such bullshit then don't apply.

Oh I will still apply got to pay to play. But 80 20 wouldn't hurt my feelings either not even a little bit.

 

[2ski]

No not really. I dont care if you think like I do. Just care that we spend our time and energy attacking the anti movement, and not attacking ourselves for them

Disagreeing on tag allotments is not attacking. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "You don't agree with my opinion and to say you don't is attacking me!"

No it's not. It's disagreeing.