Population Growth and Hunting in Rocky Mountain States

[Deleted member 28227]

So do you think the hunters of social media have created more hunters (advocates) for public land who will be thinking about their newfound love of hunting and the outdoors when they hit the voting booth or haters who are trying to shut the sport down?

I think people like @mtnprst are missing the boat in that they think that if Steve and Randy had died in 2008 that today there wouldn't be any hunting social media, that they are specifically responsible for the surge.

Social media has changed everything, what activity hasn't exploded, do you seriously think hunting was exempt? There has been hunting media, Grotte de Lascaux, we have been depicting hunting for at least 17,000. Do you think that facet of human existence would be exempt.

What has happened to western hunting was what was always going to have happened, we are lucky that some of the big voices give a crap about advocacy and conservation and aren't simply there for self promotion.

It's not Randy and Meateater versus nothing it's Randy and Meateater versus Brian Quaca et al.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle and we can't control how technology evolves, we can continue to support adults who try to guide the sport in the right direction.

@mtnprst,

Do you not see the irony of a guy owning a company called Mountain Tactical Institute that sells a $99 training program for "self-supported, backcountry big game hunting trip" and then running a "Non-profit" that alleges the "Hunting industry media and marketing is designed to increase audience size then monetize it through product sales, subscriptions and memberships."

 

[jt13]

Speak for yourself. I for one like that he brings a different viewpoint to these discussions. I disagree with some of what he has to say but wholeheartedly agree with a lot of his view point.

Anyone that thinks that platforms like what Randy and others have created haven't made it harder to draw tags, made certain areas more crowded and popularized someone little slice of heaven are dreaming. There are many ways to deal with this. Some on here suggest we should just live with the new normal. Others say we should just find somewhere else to go. Some say it needs to be even more advocates and more people will make us stronger. Rob thinks pushing back is the right approach. His view is no more invalid that anyone else.

My comment was too broad.

What I was referring to was his shameless product pimping, on someone elses forum, that has rules against commercial advertisements, after shit talking the dude who is giving him the platform to do so. I could care less what his ideologies are. I'm not even going to visit his pages to give them the web traffic. There was ample opportunity to start a meaningful conversation about the commercialization of western hunting that didnt have to start with "Donate to my non-profit and follow my buddies Instagram page"

 

[Hunting Wife]

Speak for yourself. I for one like that he brings a different viewpoint to these discussions. I disagree with some of what he has to say but wholeheartedly agree with a lot of his view point.

Anyone that thinks that platforms like what Randy and others have created haven't made it harder to draw tags, made certain areas more crowded and popularized someone little slice of heaven are dreaming. There are many ways to deal with this. Some on here suggest we should just live with the new normal. Others say we should just find somewhere else to go. Some say it needs to be even more advocates and more people will make us stronger. Rob thinks pushing back is the right approach. His view is no more invalid that anyone else.

The alternative viewpoint is fine. The hypocrisy of having multiple platforms of hunting related content himself, using this forum to promote his content, and monetizing said content on his sites, all while accusing and bashing Randy and others for the same thing is pretty ballsy though.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@mtnprst

"Shaul wants to reel back what’s available to nonresident hunters to the benefit of those who reside in western states."

“We kind of want to be like the RAND Corp. of hunting,” he said, “and come in and do in-depth studies on things like this.”

“We’re not going to be for everyone,” he said. “If you’re a guy in Michigan and want to go hunting in Wyoming you’re probably not going to like us, because we’re going to cut you off the team.”
article

Rob, I'll do some data analysis for you free of charge. I pulled these numbers for elk in 2019, the numbers are from 2018. My apologies for not being 100% up-to-date but I don't make money off of the hunting industry like some people, this is just a hobby.

Also I didn't segregate cow and bull tags, cow tags are generally cheaper, but I also didn't calculate the loss of PR $, so let's take a WAG and say things even out in the end.

So per your website you want to all western states to set their allocations at 10%.

So for elk therefore, we are eliminating more than half of NR opportunity, and diminishing Fish and Game budgets by ~$50MM. How do we make up for that loss in advocacy and that portion of the budget?

What is your plan?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Probably should take a look at those hunters effect on local economies as well.

"Non-resident hunters and anglers spent more money per day, on average, than residents did. For example, non-resident big game hunters spent an estimated $321 per day, while resident big game hunters spent about $102." study

So let's just say 5 days is the average trip for a NR elk hunter... that's a direct loss of $119,341,701 in recreation dollars. That does not included secondary dollars which is estimated to be more than double.

In reality it's probably more like 10 days for NR. Given that study I wouldn't be surprised if setting quotas at 10% results in a $1B loss for western economies.

We all struggle with the boom in the west, Randy was the one that started the damn thread in the first place, but if you are going to create all these platforms and advocate changes you need to think about all the effects, how those effect the sport, wildlife, and residents.

Sure you want an easier time drawing your elk tag, me too, but are you willing to sacrifice a couple thousand jobs to get your booner?

 

[MTGomer]

A global one or two child policy would help or instead of tax credit per child , you tax more for each child a family has to de-incentivize population growth.

I've never understood how we can proclaim that humans are over populating the world, and that man made climate change is an existential threat to the future of the planet, and then turn around and subsidize and incentivize procreating. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I didn't think anyone in the world could make me appreciate @wllm1313's nerdly devotion to minutia & spreadsheets, but there's always that one guy who flips the narrative.

 

[BuzzH]

Probably should take a look at those hunters effect on local economies as well.

"Non-resident hunters and anglers spent more money per day, on average, than residents did. For example, non-resident big game hunters spent an estimated $321 per day, while resident big game hunters spent about $102." study

So let's just say 5 days is the average trip for a NR elk hunter... that's a direct loss of $119,341,701 in recreation dollars. That does not included secondary dollars which is estimated to be more than double.

In reality it's probably more like 10 days for NR. Given that study I wouldn't be surprised if setting quotas at 10% results in a $1B loss for western economies.

We all struggle with the boom in the west, Randy was the one that started the damn thread in the first place, but if you are going to create all these platforms and advocate changes you need to think about all the effects, how those effect the sport, wildlife, and residents.

Sure you want an easier time drawing your elk tag, me too, but are you willing to sacrifice a couple thousand jobs to get your booner?

Since when is the only consideration for big-game management just about money?

If we're just going to discuss the money end of it, then lets have the discussion. Why are we even trying to keep tag prices reasonable for NR's? Lets maximize profit and start charging NR's what these tags will actually bring. Lets make sure that we all have to pay an outfitter, you know, to maximize return to the economy. No more camping to hunt, everyone has to stay in a hotel so that we create more jobs. Oh, and no NR can bring any food with them, they stop at the border of the State they're planning to hunt and empty their coolers. Same with fuel tanks.

If hunting becomes focused on nothing but revenue, job creation, and even MORE decisions are made in regard to game management strictly because of same...count me out. Many of the problems we have, are truly self-induced because hunting in my lifetime has become an ego-drive money grab. We make fewer and fewer decisions on what's best for the resource, best for Resident hunters, best for the tradition of hunting and focus more on the ECONOMICS than anything.

I got a first had display of this crap, circa 2004 when the towns of Kamiah, Orifino, etc. all threw an absolute chit fit when king salmon season was slashed by the Idaho Game and Fish. The county commission, etc. all but filed lawsuits because they would lose money if the season didnt happen. Never mind there hadnt been a season at all between 1978-1999 because of the dams (which they also can't live without because of "jobs" and "economics"). Long story short, the IGF opened up the seasons even though they didn't have the fish returns they needed for the hatcheries. Economics trumped proper management and the resource were both were given the middle finger.

I see that same thing with big-game hunting, management decisions are being made to favor everything else first before what's doing best by the resource, resident hunters, and the values/traditions of hunting...and its as sad, as it is wrong, for all kinds of reasons.

 

[tjones]

Making Hunting Great Again instagram accounts

Just took a look at this IG accounts, 2 minutes I will never get back.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Since when is the only consideration for big-game management just about money?

If we're just going to discuss the money end of it, then lets have the discussion. Why are we even trying to keep tag prices reasonable for NR's? Lets maximize profit and start charging NR's what these tags will actually bring. Lets make sure that we all have to pay an outfitter, you know, to maximize return to the economy. No more camping to hunt, everyone has to stay in a hotel so that we create more jobs. Oh, and no NR can bring any food with them, they stop at the border of the State they're planning to hunt and empty their coolers. Same with fuel tanks.

If hunting becomes focused on nothing but revenue, job creation, and even MORE decisions are made in regard to game management strictly because of same...count me out. Many of the problems we have, are truly self-induced because hunting in my lifetime has become an ego-drive money grab. We make fewer and fewer decisions on what's best for the resource, best for Resident hunters, best for the tradition of hunting and focus more on the ECONOMICS than anything.

I got a first had display of this crap, circa 2004 when the towns of Kamiah, Orifino, etc. all threw an absolute chit fit when king salmon season was slashed by the Idaho Game and Fish. The county commission, etc. all but filed lawsuits because they would lose money if the season didnt happen. Never mind there hadnt been a season at all between 1978-1999 because of the dams (which they also can't live without because of "jobs" and "economics"). Long story short, the IGF opened up the seasons even though they didn't have the fish returns they needed for the hatcheries. Economics trumped proper management and the resource were both were given the middle finger.

I see that same thing with big-game hunting, management decisions are being made to favor everything else first before what's doing best by the resource, resident hunters, and the values/traditions of hunting...and its as sad, as it is wrong, for all kinds of reasons.

And some would say that managing for the use of one group, rather than the overall health of the wildlife resource is about economic enfranchisement of that one group (resident hunters) through the subsidization of their sport from NR licenses.

If we want to manage solely for the resource, then hunting becomes simply a tool to keep populations at a pre-determine, non-natural level. Natural systems ebb & flow with huge swings in populations based on several factors. Human use in the 21st century isn't really one of them unless we consider overharvest, which NR's are not engaging in.

Resident's, however, often times stack up those doe & cow licenses & boast of filling the freezer with 10 does or so. If we were to manage naturally, we'd let disease come in and take care of it, or predators. But that's not what humanity demands - we demand as level a field as possible so as to plan our hunting vacations & not have to worry about those natural swings.

So, we're all hypocrites.

It takes money to manage public assets. How those assets are paid for matter, just as how management decisions affect others matter. The key is finding balance & compromise while adhering to a moral code as outlined in the NAM & through the ethical use of other living things.

I have no problem with people making money highlighting a resource, especially when they carry a strong message of resource management for future generations, and for the betterment of us all. I have problems ignoring the reality that a decision could negatively impact someone else without any recourse of compensation, which is why the new Simpson plan on those dams is pretty exciting. We're getting to the point where we recognize the innate right of wildlife to exist, while ensuring those affected by those decisions are not unduly harmed.

I think that's pretty fair and it respects the resource immensely.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Since when is the only consideration for big-game management just about money?

Who said it was?

I got a first had display of this crap, circa 2004 when the towns of Kamiah, Orifino, etc. all threw an absolute chit fit when king salmon season was slashed by the Idaho Game and Fish. The county commission, etc. all but filed lawsuits because they would lose money if the season didnt happen. Never mind there hadnt been a season at all between 1978-1999 because of the dams (which they also can't live without because of "jobs" and "economics"). Long story short, the IGF opened up the seasons even though they didn't have the fish returns they needed for the hatcheries. Economics trumped proper management and the resource were both were given the middle finger.

I reject this comparison. Allocation is not the same as quota. I have never argued anywhere on the forum that quotas should not be set by biologist and with anything but herd health in mind.

Where R get to kill 70% or 90% of the quota is a different conversation.

I see that same thing with big-game hunting, management decisions are being made to favor everything else first before what's doing best by the resource, resident hunters, and the values/traditions of hunting...and its as sad, as it is wrong, for all kinds of reasons.

What is your argument then for sport hunting? No one outside of Alaska villages are actually subsistence hunting. Why should we let people hunt bighorn sheep?

Because for the last 80 years white dudes from WY have enjoyed the privilege?

You and I know very well that most Fish and Game budgets are entirely based on license sales, and that elk licenses in particular make up the lions share.

Allocation is an important conversation, resident hunting is important, but so is funding for game agencies resource management.

It's a balancing act and the debate should respect that.

 

[JLS]

Western state resident hunters are responding. Idaho recently put limits on OTC elk tags in specific hunt areas because of exploding NR sales and subsequent overcrowding.

Idaho has had the same NR cap for years, so this assertion is patently false.

 

[longbow51]

With tongue firmly in cheek, before I get pounced on for being serious...

As I have mentioned before, I was once upon a time on the governor's panel to explore ways to reduce crowding on Montana rivers. Worked pretty well, didn't it? One of our ideas, thrown out in jest, was to make it illegal to write about trout fishing in Montana, which got a big laugh. Ultimately, the outfitter's lobby was just too strong, all of our proposals were shot down, so nothing happened.

I was reading this thread, and rethinking that topic. In today's world, this could easily be accomplished. Since NR outfitted hunting and fishing requires a great deal of disposable income, and is pursued primarily by white males (just fact; brothers and sisters of all colors, races, and creeds are welcome), we could start a movement that declares all outfitted "trophy" hunting and fishing as classist, misogynistic, and racist. Big Tech would cancel all shows about hunting and fishing, articles would disappear, CNN would blast nightly about the evils of tortuous catch and release, etc., etc., etc.

Social media would cancel all hunting and fishing related posts.

DIY'ers could still learn to hunt and fish just as we did before the internet. And, and this part is serious, we wouldn't have to watch a bunch of yahoos jumping up and down after a kill on the fake shows filmed on some ranch.

 

[jlong17]

I think people like @mtnprst are missing the boat in that they think that if Steve and Randy had died in 2008 that today there wouldn't be any hunting social media, that they are specifically responsible for the surge.

Social media has changed everything, what activity hasn't exploded, do you seriously think hunting was exempt? There has been hunting media, Grotte de Lascaux, we have been depicting hunting for at least 17,000. Do you think that facet of human existence would be exempt.

What has happened to western hunting was what was always going to have happened, we are lucky that some of the big voices give a crap about advocacy and conservation and aren't simply there for self promotion.

It's not Randy and Meateater versus nothing it's Randy and Meateater versus Brian Quaca et al.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle and we can't control how technology evolves, we can continue to support adults who try to guide the sport in the right direction.

@mtnprst,

Do you not see the irony of a guy owning a company called Mountain Tactical Institute that sells a $99 training program for "self-supported, backcountry big game hunting trip" and then running a "Non-profit" that alleges the "Hunting industry media and marketing is designed to increase audience size then monetize it through product sales, subscriptions and memberships."

I didn't know what the heck you were talking about in this post... but then I did a little research. The irony indeed. It's two different people, right? It's gotta be? So much to discuss, I really don't even know where to start.

 

[BuzzH]

And some would say that managing for the use of one group, rather than the overall health of the wildlife resource is about economic enfranchisement of that one group (resident hunters) through the subsidization of their sport from NR licenses.

If we want to manage solely for the resource, then hunting becomes simply a tool to keep populations at a pre-determine, non-natural level. Natural systems ebb & flow with huge swings in populations based on several factors. Human use in the 21st century isn't really one of them unless we consider overharvest, which NR's are not engaging in.

Resident's, however, often times stack up those doe & cow licenses & boast of filling the freezer with 10 does or so. If we were to manage naturally, we'd let disease come in and take care of it, or predators. But that's not what humanity demands - we demand as level a field as possible so as to plan our hunting vacations & not have to worry about those natural swings.

So, we're all hypocrites.

It takes money to manage public assets. How those assets are paid for matter, just as how management decisions affect others matter. The key is finding balance & compromise while adhering to a moral code as outlined in the NAM & through the ethical use of other living things.

I have no problem with people making money highlighting a resource, especially when they carry a strong message of resource management for future generations, and for the betterment of us all. I have problems ignoring the reality that a decision could negatively impact someone else without any recourse of compensation, which is why the new Simpson plan on those dams is pretty exciting. We're getting to the point where we recognize the innate right of wildlife to exist, while ensuring those affected by those decisions are not unduly harmed.

I think that's pretty fair and it respects the resource immensely.

I agree, mostly.

But, the reality is, that economics is in fact, trumping proper management of big-game. I can list a whole stack of decisions that are made in SPITE of proper management. Lets also be honest, in many cases, hunters can't even make the argument they're helping to control wildlife numbers or we're killing the surplus to keep habitat from being damaged, etc. Try making that argument in nearly all of NW Montana in regions 1 and 2 that we're killing the surplus elk there (WHAT surplus?). Or show me where elk are dying of diseases other than lead poisoning and predation. Show me a single place where habitat is being degraded in Montana due to big-game over utilization.

I can point you to the legislative sessions in the Western States the last 15-20 years as a perfect example. A vast majority of the wildlife related bills introduced have absolutely jack chit to do with anything EXCEPT economics.

Sure, every once in a while they throw wildlife a bone...but its rare enough that hunters trumpet such victories far and wide. That should be the norm, not the exception.

Also, I'm in favor of introducing people into the sport and growing it. What I'm not in favor of is kicking the people we already have in the teeth to achieve it. For example, I'll be damned if I'm going to shy away from taking opportunity away from Residents to continue to allow them to have annual deer and elk hunting camps...so that some outfitter or NR can hunt first. Isn't happening...the traditions need to be maintained and passed on, or we absolutely will lose advocates, and IMO, the very best advocates. Those that have 40-50-60-100 or more years of traditional use within their families are always going to fight harder than a johnnie-come-lately flash in the pan types.

That's the very reason why I see the same old guys at the GF, FWP meetings year after year after year. I'm not seeing the younger or johnnie come latelys doing much of anything except whining about tag allocations and how much they have to pay. Yeah, painting with a broad brush there are some really dedicated younger guys getting involved...but I see damn few.

It bothers me that we're sending a very inconsistent, and in many cases, an out-right lie about why we hunt. Too many decisions being made to appease user groups based on anything other than the NAM or proper management. Economics being a big one.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I didn't know what the heck you were talking about in this post... but then I did a little research. The irony indeed. It's two different people, right? It's gotta be? So much to discuss, I really don't even know where to start.

What you mean it's weird to complain about commercialization of the industry and then go on the EXO podcast multiple times to sell your company?

 

[jlong17]

What you mean it's weird to complain about commercialization of the industry and then go on the EXO podcast multiple times to sell your company?

I guess that sums it up. That was easier than I thought. I'm not very good with words and charts and such

 

[Ben Lamb]

Same page, @BuzzH as usual.

But, the reality is, that economics is in fact, trumping proper management of big-game. I can list a whole stack of decisions that are made in SPITE of proper management. Lets also be honest, in many cases, hunters can't even make the argument they're helping to control wildlife numbers or we're killing the surplus to keep habitat from being damaged, etc. Try making that argument in nearly all of NW Montana in regions 1 and 2 that we're killing the surplus elk there (WHAT surplus?). Or show me where elk are dying of diseases other than lead poisoning and predation. Show me a single place where habitat is being degraded in Montana due to big-game over utilization.

I think it's faire to say as well that Hunters have demanded that big game management be the overarching management of their local fish & game agencies as well, ignoring the needs of thousands of other species, as we seek to improve our own sporting ability, rather than the conservation of all wildlife & wildlife habitat. We overlook the needs of the plover in favor of stocked pheasants, etc. That's clearly a financial decision on our part, and on the part of the agencies that need our money to continue to do the work they do.

It's also a huge hole in how states manage wildlife.

I can point you to the legislative sessions in the Western States the last 15-20 years as a perfect example. A vast majority of the wildlife related bills introduced have absolutely jack chit to do with anything EXCEPT economics.

Sure, every once in a while they throw wildlife a bone...but its rare enough that hunters trumpet such victories far and wide. That should be the norm, not the exception.

Absolutely, 100% this. MT had repeated efforts to make financial issues the deciding factor in wildlife management. We were able to kill these bills repeatedly. But this issue continues to come up at the Commission level, and among conversation with other hunters when we ask about expanding the funding of wildlife management beyond hunter & angler dollars, because "we may give up some control." - That's precisely what we're complaining about when other stakeholders look to have their economic impacts included in management decisions, isn't it?

So we either become intellectually consistent and allow for increased funding from other sources, and accept that hunters & anglers don't call 100% of the shots, or we continue to try and bleed the turnip and focus on single species management for pleasure hunting, rather than a holistic approach to conservation of the wildlife resource.

We continue to fight for smaller pieces of the pie, rather than look to bake a bigger pie. Until we actually focus on restoration of degraded habitats, increasing access to those lands we already own, and figure out how to be better partners with landowners, I don't see this conflict going away, just getting uglier as we fight to save what little bit of sport we can.

 

[BuzzH]

Same page, @BuzzH as usual.



I think it's faire to say as well that Hunters have demanded that big game management be the overarching management of their local fish & game agencies as well, ignoring the needs of thousands of other species, as we seek to improve our own sporting ability, rather than the conservation of all wildlife & wildlife habitat. We overlook the needs of the plover in favor of stocked pheasants, etc. That's clearly a financial decision on our part, and on the part of the agencies that need our money to continue to do the work they do.

It's also a huge hole in how states manage wildlife.



Absolutely, 100% this. MT had repeated efforts to make financial issues the deciding factor in wildlife management. We were able to kill these bills repeatedly. But this issue continues to come up at the Commission level, and among conversation with other hunters when we ask about expanding the funding of wildlife management beyond hunter & angler dollars, because "we may give up some control." - That's precisely what we're complaining about when other stakeholders look to have their economic impacts included in management decisions, isn't it?

So we either become intellectually consistent and allow for increased funding from other sources, and accept that hunters & anglers don't call 100% of the shots, or we continue to try and bleed the turnip and focus on single species management for pleasure hunting, rather than a holistic approach to conservation of the wildlife resource.

We continue to fight for smaller pieces of the pie, rather than look to bake a bigger pie. Until we actually focus on restoration of degraded habitats, increasing access to those lands we already own, and figure out how to be better partners with landowners, I don't see this conflict going away, just getting uglier as we fight to save what little bit of sport we can.

Do you really think the average hunters and anglers call 100% of the shots now? That's the real fallacy if there is one...we don't and haven't for a long time.

As to your last paragraph...I don't think habitat is the limiting factor in many cases, in some, surely. I also think that's a great long-term strategy to "build the bigger pie". But, currently, we don't even have enough berries growing on what we already have for habitat to worry about baking a bigger pie. Why don't we try to get big-game numbers up to the point we're utilizing what we have, while at the same time, doing habitat improvements? I'll tell you why, economics is trumping proper wildlife management. There is no doubt in my mind, we have depleted big-game in much of the West via prioritizing economics wayyyyy more often than anything to do with degraded habitat, access, etc.

Also, increasing access to places where we currently don't on public lands...may make the situation worse. Killing what's left on inaccessible public isn't making a bigger pie, its eating the last slice.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree, mostly.

But, the reality is, that economics is in fact, trumping proper management of big-game. I can list a whole stack of decisions that are made in SPITE of proper management. Lets also be honest, in many cases, hunters can't even make the argument they're helping to control wildlife numbers or we're killing the surplus to keep habitat from being damaged, etc. Try making that argument in nearly all of NW Montana in regions 1 and 2 that we're killing the surplus elk there (WHAT surplus?). Or show me where elk are dying of diseases other than lead poisoning and predation. Show me a single place where habitat is being degraded in Montana due to big-game over utilization.

I can point you to the legislative sessions in the Western States the last 15-20 years as a perfect example. A vast majority of the wildlife related bills introduced have absolutely jack chit to do with anything EXCEPT economics.

Sure, every once in a while they throw wildlife a bone...but its rare enough that hunters trumpet such victories far and wide. That should be the norm, not the exception.

Also, I'm in favor of introducing people into the sport and growing it. What I'm not in favor of is kicking the people we already have in the teeth to achieve it. For example, I'll be damned if I'm going to shy away from taking opportunity away from Residents to continue to allow them to have annual deer and elk hunting camps...so that some outfitter or NR can hunt first. Isn't happening...the traditions need to be maintained and passed on, or we absolutely will lose advocates, and IMO, the very best advocates. Those that have 40-50-60-100 or more years of traditional use within their families are always going to fight harder than a johnnie-come-lately flash in the pan types.

That's the very reason why I see the same old guys at the GF, FWP meetings year after year after year. I'm not seeing the younger or johnnie come latelys doing much of anything except whining about tag allocations and how much they have to pay. Yeah, painting with a broad brush there are some really dedicated younger guys getting involved...but I see damn few.

It bothers me that we're sending a very inconsistent, and in many cases, an out-right lie about why we hunt. Too many decisions being made to appease user groups based on anything other than the NAM or proper management. Economics being a big one.

I completely agree with about 90% of this... as for the 10%

and I realize I’m poking the bear here, but didn’t you just post about the pile of tags you’re gonna draw and then place directly in the trash?

Now I believe your point was that the quotas are at a point where they are harming the resource and this act is in frustration at mismanagement.

However, it does come off as if residents have “tags to burn” and therefore a bit ridiculous when then then complain about NR allocation.

As a western resident in multiple states I never felt like drawing a tag was an issue. Could I hunt unit 10 in CO or the breaks in MT, no, could I get a good elk tag and kill a bull every year absolutely.

I don’t think resident hunting traditions are really being threatened by current tag allocation.

Housing prices in rural areas, yeah totally. I can’t afford to buy the house I grew up in... which was built on two teachers salaries. That’s a freaking major factor in destroying traditions.