Nick87
Well-known member
He clearly was not shooting an ultra mag.
471 AZ bull
- Thread starter junior88
- Start date
Maybe, maybe not. Just thought filming that bull as it died for that long was unnecessary. mtmuley
Nick87
Well-known member
Yah another follow up or two wouldn't have hurt anything.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
When you have a lot $ you can pay your way to do just about anything. For JJ, paying to be put on trophy animals around the world and pull the trigger is what makes him smile. So what? Good for him - no need to be jealous
because there’s a huge bull on the ground.
He says he’s not much of a hunter and he’s not. The video is not really hunting. But here we are on a hunting forum discussing the video through a hunting lens, when it’s a “wealthy dude pays an army to let him shoot elk” video.
I enjoy many aspects of the outdoor experience that are not highlighted here. I prefer not to run into large Entourages anywhere in the outdoors because it’s annoying, loud, busy, and disruptive. But it’s their right to be there if they want.
There’s a myth that throwing huge amounts of $$$$ at conservation through a tiny # of stakeholders is somehow good for species, habitat, and the future of hunting. It’s not. It’s a little fig leaf covering the creep of Europization and monetization of hunting, where only those with deep pockets get to participate.
Preservation of NA hunting legacy needs to focus on things like promotion of volunteering in conservation, everyone gets a chance at coveted tags, elimination of PP and squared/cubed schemes that ensure coming generations can’t hunt certain areas and species, public access, landowner partnerships, broadening hunter recruitment, habitat improvement, effective population management of species, and getting rid of all auction and VIP tags.
because there’s a huge bull on the ground.
He says he’s not much of a hunter and he’s not. The video is not really hunting. But here we are on a hunting forum discussing the video through a hunting lens, when it’s a “wealthy dude pays an army to let him shoot elk” video.
I enjoy many aspects of the outdoor experience that are not highlighted here. I prefer not to run into large Entourages anywhere in the outdoors because it’s annoying, loud, busy, and disruptive. But it’s their right to be there if they want.
There’s a myth that throwing huge amounts of $$$$ at conservation through a tiny # of stakeholders is somehow good for species, habitat, and the future of hunting. It’s not. It’s a little fig leaf covering the creep of Europization and monetization of hunting, where only those with deep pockets get to participate.
Preservation of NA hunting legacy needs to focus on things like promotion of volunteering in conservation, everyone gets a chance at coveted tags, elimination of PP and squared/cubed schemes that ensure coming generations can’t hunt certain areas and species, public access, landowner partnerships, broadening hunter recruitment, habitat improvement, effective population management of species, and getting rid of all auction and VIP tags.
Thank you.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would rate this as one of the best statements I have ever read on Hunt talk.
huntandfly
Well-known member
From your stance here, would I be correct in saying you don’t believe that the Arizona Habitat Partnership Committee does any good at all for Arizona big game habitat and species? RMEF raffled off a Wyoming governors tag this year, and I’m a pretty big fan of what they do every year for access and elk habitat. It is a myth that these dollars help in any way, if I read your statement correctly.
I agree with you that the monetization of hunting is happening, and I don’t like it. I am not now, nor will I likely ever be among the folks who can afford these types of experiences (come on powerball) but it isn’t really my cup of tea anyway.
There seem to be more people vocal about the cause of NA conservation now than ever before, and that is owed in part to many of the awesome role models whose content has helped spread the vigor for the defense of our public land. I think you are right that this is likely the most important and effective way to strengthen the NA conservation model, but I don’t think it’s fair to completely discount some of the good that can come from these tags.
Irishman
Well-known member
When the super wealthy buy up all the private ranches, and the public land is transferred so it can be sold, they won't have to worry about the petty bother of paying for auction tags.
I agree with this 100%. In the end we will look back and maybe, some of us will Acknowlege that the disenfranchisement of hunters wasn't worth it.
huntandfly
Well-known member
I was pretty clear on my stance in opposition to that course of action. That would obviously be a very bad thing that nobody who cares about public land hunting wants to see. I don’t believe selling a few governors tags = no more public land or hunting, and it’s a slippery slope argument to just link the 2 of them together like that.
And it's a slippery slope argument to justify selling to the highest bidder because you did some good with the money.
huntandfly
Well-known member
*Selling an extremely limited number of tags to the highest bidder, as I said originally.
Edit: if you are trying to imply that this will lead to all tags going to the highest bidder, that would be a perfect example of the slippery slope logical fallacy
Last edited:
huntandfly
Well-known member
Always fun to see where people are from and what their opinions are.
Not sure how that’s relevant. I live in Utah but I have an interest in the preservation of hunting throughout the West since it’s something myself and many others love to do in a wide variety of states and areas
I was talking about the MT guys.
huntandfly
Well-known member
My apologies then
If you are trying to imply this is acceptable simply because it's an extremely limited number of tags (whatever is acceptable in YOUR eyes), that would be a perfect example of self serving justification.
huntandfly
Well-known member
Actually, I don’t have an issue with the few tags that get sold, and I certainly can’t afford one such that I would feel bad about owning one, so I’m not trying to self justify at all. I’m simply trying to defend a stance based on the facts I can find.
I do. I can agree to disagree. Your mind isn't likely to change from this conversation.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Do you advocate for one price for all..no R or NR disparity?
