T
TFinalshot
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-06 AT 09:19AM (MST)[p]http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/User_files/44159af053d9790c.jpg
Mr. Abbott, thank you for your reply in the post from Sheepeater. I made a new post so as not to continue to add to the derailment of that post.
I know you're a busy person and taking time to reply to questions on MM is ?extra? work for you. I appreciate the numbers. I do not think you need to post all the projects and their costs, in fact, I believe you already did that in a previous post, and it wont help me with my dilemma, you see I'm not questioning your desire but I am questioning your means to an end.
Before I get into my diatribe, let me say that I don't think that because a person is a good guy or works real, real hard, or has a good personality, that that makes them necessarily correct. I admire hard workers, but that alone does not make them any more correct than a person who sits and paints pictures.
In summary, I believe MT Miller said it as well as anyone could. Nevertheless, I'll take a moment to put some meat on these bones. Besides, I hope Littlefoot is reading this because I know how much he loves my long-winded rants. . . LOL. . . If you don't read on, that's okay, just think about what MT Miller asked us.
I believe there are many reasons to disagree with the tactics of the MDF as it pertains to collecting fees to kill trophy mule deer. First, I don't believe that efficiency is always the best game in town, especially where killing public wildlife is concerned. I believe the people of the West expect to hunt and fish in their own ?backyards,? some literally, without competing with other?s who because they have a lot of money, and ?paid? for the rights, or a lot of power, get to jump to the head of the line or crowd-out the people who spend there lives there, who grow up there, and who give the place its culture. The clashes alone in the field between the exclusive tag holders and the common person are ridiculous. I don't want my son any part of that.
Second, I don't support the user pay system, where the access to the resources is based completely on wealth, i.e., the more you are able to spend, the better, and more consistent access you will have to our public goods. It smells like Abromoff to me, but in the very least, it leads to corruption, and increases the number of people willing to break the law to participate. The more value you place on a deer head, the more likely you are to have people who will cheat the system just to make an easy payday. The MDF is in the forefront of re defining the monetary value of a mule deer head and thereby creating new demands for an animal once prized more for the memory of the hunt than the antlers on it head. Poaching is now becoming more of a big business than ever, so much so that organized crime now is involved (http://www.environmentallawyers.com...Wildlife-Conservationists-Must-Challenge.html).
Third, I believe high bidder fee systems for our public resources are a complete disgrace to the hard working people of this Nation. I believe that this Nation and the 50 states have an obligation to mange our public land and its resources for the public good. I believe that allowing individuals access to public resource based completely on their ability to pay is exactly what the framers of our constitution were trying to guard against. I think that by allowing individuals to pay more for a public resource like a deer, and thereby advancing their status based on the financial means over the rest of the population, sets a very disturbing precedence.
Instead, we should require that our governments properly manage our deer herds in this country so that every unit that can produce a good mule deer buck will, if that's what you want. No more of this put in for the prime unit and sit on the couch and wait for 25 years or more to draw the tag, that's a terrible way to manage our deer. However, the MDF has set that standards and helped to eliminate those alternatives that would bolster herds everywhere not just in the ?prime? units. Governments have learned that they do not have to consider their public responsibly to properly manage deer herds because the MDF will raise "new-money," to pay for it. The agencies now know where their habitat budget comes from, and if you don't think that leads to corruption the MDF is even more of a problem than I imagined in the first place.
I'm very surprised that conservationist, or people who call themselves such, believe that conservation also means the people with the most money get the most benefits. I'm no fan of segregating one-another based on financial means. I also do not believe we should allow our representatives a ?pass? by funding the management of a public resource through private dollars. There are many ways to pay for the proper management of deer, but also by encouraging highest bidder type budgeting, not only are we starting down the slippery slope, but also we are segregating classes of people, while prostituting the publics? resources.
Fourth, once we start slipping down this slope, I wonder where it will end. If 40 tags are worth $500k how much more are people willing to pay? How much is enough? Other states are catching on to this scheme as a way to raise money outside the formal legislative process that includes a public debatable of the budget by our legislature, even before they find more equitable means of raising money. We should ask our elected officials to do a better job before we just inequitably sell off the rights to public resources to the highest bidder. Just look around, this system of selling tags to the highest bidder started very small with usually one big high dollar tag. Then it went to two or three and then to multiple species. Now, every state has a number of tags and the highest bidder can buy all the species. There are literally hundreds of tags in Utah alone!
I have, from the very early days of this process, believed it was the wrong direction and would lead to the type of hunting opportunities that the pilgrims fled Europe to avoid. And by your asking for yet MORE Utah tags because in your own words, the resources are underutilized, helps makes my case very well.
Are you in the Pombo camp too? If not than what's wrong with selling, to the highest bidder, our deer country? Then the state could get out of the business altogether. That would make more sense, especially if they are as inefficient as you make the out to be in your previous posts. Why not turn it all over the private and have the shooter pay the landowner for access, the landowner may even be able to grow two or three 300-inch mule deer. Come to think of it, you may have a much better chance at getting one of those deer for you may be invited to kill one, at no charge, if you play your cards right from now on.
Finally, what happens if someone buys all the tags and lights them on fire? I know of at least one organization that has talked about making that happen. Are you and the MDF ready to start spending more time defending and supporting hunting rights than it is mule deer conservation. Our hunting heritage is headed down this road thanks to organizations that lose the forest while mesmerized by a single tree. It won't be long now until non-hunters buy those deer tags and that's when everyone loses. If all you're interested in is more money, than you also cannot decided whose money buys the tags. Is it worth 500K? That's not much money to Hanoi Jane and the like. Mr. Abbot, if you only answer one more question please make it this one, where does the prostitution of our wildlife end, and can it be stopped?
The funs over, it's time to get back to work. Good luck my friend.
Mr. Abbott, thank you for your reply in the post from Sheepeater. I made a new post so as not to continue to add to the derailment of that post.
I know you're a busy person and taking time to reply to questions on MM is ?extra? work for you. I appreciate the numbers. I do not think you need to post all the projects and their costs, in fact, I believe you already did that in a previous post, and it wont help me with my dilemma, you see I'm not questioning your desire but I am questioning your means to an end.
Before I get into my diatribe, let me say that I don't think that because a person is a good guy or works real, real hard, or has a good personality, that that makes them necessarily correct. I admire hard workers, but that alone does not make them any more correct than a person who sits and paints pictures.
In summary, I believe MT Miller said it as well as anyone could. Nevertheless, I'll take a moment to put some meat on these bones. Besides, I hope Littlefoot is reading this because I know how much he loves my long-winded rants. . . LOL. . . If you don't read on, that's okay, just think about what MT Miller asked us.
I believe there are many reasons to disagree with the tactics of the MDF as it pertains to collecting fees to kill trophy mule deer. First, I don't believe that efficiency is always the best game in town, especially where killing public wildlife is concerned. I believe the people of the West expect to hunt and fish in their own ?backyards,? some literally, without competing with other?s who because they have a lot of money, and ?paid? for the rights, or a lot of power, get to jump to the head of the line or crowd-out the people who spend there lives there, who grow up there, and who give the place its culture. The clashes alone in the field between the exclusive tag holders and the common person are ridiculous. I don't want my son any part of that.
Second, I don't support the user pay system, where the access to the resources is based completely on wealth, i.e., the more you are able to spend, the better, and more consistent access you will have to our public goods. It smells like Abromoff to me, but in the very least, it leads to corruption, and increases the number of people willing to break the law to participate. The more value you place on a deer head, the more likely you are to have people who will cheat the system just to make an easy payday. The MDF is in the forefront of re defining the monetary value of a mule deer head and thereby creating new demands for an animal once prized more for the memory of the hunt than the antlers on it head. Poaching is now becoming more of a big business than ever, so much so that organized crime now is involved (http://www.environmentallawyers.com...Wildlife-Conservationists-Must-Challenge.html).
Third, I believe high bidder fee systems for our public resources are a complete disgrace to the hard working people of this Nation. I believe that this Nation and the 50 states have an obligation to mange our public land and its resources for the public good. I believe that allowing individuals access to public resource based completely on their ability to pay is exactly what the framers of our constitution were trying to guard against. I think that by allowing individuals to pay more for a public resource like a deer, and thereby advancing their status based on the financial means over the rest of the population, sets a very disturbing precedence.
Instead, we should require that our governments properly manage our deer herds in this country so that every unit that can produce a good mule deer buck will, if that's what you want. No more of this put in for the prime unit and sit on the couch and wait for 25 years or more to draw the tag, that's a terrible way to manage our deer. However, the MDF has set that standards and helped to eliminate those alternatives that would bolster herds everywhere not just in the ?prime? units. Governments have learned that they do not have to consider their public responsibly to properly manage deer herds because the MDF will raise "new-money," to pay for it. The agencies now know where their habitat budget comes from, and if you don't think that leads to corruption the MDF is even more of a problem than I imagined in the first place.
I'm very surprised that conservationist, or people who call themselves such, believe that conservation also means the people with the most money get the most benefits. I'm no fan of segregating one-another based on financial means. I also do not believe we should allow our representatives a ?pass? by funding the management of a public resource through private dollars. There are many ways to pay for the proper management of deer, but also by encouraging highest bidder type budgeting, not only are we starting down the slippery slope, but also we are segregating classes of people, while prostituting the publics? resources.
Fourth, once we start slipping down this slope, I wonder where it will end. If 40 tags are worth $500k how much more are people willing to pay? How much is enough? Other states are catching on to this scheme as a way to raise money outside the formal legislative process that includes a public debatable of the budget by our legislature, even before they find more equitable means of raising money. We should ask our elected officials to do a better job before we just inequitably sell off the rights to public resources to the highest bidder. Just look around, this system of selling tags to the highest bidder started very small with usually one big high dollar tag. Then it went to two or three and then to multiple species. Now, every state has a number of tags and the highest bidder can buy all the species. There are literally hundreds of tags in Utah alone!
I have, from the very early days of this process, believed it was the wrong direction and would lead to the type of hunting opportunities that the pilgrims fled Europe to avoid. And by your asking for yet MORE Utah tags because in your own words, the resources are underutilized, helps makes my case very well.
Are you in the Pombo camp too? If not than what's wrong with selling, to the highest bidder, our deer country? Then the state could get out of the business altogether. That would make more sense, especially if they are as inefficient as you make the out to be in your previous posts. Why not turn it all over the private and have the shooter pay the landowner for access, the landowner may even be able to grow two or three 300-inch mule deer. Come to think of it, you may have a much better chance at getting one of those deer for you may be invited to kill one, at no charge, if you play your cards right from now on.
Finally, what happens if someone buys all the tags and lights them on fire? I know of at least one organization that has talked about making that happen. Are you and the MDF ready to start spending more time defending and supporting hunting rights than it is mule deer conservation. Our hunting heritage is headed down this road thanks to organizations that lose the forest while mesmerized by a single tree. It won't be long now until non-hunters buy those deer tags and that's when everyone loses. If all you're interested in is more money, than you also cannot decided whose money buys the tags. Is it worth 500K? That's not much money to Hanoi Jane and the like. Mr. Abbot, if you only answer one more question please make it this one, where does the prostitution of our wildlife end, and can it be stopped?
The funs over, it's time to get back to work. Good luck my friend.