De-publicize, De-glorify and De-monetize Western State Hunting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colorado, like Wyoming, gives far too many limited quota elk and deer tags to nonresident hunters - and we will work to get that fixed to the 90/10 allocation that Montana, AK, WA, ID, OR, NM, AZ, etc. all currently have.
You are just wrong. Limited entry tags are the stupidest thing in the industry.

Lust for big antlers have blinded everyone to the issues of habitat and conservation.

I hope you put as much effort fighting for that 5% or 10% of sheep tags going to NR as you do against the wool growers associations.

Complain about 20 tags or whatever but don't even address that we have marginally more sheep than we did 80 years ago, esp compared to elk. The habitat would likely support 2 orders of magnitude more at the very least.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys are acting like it’s only western states where the locals don’t want the non residents showing up. It’s like that everywhere. I’ve seen in North Dakota with waterfowl, in Canada with fishing, in other states further east fishing too. Sure it’s selfish to some degree, but it’s a little bit natural for people that live somewhere all year and deal with the weather and the ups and downs of living there to get a little annoyed when hordes of people show up for a week to hunt or fish the same places they do. I don’t get wound up about it because I travel to hunt and fish too and see it from the other side, but most guys never travel more than a few hours from home every year to hunt and fish. Just a different perspective I guess.
 
Holy crap.....don't say that
Don't worry, it's coming. Elk only in national parks and some national forest land. Suburban deer and turkeys. Housing division on housing division on housing division. It pains me to think of what will happen to the American landscape during my lifetime. Thats why I'm working so hard toward getting to hunt elk and antelope and anything else out there I possibly can right now.

Thats also why I think the OP is pointless. Hunters have no control over the things that will actually kill what we love. Time waits for nobody and people have to live somewhere and eat something.
 
There absolutely should be huge advantages for residents. NR also pay for the lions share of the fish and game budgets, that should be recognized and NR shouldn't be "punished" for the growth of western states.

It's stupid to see cutting the NR quota as the solution.

So there are 1000 R and 1000 NR that apply for 100 tags 80 go to R and 20 to NR. If you give 10 NR tags to residents you only improved odds by 1% but you cut NR odds in half.

Meanwhile the only reason there are 100 tags, is because 5 large land owners dominate the political landscape and mandated extremely low elk quotas hundreds of animals below what habitat would support because the elk eat their cops in the winter. The elk could be moved of their property by hunters, but the landowners won't allow hunting.

But yeah cut your budget by 50% and don't address the problem at all.
I'm sure I saw all this in WYOGA's letter against 90/10.
 
Post #109

My point is that it seems like often we are all just arguing about who gets to shoot the last bison, instead of figuring out how we could have herds of millions.
Then we have to figure out how many the NR's get. Sorry, forgot the smiley face. mtmuley
 
Then we have to figure out how many the NR's get. Sorry, forgot the smiley face. mtmuley
If in 40 years WY has 80,000 bighorn I will start the campaign for 95/5 allocation.

Part, part, of the reason you don’t have allocation issues in say PA is because they have more whitetail than WY has all ungulate species combined.
 
I think there is a distinction to be made between fighting for a bigger, more healthy resource as a whole and fighting for a bigger share of the resource for oneself.

I feel like I know which category the OP fits in.

Makes me see that I need to make sure I never slip into the latter category.
 
I think there is a distinction to be made between fighting for a bigger, more healthy resource as a whole and fighting for a bigger share of the resource for oneself.

I feel like I know which category the OP fits in.

Makes me see that I need to make sure I never slip into the latter category.

Another example of this: the plight of PNW salmon. Commercial anglers, sport anglers, timber companies, heavy polluters, private property owners all pointing the finger at everyone but themselves. Or the other easy out is the predators.

When Americans work together there is nothing out of reach.
 
Another example of this: the plight of PNW salmon. Commercial anglers, sport anglers, timber companies, heavy polluters, private property owners all pointing the finger at everyone but themselves. Or the other easy out is the predators.

When Americans work together there is nothing out of reach.
Holy balls batman don't add salmon to this thread....
 
I'll bite. What's the plan to drastically increase ungulate populations while still giving out tags?
I don't think they are suggesting that there's an easy fix to all of the problems ungulates face in the West today. I took it to say that there is a clear distinction between conservation and wildlife focused advocacy versus advocacy based around personal interests in tag allocation, nonresident restrictions/privileges, etc. Like we are all having parallel conversations in this thread that are closely related but based off of entirely different motivations.
 
Part, part, of the reason you don’t have allocation issues in say PA is because they have more whitetail than WY has all ungulate species combined.
I know this one!

The generally accepted overall deer population in Pennsylvania is +/- 1.5 million deer or about 30 per square mile. Last season 750,000+ hunters killed about 435,000 deer (approx 260,000 doe and 175,000 bucks). That works out to about 9 deer killed per square mile. Each hunter can kill one buck (must be 3 point to a side or bigger) per year and doe tags are allocated per management unit. I've killed as many as 9 deer in a single season.

To match that harvest in Wyoming you would literally have to kill every single deer in the entire state, both whitetail and mule deer.
 
If in 40 years WY has 80,000 bighorn I will start the campaign for 95/5 allocation.

Part, part, of the reason you don’t have allocation issues in say PA is because they have more whitetail than WY has all ungulate species combined.
According to Penn State University, PA has about 1.5MM whitetails living on about 44,742.70 sq. miles (total land mass of PA).

PA has about 500,000 more hunters than the entire population of WY all using about 12,500 sq miles of land open to the public as compared to WY with 48,620 sq. miles of public land - now that brings it into perspective

 
I don't think they are suggesting that there's an easy fix to all of the problems ungulates face in the West today. I took it to say that there is a clear distinction between conservation and wildlife focused advocacy versus advocacy based around personal interests in tag allocation, nonresident restrictions/privileges, etc. Like we are all having parallel conversations in this thread that are closely related but based off of entirely different motivations.

I get it, but I don't think there is even a real effort amongst most NR hunters to "grow the herd." People throw some money at BHA and RMEF for sure, but the complaints only come in when NR opportunities get reduced.
 
I know this one!

The generally accepted overall deer population in Pennsylvania is +/- 1.5 million deer or about 30 per square mile. Last season 750,000+ hunters killed about 435,000 deer (approx 260,000 doe and 175,000 bucks). That works out to about 9 deer killed per square mile. Each hunter can kill one buck (must be 3 point to a side or bigger) per year and doe tags are allocated per management unit. I've killed as many as 9 deer in a single season.

To match that harvest in Wyoming you would literally have to kill every single deer in the entire state, both whitetail and mule deer.
Water is the limiting factor, there just isn't the biomass in the west. So you will never have east coast numbers.

Goats probably not going to get a ton more of them.

Sheep could go up a chit load.

Elk/Deer depends on private landowner tolerance, not sure what carrying capacity actually is, a lot of trophy units are areas that don't support huge numbers, so you will never have 2000 permits in unit 10 in CO. But in general I bet a lot more, it's crazy CO has way more elk than Montana.

Bison... can of worms...


I think we also need to look at other states growing their herds of elk. If PA can support 1.5 million deer, seems plausible they could lose 300k deer and grow a herd of 150k elk.

RMEF has said in the past there are issues with landowner tolerance. Welcome to the club, so PA hunters now that you are stoked on elk from hunting in WY take that and work to get elk on private at home.

I think the east could easily support a larger elk herd then the rockies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get it, but I don't think there is even a real effort amongst most NR hunters to "grow the herd." People throw some money at BHA and RMEF for sure, but the complaints only come in when NR opportunities get reduced.
Can’t argue that point.

I am open to all reasonable suggestions on things that I can do to help grow the herds and expand public land access everywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top