The King's Elk -- Op-ed in Wyofile

[Cornell Cowboy]

Here's an interesting op-ed arguing against potential upcoming legislation in Wyoming related to landowner compensation and tags:
https://wyofile.com/the-kings-elk/?...=email&utm_term=0_-feb14f96a6-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]

 

[Treeshark]

The author brings up some valid points. However, it is difficult to reconcile much of his doom-and-gloom stance on landowner tags with the success of the Colorado and New Mexico landowner tag structure.

It will be interesting to follow this over the next few years, the puck certainly seems to be heading in that direction.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

The author brings up some valid points. However, it is difficult to reconcile much of his doom-and-gloom stance on landowner tags with the success of the Colorado and New Mexico landowner tag structure.

It will be interesting to follow this over the next few years, the puck certainly seems to be heading in that direction.

If you look at the costs of landowner tags, he is not wrong. Just another way for the wealthy to cut to the front of the line or duck the draw odds all the commoners have to deal with.

 

[Hammsolo]

If money talks and bull shizz walks. We are going to have to find a way to support landowners in a different way. I don’t have that answer.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If money talks and bull shizz walks. We are going to have to find a way to support landowners in a different way. I don’t have that answer.

This. People get hung up on the wrong thing and tend to put their hopes and prayers/hate and opposition into the license issue rather than try to find a better path forward.

Chris is one of the people who mentored me as a brand new advocate. His historical understanding of the issue is beyond reproach and it's important to note that the discussion around elk in WY is much different than other states. Each state has their own culture, history and ethic around wildlife management. That culture and heritage are major factors in determining policy to lead towards a better outcome for elk, landowners and hunters. It's also critical for hunters to understand ag economics if we want to play in the game of paying for access.

Access payments can't be token sums. They have to be economically viable given the other market forces out there relative to wildlife mgt, crop damage, etc. But access has to have metrics that are tied to game management more than just recreational impact. Hunters want to recreate. Landowners want harvest.

I don't know that I agree with my old friend and mentor on the multiple licenses for one shooter though. The Michigan DMAP program seems to be working in terms of addressing damage, and allowing landowners a bit more leeway in their options for managing deer damage. A lot of the resistance to increased harvest of elk stems from a conservation ethic that was born out of scarcity. We are beyond scarcity in elk and have reached abundance. Models should reflect that to some greater degree.

 

[Treeshark]

Chris is one of the people who mentored me as a brand new advocate. His historical understanding of the issue is beyond reproach

No one is “beyond reproach,” when they send an opinion piece like that up the flag pole.

*I know you said his historical understanding specifically, but I feel it is dangerous to place anyone on a pedestal.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No one is “beyond reproach,” especially when they send an opinion piece like that up the flag pole.

Chris is. He's been in that trench his entire professional and volunteer careers. He is one the leading hunting ethicists in the United States and his understanding is indeed beyond reproach.

That doesn't mean you can't reproach his approach, or his preferred outcomes, but he knows more than you.

 

[BrentD]

No one is “beyond reproach,” when they send an opinion piece like that up the flag pole.

*I know you said his historical understanding specifically, but I feel it is dangerous to place anyone on a pedestal.

Your opinion is not beyond reproach.

 

[Treeshark]

Your opinion is not beyond reproach.

Can you point to where I ever said it was?

 

[Treeshark]

Chris is. He's been in that trench his entire professional and volunteer careers. He is one the leading hunting ethicists in the United States and his understanding is indeed beyond reproach.

It looks like he’s stuck in the past on this particular issue.

 

[BrentD]

Can you point to where I ever said it was?

You don't get the tautology... No worries.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It looks like he’s stuck in the past on this particular issue.

I can see where you would think that, but the arguments are based on historic inputs from the landowner side as well.

People have a tendency to focus on what they know. Landowners dealing with elk influx in eastern WY isn't as old of an issue as it is elsewhere in the state. Additive to that is a professional set that is pushing for laws that are not helpful to anyone other than a few who have damage, and I think he has a right to be terse & somewhat reluctant to be sympathetic.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You don't get the tautology... No worries.

Tautology was Pearl Jam's weakest effort.

 

[noharleyyet]

You don't get the tautology... No worries.

You can say that again...

 

[EastTNHunter]

Thoughtful and well written

 

[Bluffgruff]

The author brings up some valid points. However, it is difficult to reconcile much of his doom-and-gloom stance on landowner tags with the success of the Colorado and New Mexico landowner tag structure.

It will be interesting to follow this over the next few years, the puck certainly seems to be heading in that direction.

Colorado and New Mexico elk tags are mostly a success for a few people, gaining money or flaunting the NAM with extra cash, public wildlife for private benefit. Landowner tags don't seem to help the resource, and for the public who would be having their wildlife (or some surrogate like tags or access) stolen from them, it would be a significant loss.

Your constant drumming for more privatization of wildlife is tiresome.

 

[Treeshark]

Colorado and New Mexico elk tags are mostly a success for a few people, gaining money or flaunting the NAM with extra cash, public wildlife for private benefit. Landowner tags don't seem to help the resource, and for the public who would be having their wildlife (or some surrogate like tags or access) stolen from them, it would be a significant loss.

I am not sure I agree with anything in that long sentence. I can’t help but think you may be stuck in the past a bit on this issue as well.

1. Colorado and NM LO tags are a net benefit for the majority of beneficiaries (most of which are non hunters). I would think this would be intuitively obvious, but perhaps greater explanation is needed.

2. Gaining money or flaunting NAM… So what? NAM is an idea, not a law. Besides, so do raffle tags and many other things that we seem to have little problem with.

3. Public wildlife for private benefit? Again, so what? There are 1000’s of examples of this that we have no problems with. Besides, these tags can be purchased by anyone. In fact, they often become far more publicly accessible to people (especially those in 49 other states) than they would be via the draw.

4. Last one- the public doesn’t have access to this land or wildlife now, and they won’t be getting it anytime soon without money changing hands.

Your constant drumming for more privatization of wildlife is tiresome.

Reading misinformation on LO tags, such as is in the author’s article, tends to compel me forth- as does the constant loss of opportunity as a NR. I apologize if you find it obnoxious or rude, I do try to always be respectful.

 

[rogerthat]

Treecarp if you think landowner tags are so great how come you have never actually bought one?

 

[Treeshark]

Treecarp if you think landowner tags are so great how come you have never actually bought one?

Can you point to where I ever said that?

 

[rogerthat]

Can you point to where I ever said that?

Well have you?