Do hunter's cause many of the problems debated here?

[BuzzH]

Mule, you ever been to Gardiner?

You ever hunted elk in Gardiner?

Just what I thought, so your opinions on this topic not only mean nothing, but you're crying about something you've never experienced.

Like I said, 90 percent of the unsuccessful elk hunters who hunt Gardiner never get out of their trucks.

In case you're wondering, they used to kill elk right across the highway from the airport, which I think I heard is illegal now.

I wasnt speaking for someone, only what I observed and heard from the unsuccessful elk hunters near Gardiner the several times I was there.

Clear?

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Clear? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- No, I haven't been to Gardiner. West Yellowstone was as far as I got this summer. My knowledge of the conditions up there are mostly from the research of Dr. Carl Wambolt (J. of Range Management and J. of the Wildlife Soc. mostly). I too will take hunting over not hunting. The Park Service is a piss poor management organization. They try to preserve with a hands off approach and its not working all that well. I'm interested to see how the experimental park in Valles Caldera, NM works out. The goal is to have a 'national park' that is economically self sufficient. Grazing and hunting will be allowed for sure, but the management of such will be strict so as to maintain the integrity and health of the land. I hope this works as I believe that it'd be a step in the right direction for management of our national parks.

But, I would like to believe that if hunter's could ever get as organized as many of the 'evil environmental groups' that we could actually influence management for a better solution. I have yet to hear of a sportsmen's group anywhere calling for a reduction of game herds even it it is for the herds benefit (my main point).

 

[Ten Bears]

I've never hunted elk @ Gardiner, but I've been there a time or two. I know guys that have hunted there, I say at times it's like a turkey shoot, from the truck, from the ATV, from the road, or even in the back woods if you can believe it (elk in the back woods, imagine that).

 

[BigHornyRam]

Here's the story of my one and only Gardiner late hunt.

Got up early, and started hiking up the steep mountain above town in a couple of feet of snow. At first light I passed by a spike as it fed with no concern of my presence. My tag was cow only so I kept climbing. By 9:00 am I was several 1000 feet above the valley below when the shooting began. Looking down I saw my truck and about 50 elk running right past it. The elk ran into Eagle Creek and the shooting continued. A while later they came back over a ridge and into Phelps creek, now the herd numbered about 30. They were still about 3/4s of a mile away and headed off over the mountain.

In my 2 days of hunting, I never got within range of a cow elk. Never in the right place at the right time. Hind sight I could have shot an easy one from the tail gate of my truck. My hunt was still a success to me. I got to be outdoors, seen a lot of elk and mule deer, watched other hunters get their easy elk and then drag them to their rigs.

So put me down as one of the "10%" of unsuccessful Gardiner elk hunters that actually got out of my truck.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-17-2003 16:34: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

Great story Paul!!

That is the norm I think, it is exactly what the average of hunting is all about...

 

[danr55]

I think it's about time that everyone faced up to the fact that the changes that will take place in this country in the next 50 years are going to devastate a good part of what we look at as "open land". We have just crossed the population mark that will assure that the population will double in the next 30 years unless there is some dramatic change. I think we should all look at the increased numbers of hunters that will be afield and for you young guys, it's time to start planning the hows and wheres. I would think that in the next few years, there will be changes in the frequency you will be permitted to apply for a tag and a great change in the frequency you will be able to hunt.
Even places like Wyoming and Montana, where "civilized" folks won't live, are going to experience huge population density increases similar to that which has affected Arizona over the last 15 years. In 1980, the population of Arizona was 1.3 million. Today there is 3.2 million people in the Phoenix metroplex.
If you want something to discuss, try to figure out where you are going to hunt when there are people living everywhere.

As for the Black Footed Ferret, I have no problem with them. I think they are cute little furry critters. My complaint is that they placed the re-introduction pens right in the middle of some of the best PD shooting areas. Now you can't even access that area, much less shoot dogs over there. I guess the little guys deserve a break.. I just needed something to illustrate a point..

 

[ELKCHSR]

Good post Dan!!!

 

[dgibson]

But Dan, I already DO hunt with people living everywhere.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, if you didnt get within range of a cow elk in two days at Gardiner, well, I dont know what to say.

I'm sure it was probably due to wolves.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-18-2003 08:38: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Dan that's a very good point. I can tell you that probably about half of the people here in Washington are wanting/planning to retire in less populated states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. And of course, plenty more people in California will do the same. I really think this country needs some kind of a plan for controlling our human population, but it seems like that subject is too controversial to even mention around most people. I've tried talking about it before, and usually get called a communist. A start would be for the government to stop rewarding single mothers for continuing to have child after child after child. Of course, stopping or restricting immigration would help too. I'd like to see some kind of change in the income tax, so that each couple is allowed 2 children, then each one after that their income tax goes up significantly. But that's just me, I know it wouldn't be popular. Anybody else have any ideas?

 

[1_pointer]

WH- I agree with those rules. I will have max two children unless we have a multiple birth. After that, is under the knife for me.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Pointer,

Been there, done that! My wife and I chose early on not to have children. You would not believe the negative comments we have recieved from people, many who we had just met, for not having kids. I agree with W. H.. After 2 kids, the government should not continue to give additional tax breaks for more. Also that this is a touchy subject and that few people like to talk about it.

Paul

 

[MarlandS]

Why should there even be tax breaks for two? It's called personal responsibility, don't have more than you can afford.

 

[1_pointer]

WOW Mars, that would be common sense!!! Does that work with the government?

Paul- I'm trying to get that number down, but my wife says no way! I guess I could have the surgery without her knowing!!!!

I commend you for that. My undergrad advisor and his wife did the same thing. Kudos to you.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-19-2003 14:04: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Hey Guys, Ya'll be careful about kids and getting cut. A long time friend did that after he and his wife had thier third. 6 years later, the wife and all three kids were killed by a drunk going almost 100 mph. He now has his new wife, and they want kids. He finds it's not as easy to put it back together as it was to take it apart.
God forbid that anything like that happens to anyone here.

As for the tax scenario... it would be far better and a lot less complicated to implement a flat rate tax. Everyone pays, no deductions. Take it straight out of your pay and you never miss it. No filing every year, no keeping records, no nothing. At 15% (which is less than most of us pay anyway) the country would see a growth in tax receipts and everyone would be happy. Who wouldn't be happy would be the IRS.. There wouldn't be any need for any of those auditors or investigators.. What a terrible thing.

 

[dgibson]

At the cost of raising children these days (medical, food, clothes, etc.), and the cost of college (*gasp* forgive me for mentioning the spawn of all evil things, Elkchsr

), I can't imagine having more than one or two. And with the way my wife acts when she's pregnant...well....

is all I have to say. The Boy was planned, The Baby was an accident (but I love the little bugger anyway), and there are no plans for The Fetus. Two like mine is all any sane human can handle, anyway.

 

[MULE]

Dan,

Man, I'm with ya on the flat tax thing!

But what I feel would be better is a flate tax of 10% imposed on what you buy as opposed to a flate tax on what you make.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Marland, I agree that there shouldn't be any tax breaks for children, because after all it is a person's choice to have kids. The government isn't telling them they HAVE TO have kids. BUT, I was just trying to be reasonable. If they would at least stop the tax breaks after 2, that would make a lot more sense. People having 2 children are only replacing themselves.

By the way, I can't believe nobody called me a Communist! Must be the challenge that's keeping some of you in check huh?

I'm REALLY surprised some of you actually agreed. Maybe I should start a topic on this again sometime when this board is back to calling names

 

[Washington Hunter]

Dan, I absolutely agree with you on the flat tax. And Mule, I can't argue with your logic either. How come the politicians aren't as smart as we are