I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its a 1-1 correlation. Land isn't exactly free nor cheap at the moment. Sure, you'd maybe have some more land bought up by NR's, but it won't completely ruin the sport Granted both of these are our opinions.
We see your opinion as its posted in every other post on this thread. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you can't understand why that person would have that belief. Being selfish is human nature...it's the primary reason why we do a lot of things.
Most people buying land for hunting only are managing their property. So a NRLO buying land may actually help the management of the surrounding properties. He's probably not wanting to decimate his deer herd after paying all that $ for the land. I think outfitters are a much bigger threat.
It would help land values (land is now more sought after), but it may hurt the ability to get permission on private land. Look at all sides of the story, you can see why someone feels the way they do. If you had all that $ invested in your land, you'd feel strongly that you should be able to hunt it the same as the other land owners do.
The point I'm making is that if we allow RLO to have land owner tags, then we ought to allow NRLO the same. Or, we can get rid of the land owner tag program all together then it's the same for both parties. It's not really a debate anyhow because as the law stands a NRLO cannot get an any-sex land owner tag anyhow.
Self preservation = selfish...it's just a fancier way of saying it. I understand what you are saying but I don't agree that it's the right way to be. That's the point of debate. I can see both sides but I don't neccessarily have to agree with one or the other.
