|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
supply/demand
Posted by GunsmithRob on Dec 28 2005
It's always a careful balancing act of providing the best experience for the dollar. If we increase costs of a hunt then we decrease the number of those who can afford it. If done right the amount of money brought in can remain the same while decreasing the demands on the resource and therefore, hopefully, increasing the quality of the experience for those fortunate enough to be able to afford it. The questions are: Where do we place that balance point between cost/benefit(and who gets to decide)? Is it right to deny someone like Jeff the opportunity to experience, even once in a lifetime, what we (as residents) are lucky enough to experience every day? I'd personally be pretty bummed if elk hunting in Idaho were given to the rich and I couldn't afford to go have that experience any more. Or if hunting for non-residents in Alaska became so expensive that it denied me the experience of hunting with my friends from down south. Guide fees have already put brown bear, goat and sheep out of the reach of most non-residents. Would you do the same for everything else just so you didn't have to work as hard for that trophy animal? Personally, I think the state has struck a pretty fair balance just as it is. Let's continue to let the other kids into the sandbox to share our abundance of toys.
Previous: re pressure rost495 Dec 28 2005
Next: Well said, GR Chuck375 Dec 28 2005
 Message Thread:
|
