Customweld
WKR
Man, am I glad for the random Idaho draw!
No one here has come off rude at all, sorry if I was misleading with my previous postIf my posts are coming off rude, that is not my intent, at all.
I agree that we all have to play the cards we are dealt and I apply for and purchase points to the extent that I can afford. But until I am dead and in the ground, I will always disagree with point systems and advocate against them.
If you are dead set on having a points system. The best, in my opinion, is a bonus point system. Basically, a random draw but your name is in the hat for as many times as you have applied but not drawn. Everyone has an equal possibility of drawing but those that have applied longer have a higher probability of their name being pulled.
Yeah, except that fact that NR's don't "own" wildlife in a state they don't reside in.Adding rules that preclude the poorest Americans from taking part in a resource they themselves own is such a vile concept I can't believe I see it openly posted and supported here.
Life is not fair. All of us have opportunity. Whether or not someone decides to take advantage of that opportunity is decided solely by the individual in the mirror.Not at all. Im just saying that at some (reasonable) point in their lives they should be able to have an equitable chance to draw a tag.
Currently with point creep an 18 year old kid could (possibly) start buying points and never catch up (in some units) since there are an awful lot of kids whose parents start buying them points as early as possible. Even worse for someone who starts buying points in their 20s or 30s.
Stay strong and advocate to keep it that way. I have talked to many Idaho residents that think a point system is the way to go. Also, buy your damn lifetime license.Man, am I glad for the random Idaho draw!
Yeah, except that fact that NR's don't "own" wildlife in a state they don't reside in.
I get what you're saying, point taken, but lets be honest. Even if we did price NR licenses so even the "poorest Americans" can play...they still have to travel, still have to pay for fuel, groceries, rifles, ammo, the list goes on and on. I think even if the States GAVE away tags, there's a pretty high percentage of "poorest Americans" that still wouldn't have the cabbage to use a free tag.
IMO, I think where you don't want to preclude even the poorest Americans is in the state where they are a Resident. All states make it pretty affordable for all Residents.
Hunting as a NR is a luxury, always has been, and always will be. Luxury items come with a higher price tag.
Not everyone can hit the ball out Fenway, not everyone can afford expensive sports cars, and not everyone an afford to hunt out of state as a NR. Life....it happens.
I think you need to reevaluate what entitlement and handout means. Everything you've been posting is "what about all those less fortunate to have been born now instead of 20 years ago, so they have no points, and there needs to be a way for them to have an EQUAL chance at being able to draw one specific unit of their choice". THAT is the definition of entitlement and handout. Think of it this way.......you want to "hobble" those that have already been running and competing for years by stopping them from getting any more points, just so others can catch up and have an equal chance of winning the race. Does that sound familiar with some other things that are happening in society and government today? That's like joining a marathon that's been going for some time and expecting the race coordinators to tie all the leaders legs together until you can catch up to them. That's not even a race worth winning or running at that point because either way it was a handout to some.As far as "my posts are the definition of entitlement or handout" you should probably rephrase that if you want to be accurate though that doesn't appear to be the case.
I've never suggested that anyone be given anything they didn't work for or earn. I suggested that applicants be given the chance to catch up via a cap on max points. Not that they automatically jump to first place in the points race.
So, making people pay up front to apply for a bunch of privilege tags is immoral.......but then what would it be if one of those people actually drew all those tags that they can't afford to pay for?Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.
Adding rules that preclude the poorest Americans from taking part in a resource they themselves own is such a vile concept I can't believe I see it openly posted and supported here.
Rules requiring people to front the money for tags for the purpose of excluding the poor from applying.
I think the details of the premise of my point are irrelevant. Acknowledging the literal letter of the law that NR’s don’t own other state’s wildlife, they certainly own federal lands that provide habitat and enable quite a few to even exist.
Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.
And those if you that would seek to exclude others using economics as a weapon are low character people, IMO.
Believe me, it gets harder every year. As soon as the draw results are out, points come back to the forefront.Stay strong and advocate to keep it that way. I have talked to many Idaho residents that think a point system is the way to go. Also, buy your damn lifetime license.
Even in a resident’s case, forcing someone to fork over lots of cash if they apply for many tags across many species, some with minuscule draw odds (sheep, goat, moose) is immoral. I understand why some things may be the way they are. But it’s still immoral.
I would be in the "embrace the concept" camp. But unlike most, I think the states in general, need to raise prices. Especially for preference points. I wouldn't mind if the states I buy preference points in (Wyoming and Colorado) doubled the cost for preference points. Not because I want to give the state more money. But, it might help improve overall odds and help with point creep.I'm waiting for someone to point out the blatant "pay to play" nature of the Wyoming Regular price vs Special price draws. Wide open and there for everyone to see; you pay more money you have better odds.
Not only is it not discussed when "pay to play" is a brought up, many seem to embrace the concept.
The opportunity is essentially the same - You/me/we can buy exactly 1 point. Just like everyone else. That we aren't aware of it or that you are 50+ yrs old doesn't calculate in the equation. You had opportunity to buy the point.What's that have to do with point systems? Very simply that same segment above in many cases cheer and steer for policy that cost more and fosters more exclusivity for the own ends.
What there needs to be is equality in opportunity.
Everything in our society is times based on your time of entry. Go and get in front of someone at the grocery checkout line and see what happens. The opportunity is the same - exactly the same. Just you didn't get in line first.Right now even though two individuals pay the same amount they aren't afforded the same opportunity because we built systems that were dependent on TIME of entry.
NR hunting has always been a luxury. Resident hunting is what most people do. Rich people travel to far off and exotic places to hunt for stuff.Yes NR hunting is luxury that not everyone can part take in, and most likely it's always been so. That said it probably doesn't help our cause to raise the barriers to entry at every turn and nothing hurts hunting more than disenfanicement of hunters.
"Calling people names"???? I reread every one of my posts and there was no name calling.To 5 miles back- you're defending a system (I'm not sure calling people names is defending anything- it certainly wouldn't have worked on the debate team)