LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-14 AT 01:59PM (MST)[p]Stoney,
I find it pretty entertaining when you start the name calling. Green, liberal, etc.
I always figured the more flak a person takes, the closer they are to directly over the target. I can assure you this is the case with this discussion.
Rather than try to debate with facts, you drag up your usual rhetoric from the same worn out play book, trying to hide the facts under the cloak of supposed "conservative" values you claim to have.
I'm just wondering how your "conservative" values allow you to sleep at night knowing that LO's and Outfitters are being subsidized via the States Wildlife? Giving landowners direct payments in the form of transferable tags, which is nothing more than the privatization of the Publics Wildlife Resources. Hard for me to find much of a conservative slant on tag welfare for outfitters and landowners. It just doesnt jive with free market, stand on your own two feet, conservative values.
It would make more sense, from a conservative standpoint, to do away with the outfitter tag welfare. Let R and NR hunters apply under the existing 84-16 tag split and then allow those that draw the choice of hiring an outfitter or not. That makes the most sense for two reasons:
1. You create a totally fair market for the allocation of the PUBLIC wildlife Resource.
2. You dont prop up the outfitting industry, where those looking for better odds at a tag, are required to subsidize an outfitter via PUBLIC wildlife. The outfitting businesses either succeed or fail based on performance, rather than just their ability to increase someones draw odds.
Thats a huge win-win, those that draw tags are given a choice, the shady outfitters are shown the door, and the best outfitters provide the best service possible to those choosing to use their services.
As to the landowner tag issue, I agree that private landowners, in some cases, are excellent stewards of the land and the publics wildlife. I have no problem rewarding those individuals with non-transferable LO tags, unit specific, based on wildlife usage, and good for their deeded land only.
Further, if they want to make more, let them lease their deeded ground to an outfitter, charge trespass fees, or enroll in a program like Montanas Block Management or Wyomings Access yes programs.
There is NO reason for transferable landowner tags when landowners clearly have avenues to control wildlife numbers on their deeded ground, as well turn a profit via access.
Again, I find no conservative slant to a system that subsidizes LO's with publically owned wildlife resources.
If you truly are "conservative" like you claim, I have no idea why you would be in support of a State Program that subsidizes LO's and Outfitters with a public wildlife.
It just doesnt add up, and seems pretty hypocritical of you to call anyone liberal. It would serve you well to take a good look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of being liberal again.