- Banned
- #101
The National BHA board does not interfere much, if at all, in most all of these issues, including if a Chapter wants to address a tag allocation issue.
Tag allocations are a big deal, and the implications for both Resident and NR hunters can be huge and as such, the BHA chapters absolutely should be involved.
I wonder if the Wyoming Chapter, that I happen to Chair, should have just stayed out of the "allocation" issue in regard to the special VS. regular fee bills that the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association has tried to run the last 2 Legislative sessions? You know, the 60/40 bill that would have "flipped" 60% of the NR deer, elk and pronghorn tags into the higher "special fee" pool from the current 40%. Oh, and if that would have happened, that full 60% of NR special priced tags would have cut out another 20% of the tags from the reduced price NR youth fee schedule.
The Wyoming Chapter put itself in a politically tough spot opposing that on behalf of NR hunters, when our Legislature was making, and successfully passed Legislation, that stripped 4.2 million in general fund money from our Department. Perhaps it would have been better if we just allowed NR to pay much higher priced fees on another 20% of every elk, deer, and pronghorn tag to take up the slack? Could have done that and avoided a Resident fee increase I suppose.
But, the Wyoming Chapter strongly opposed that legislation and has successfully killed it the last 2 sessions...and we'll kill it again if we have to. Why? Because our Chapter board wants to encourage NR youth hunters, via having 60% of the available pronghorn, elk, and deer tags available to them at the reduced fee rather than only 40%. We also believe that even NR license fees should be kept at a reasonable fee so that even the hunter of average means can come here to hunt.
According to what I'm reading here, many believe the Wyoming Chapter should have just stayed out of this, allowing this crap legislation to pass, because license allocations are out of our mission statement? Not true, its an issue for all sportsmen and the reason that many states have crap laws like transferable landowner tags, outfitter only tags, and other ridiculous tag set asides, is because no group stood up and took the issue on. Complacency has no place in wildlife politics, and no group is beyond its mission statement when it takes on these issues.
Also, each State absolutely has the right to discriminate against NR hunters any way it wants to, whether it be tag allocations, tag percentages, price, or even if they allow a NR to have a tag at all. Its been upheld in court case after court case.
The issue of Federal Public lands and wildlife held in trust for the citizens of the State its found in are 2 entirely, and completely different subjects. About like comparing apples and aardvarks.
When I hunt as a NR in other States, I am humbled that they even allow me to hunt their wildlife...they aren't required to. Whether that's offering 1 tag, 50 tags, 200 tags, 10%, 20%, or OTC opportunities, I graciously accept anything they are willing to give. Every tag I take as a NR hunter, means a Resident hunter doesn't get that opportunity...no way around that fact.
Finally, when I see the work that Residents in CO, WY, etc. put into their wildlife resources, I'm even more humbled by the generosity they show NR's. I don't see many NR's attending public meetings, Legislative sessions, meeting with legislators, elected officials, commissioners, etc. etc. etc. in support of the States wildlife resources. I don't see many NR's at work days, wildlife captures, tearing down fencing, cleaning up shooting areas, planting bitterbrush, installing guzzlers, etc. etc. that Residents spend thousands of volunteer hours doing. Not to mention that monetary lay-out supporting all sorts of NGO's that pay for a lot of wildlife related projects...most of that is from Residents.
So, I don't see where the Colorado Chapter is one bit out of line with taking a position on tag allocations...they've earned the right to comment and I fully support their efforts.
Tag allocations are a big deal, and the implications for both Resident and NR hunters can be huge and as such, the BHA chapters absolutely should be involved.
I wonder if the Wyoming Chapter, that I happen to Chair, should have just stayed out of the "allocation" issue in regard to the special VS. regular fee bills that the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association has tried to run the last 2 Legislative sessions? You know, the 60/40 bill that would have "flipped" 60% of the NR deer, elk and pronghorn tags into the higher "special fee" pool from the current 40%. Oh, and if that would have happened, that full 60% of NR special priced tags would have cut out another 20% of the tags from the reduced price NR youth fee schedule.
The Wyoming Chapter put itself in a politically tough spot opposing that on behalf of NR hunters, when our Legislature was making, and successfully passed Legislation, that stripped 4.2 million in general fund money from our Department. Perhaps it would have been better if we just allowed NR to pay much higher priced fees on another 20% of every elk, deer, and pronghorn tag to take up the slack? Could have done that and avoided a Resident fee increase I suppose.
But, the Wyoming Chapter strongly opposed that legislation and has successfully killed it the last 2 sessions...and we'll kill it again if we have to. Why? Because our Chapter board wants to encourage NR youth hunters, via having 60% of the available pronghorn, elk, and deer tags available to them at the reduced fee rather than only 40%. We also believe that even NR license fees should be kept at a reasonable fee so that even the hunter of average means can come here to hunt.
According to what I'm reading here, many believe the Wyoming Chapter should have just stayed out of this, allowing this crap legislation to pass, because license allocations are out of our mission statement? Not true, its an issue for all sportsmen and the reason that many states have crap laws like transferable landowner tags, outfitter only tags, and other ridiculous tag set asides, is because no group stood up and took the issue on. Complacency has no place in wildlife politics, and no group is beyond its mission statement when it takes on these issues.
Also, each State absolutely has the right to discriminate against NR hunters any way it wants to, whether it be tag allocations, tag percentages, price, or even if they allow a NR to have a tag at all. Its been upheld in court case after court case.
The issue of Federal Public lands and wildlife held in trust for the citizens of the State its found in are 2 entirely, and completely different subjects. About like comparing apples and aardvarks.
When I hunt as a NR in other States, I am humbled that they even allow me to hunt their wildlife...they aren't required to. Whether that's offering 1 tag, 50 tags, 200 tags, 10%, 20%, or OTC opportunities, I graciously accept anything they are willing to give. Every tag I take as a NR hunter, means a Resident hunter doesn't get that opportunity...no way around that fact.
Finally, when I see the work that Residents in CO, WY, etc. put into their wildlife resources, I'm even more humbled by the generosity they show NR's. I don't see many NR's attending public meetings, Legislative sessions, meeting with legislators, elected officials, commissioners, etc. etc. etc. in support of the States wildlife resources. I don't see many NR's at work days, wildlife captures, tearing down fencing, cleaning up shooting areas, planting bitterbrush, installing guzzlers, etc. etc. that Residents spend thousands of volunteer hours doing. Not to mention that monetary lay-out supporting all sorts of NGO's that pay for a lot of wildlife related projects...most of that is from Residents.
So, I don't see where the Colorado Chapter is one bit out of line with taking a position on tag allocations...they've earned the right to comment and I fully support their efforts.
