Wyoming G&F, how de we get a voice as NR's?

[Marshfly]

Yeah but not in WY matters, not a resident there.

Right!!! As it should be.

But your representatives that you elect have a say in how federal money is spent. If that's not enough, too bad I guess. Run for office yourself.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Never said I had a gripe, not sure where you got that.

Perfect.

 

[MattB]

So if you boot ALL nonres big game/small game hunters, that should mean all federal aide go away as well correct? I know the money figures already...

Why do you think that would happen? I've never seen that any federal funds are predicated upon NR hunter opportunity. From what I understand, the bulk of PR funds are allocated based on state land mass as a portion of total US land mass and hunting licenses sold in the state as a % of the national total. The % of WY NR licenses as a % of the total licenses is not that high, so the decrease in PR dollars should likewise not be that substantial.

Based on simple assumptions, it looks like WY would need to increase R tag/license fees ~3.5x to equal NR license/tag fees.

 

[tdhanses]

Right!!! As it should be.

But your representatives that you elect have a say in how federal money is spent. If that's not enough, too bad I guess. Run for office yourself.

What? Of course they do, so if a federal land sale push comes back up why wouldn’t I contact my representatives and tell them to sell baby sell?

 

[Marshfly]

What? Of course they do, so if a federal land sale push comes back up why wouldn’t I contact my representatives and tell them to sell baby sell?

You are free to do just that. That's your right in a representational democracy.

 

[tdhanses]

You are free to do just that. That's your right in a representational democracy.

I think more and more people are starting to be ok with that, won’t shock me if we see a reduction in federal land in the future or the Feds sell the lands back to states.

 

[Marshfly]

I think more and more people are starting to be ok with that, won’t shock me if we see a reduction in federal land in the future.

But what does that have to do with this specific discussion?

 

[Squincher]

You know, it would be a pretty simple matter to apportion Pittman-Robertson funds back to the state in which they were collected. Then states could manage their wildlife for their residents with their money. What could be more fair than that? Everyone has a voice with their Senator and Representative, after all.

 

[tdhanses]

But what does that have to do with this specific discussion?

Haha, it doesn’t.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

But what does that have to do with this specific discussion?

He wants to leverage that threat with more/cheaper tags lol

 

[tdhanses]

You know, it would be a pretty simple matter to apportion Pittman-Robertson funds back to the state in which they were collected. Then states could manage their wildlife for their residents with their money. What could be more fair than that? Everyone has a voice with their Senator and Representative, after all.

Or allocate it based on population numbers by state.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

You know, it would be a pretty simple matter to apportion Pittman-Robertson funds back to the state in which they were collected. Then states could manage their wildlife for their residents with their money. What could be more fair than that? Everyone has a voice with their Senator and Representative, after all.

Then why even collect them at a federal level?

 

[Marshfly]

He wants to leverage that threat with more/cheaper tags lol

Right.
It's just slippery slope and red herring fallacies that should be ignored and dismissed.

 

[tdhanses]

He wants to leverage that threat with more/cheaper tags lol

No I don’t, just saying the more and more we push our own hunting base away, the fewer and fewer that will fight for it.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

No I don’t, just saying the more and more we push our own hunting base away, the fewer and fewer that will fight for it.

Sure.

 

[Marshfly]

No I don’t, just saying the more and more we push our own hunting base away, the fewer and fewer that will fight for it.

This, I 100% agree with.

 

[Squincher]

Then why even collect them at a federal level?

Excellent point. Really no reason for the money to ever leave the state.

 

[tdhanses]

This, I 100% agree with.

And that is the entire point I was trying to get at, I failed.

 

[Marshfly]

This, I 100% agree with.

If you, as a hunter, shooter, and outdoorsman, are not actively recruiting your family and friends into the mix you are walking around blinded to the realities of what is happening.

 

[Squincher]

Or allocate it based on population numbers by state.

Leaving it in the state in which it was collected would be based on the population of sportsmen in the state.