Nick87
Well-known member
Not directly or exclusively to ND or Minnesota. Why?Do you donate to elk conservation in ND or MN?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not directly or exclusively to ND or Minnesota. Why?Do you donate to elk conservation in ND or MN?
exactly this. The bulk of people in my area in WI would flip their lid and there would be riots at the capital. Having a deer buck tag in their pocket available OTC is just that valuable it seems to most here.We're getting closer everyday. Unfortunately we're about as fast to react as Montana management is. Personally I'd be fine with one buck tag with it if it's needed and think we should be there yesterday. I can tell you the majority would probably drown in their own tears.
Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?
For members of this forum, I'm guessing most of us are going to answer your question with a "yes, that is fair because its how we are in turn treated when we hunt out of state". And its a genuine reply of yes - we get it.so would you guys be happy or unhappy if your DNR was forced to restrict buck hunting in an amount of tags equal to the amount of resident hunters that currently hold one each year, but then decided to shave off 10% for NRs, which means 10% of resident hunters go without a buck tag? would you be pro eliminating that 10%? or pro keeping that 10%?
if you can't be honest about your answer to that question you can't be honest about your opinion on tightening allocations in the west. simple as that IMO.
this is the nuts and bolts of why allocations are tightening in the west. not because we're at that point, but because we're headed to that point.
Put it in a realistic perspective. Model it after WY elk.serious question for you midwesterners:
let's imagine your white tail populations got the point where all it could sustain is one tag per resident hunter. that's it, it just can't sustain a harvest greater than all the resident hunters in a state having one buck tag. then, that means if any number above that number of tags goes to an NR an equal amount of residents then go without a tag. what would you do? how would you feel?
You'll never be able to hunt elk in either of those states as a NR.Not directly or exclusively to ND or Minnesota. Why?
For members of this forum, I'm guessing most of us are going to answer your question with a "yes, that is fair because its how we are in turn treated when we hunt out of state". And its a genuine reply of yes - we get it.
However, poll WI residents that hunt and I would bet that 95% or more would object to that proposal.
Idaho is still otc crappy process yes but still otc. Colorado archery is going to a draw will still be easy to draw but will need to use points big deal. Mt and wy you can still easily get a elk tag. Then there is oregon and washington still otc so tell me again how its hard to get a elk tag just because you cant drive a day before the season and buy it doesn't mean nr are loosing opportunitiesIs it really that farfetched to make the hypothesis that they will go to close to zero in not that far into the future?
Take a bull elk tag for example. 10 years ago, the options for a NR were pretty easy to get a tag across a lot of states. CO and ID you could get a tag OTC. With minimal effort, you could plan on and get a tag in MT, NM and WY.
Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?
Wait - I thought you could easily come by a WY cow tag as a non-resident every year? Or 2 or 3? At a reduced price..Put it in a realistic perspective. Model it after WY elk.
Let's say as a resident of MN, I'm allowed to shoot 3 deer per year. Any resident can go buy a general tag over the counter.
NR can draw a general tag once every ~5 years. 90/10 split on tags.
Sure, I'd do that.
In that hypothetical, neither of us get anything more from the Trust than any other Beneficiary.And this again brings me back to something that may be controversial but I think seriously warrants consideration. Let's say I own 1,000 acres and @Big Fin lives in an apartment in the same state. We're both residents and thereby both beneficiaries in this hypothetical example. Is it right for me to get more tags than him just because I own land and he doesn't? I don't think so. Let's get even more controversial. There is a certain type of business that quite literally profits off the harvesting of wildlife, especially in the west. If we're concerned about privatization and diy opportunities, maybe we should discuss whether or not that business should be entitled to a certain number of licenses, or whether that business should have exclusive access to certain types of public lands....
Maybe if more people "hunted quietly" over the last 10 years NRs would be able to still roll into idaho Sept 8th stop at wal-mart and buy their elk tag on the way to the spot there gonna hunt. But I'm sure there is zero correlation between NR opportunity and social media and instahunters over the last 10 years.How many states had OTC elk opportunities for NRs 10 years ago? How many do today? What is it going to look like in another 10 years?
Colorado and Idaho aren't still OTC?Is it really that farfetched to make the hypothesis that they will go to close to zero in not that far into the future?
Take a bull elk tag for example. 10 years ago, the options for a NR were pretty easy to get a tag across a lot of states. CO and ID you could get a tag OTC. With minimal effort, you could plan on and get a tag in MT, NM and WY.
Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?
Would I be happy? No I wouldn't be "happy" but if it's warranted then so be it. I'd rather enjoy watching a flourishing deer herd heard and maybe not draw a tag every year than have my two buck tags every year hunting a deer herd that is a shell of what it once was. because everyone makes it about me me me. Which is exactly what we're doing here. We have doubled our firearm season here from years ago and also upped the tags from not always drawing as a resident to most counties issuing so many they don't even sell out.so would you guys be happy or unhappy if your DNR was forced to restrict buck hunting in an amount of tags equal to the amount of resident hunters that currently hold one each year, but then decided to shave off 10% for NRs, which means 10% of resident hunters go without a buck tag? would you be pro eliminating that 10% for NR? or pro keeping that 10% for NR?
if you can't be honest about your answer to that question then you can't be honest or even be on solid footing to have an opinion on tightening allocations in the west. simple as that IMO.
this is the nuts and bolts of why allocations are tightening in the west. not because we're at that point, but because we're headed to that point.
It’s really rather the opposite.Your main solution was to put more animals on the landscape. Ending modern day market hunting would help put more animals on the landscape. We’ve seen what market hunting has done in our not so distant past but people are so addicted to the likes and comments and brag boards, they ignore it as an issue today. How many people would quit hunting if they couldn’t film it, put it on Instagram or Facebook, or make money off it? Social media is definitely creating tension between R/NR when large groups of NRs come out, whack a pile of young bucks, film every one, blow up the spot the R has been hunting for 30 years, put it all over YouTube and social media, and the R is left with less deer and more crowding, even if that same NR doesn’t get a tag the next year, seems like it would make some R’s want at least 90-10 splits if not worse for the NR, no matter how unreasonable that is financially. And it only hurts the NR, as it makes it harder for the NR to draw allocated permits with more people putting in because the location was blown up on social media. Like most things on HT, it’s mostly anecdotal. I’m open to having my mind changed though on the whole premise
Yeah, that's fine, if there's leftover doe tags in MN, have at them.Wait - I thought you could easily come by a WY cow tag as a non-resident every year? Or 2 or 3? At a reduced price..
You were calling residents greedy for wanting more tags. When all your concerned about is more tags. You never answered my question what's a fair split and price for you?You'll never be able to hunt elk in either of those states as a NR.
Can you really call someone "greedy" for donating to areas where they have a realistic opportunity to hunt?
Jeez, you are slighting a chit ton of members who strive for the honor.Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.
That's the question everyone crying doesn't like to anwser or they have unrealistic expectationsYou were calling residents greedy for wanting more tags. When all your concerned about is more tags. You never answered my question what's a fair split and price for you?
NR hunting has never had anything to do with income brackets, it was always about priorities.It’s really rather the opposite.
Influencers magnify the value placed on wildlife through pumping hunting demand. As the value of wildlife is magnified, habitat is prioritized for wildlife so the wildlife can be hunted…by rich people. The collective work of influencers in the social media age has ensured a place for wildlife to exist for generations to come.
Wildlife wins, DIY hunters lose. $$$ grabs the remaining hunting opportunity, siphoning it public lands through an ever-growing body of laws and policies that favor outfitters and large landowners.
I know some forum members on this site are enlightened and don’t care if they can hunt the animals or not - they just care about the wildlife. Fittingly, these tend to be older, lifelong hunters with dozens of big game trophies on their walls.
I am not in that camp. I want wildlife to thrive for its own sake, and I also want wildlife to thrive so I can hunt. It irks me that the prevailing trend is wildlife gets prioritized, but along with the that the opportunity to hunt it moves away from average persons towards the wealthy.
There is an argument that gets floated frequently on this site to counter the complaint that NR hunting opportunity is evaporating: “NR hunting has always been for persons of above-average means.”
That statement is true, but when digging into it deeper, the reality is more nuanced. For over half a century now, NR hunting, specifically NR big game hunting, has been accessible for the top 25-50% income brackets of the US population. Ten years from now, let’s say it is the top 10%, and 25 years from now it’s the top 5%, like it is in most of Europe. All the numbers are “above average”, but the latter leaves out most of the hunters who frequent this site.
TLDR - I’m raising my kids to hunt squirrels and rabbits.