You obviously have your opinion and are entitled to it. You won’t teach me anything either bro. But you need to be called out when throwing out incorrect info, which you did.
600.000 + acres is what any average Joe will no longer be able to hunt if the UW tags disappear. Horrible idea.
Ok so back to your math...
So you want the landowners that were getting UW landowner tags to get 0 of those now. But if you give those landowners a RO tag now you are adding tags. Not going to work. RO tags get subtracted from the total tags available in a unit just like a UW tag does. The landowner backlash would be crippling. Again, you have your opinions and are entitled to them. I just can’t believe you don’t see the repercussions.
Not throwing out any incorrect info, bro. You are missing the point to heinrich's letter. RO usually means elk are having a specific impact on that piece of property. There is a reason 'X' amount of elk need to be removed. UW means elk are on private occasionally with perhaps a very small number of resident elk.
We are talking about putting UW tags back into the draw that the "super rich" are buying from a landowner, and then hunting the same public land ridge as a guy that obtained the same tag through the random draw. The point is, a special advantage is being given to what they call the wealthy over the median household income hunter.
If the property issuing the UW EPLUS tag were so great, that "rich guy" would not need to hunt the entire unit. If the harvest objective is being met off the private ground, why not throw that tag back into the draw giving an increased chance of someone obtaining that tag through the random draw? That's the premise to the letter.
The elementary math problem using UW TAGS ONLY illustrates heinrich's argument.
Try to keep up...
I think the part you are missing is that the former UW ranch that you took the tag from and added it into the draw, now has RO tags allotted to them. That allotment comes from the same pool. As booner mentioned, these tags are not unlimited. They are derived from a harvest objective based on average success rates. Your example only works if the ranch chooses not to sign up for RO and drops out of the pool. Are you saying that all RO landowners will be allowed unlimited tags and wont be part of the harvest objective for their respective units? So now we want to potentially remove habitat, and increase the harvest?
If the UW tag thrown into the draw now has RO tags allotted to them, that same piece of property didn't need a UW tag to be issued in the first place because the harvest objective would be met annually on the private ground. We are talking about the UW tag being filled off private ground. We are talking about an outfitter first buying the UW tag from the landowner, then turning around and marking it up 100% and using that tag to find a big bull for their client. The point to all this is putting those UW tags into the draw, and let outfitters play the game of a free market or select the private ground that will produce for their client.
Again, we are only discussing the UW tags, not RO. Will removing UW tags from the mix reduce total acreage a public land draw tag holder can hunt?
Yep. Never said it wouldn't. What I did say is I understand the argument. Never have I said I agree with it. I have been talking about what the letter is proposing, not whether or not it makes sense or makes it better.
The EPLUS for UW designations gives more opportunity to fill your tag without selling a kidney on the black market, if you're lucky enough to draw one.