BPKHunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,799
MO
As a previous resident of No Calif, I can understand how you don't get the benefit of living in a state with any real opportunities for big game hunting. Hell, your own state had to replace "Game" with "Wildlife".
Your arguments that our F&G supports BP systems falls flat as just last week our own Commission Chairman said so: "We did a statistical analysis of this and what the numbers showed was the general hunter is much better off in the lottery than he is in the bonus-points scheme," Trevey said.
I keep writing long detailed responses to your ridiculous rants but erase them because I can't make you understand, because all you know is that this will benefit you. It won't benefit the majority, as the majority of responses here support, and it certainly won't benefit the next generation of our sport. Residents have spoken and will continue to, if NR's choose to demand this, though the sentiment seems to be shifting away from yours more and more, be prepared to pay for it and don't get caught on here complaining when you do, as you have already advertised you don't mind paying to play.
Of course you support Auction Tags if it will defer some cost to you. Of course you support LO tags if you can get an opportunity to buy one instead of draw one like everyone else. You clearly are focused on what will benefit yourself. Well, one fact you ought to consider is that, we as resident sportsmen in the state of ID, unlike in CA, are a pretty strong majority of the voting population. While we may not represent the special interest that large landowners do, we represent a much larger number of voters. Therefore, as you can see here, when we speak loudly we will be able to impact the decisions of the guys that make the rules, even if it will cost them some special interest donations. So, good luck! Oh and thank you, as others have said you have me riled up and speaking loudly against your position.
PS I don't want to sound like I am completely against LO's. They have to deal with a lot of crap from trespassing, etc. and I feel for a guy that own's a bunch of land and can't get a tag. I'm not for leveraging our public resource(wildlife) for them to simply increase profit. I am willing to make a reasonable compromise to exchange habitat and access for tags. Emphasis on "reasonable".
As a previous resident of No Calif, I can understand how you don't get the benefit of living in a state with any real opportunities for big game hunting. Hell, your own state had to replace "Game" with "Wildlife".
Your arguments that our F&G supports BP systems falls flat as just last week our own Commission Chairman said so: "We did a statistical analysis of this and what the numbers showed was the general hunter is much better off in the lottery than he is in the bonus-points scheme," Trevey said.
I keep writing long detailed responses to your ridiculous rants but erase them because I can't make you understand, because all you know is that this will benefit you. It won't benefit the majority, as the majority of responses here support, and it certainly won't benefit the next generation of our sport. Residents have spoken and will continue to, if NR's choose to demand this, though the sentiment seems to be shifting away from yours more and more, be prepared to pay for it and don't get caught on here complaining when you do, as you have already advertised you don't mind paying to play.
Of course you support Auction Tags if it will defer some cost to you. Of course you support LO tags if you can get an opportunity to buy one instead of draw one like everyone else. You clearly are focused on what will benefit yourself. Well, one fact you ought to consider is that, we as resident sportsmen in the state of ID, unlike in CA, are a pretty strong majority of the voting population. While we may not represent the special interest that large landowners do, we represent a much larger number of voters. Therefore, as you can see here, when we speak loudly we will be able to impact the decisions of the guys that make the rules, even if it will cost them some special interest donations. So, good luck! Oh and thank you, as others have said you have me riled up and speaking loudly against your position.
PS I don't want to sound like I am completely against LO's. They have to deal with a lot of crap from trespassing, etc. and I feel for a guy that own's a bunch of land and can't get a tag. I'm not for leveraging our public resource(wildlife) for them to simply increase profit. I am willing to make a reasonable compromise to exchange habitat and access for tags. Emphasis on "reasonable".