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

I do not object to WY landowners having a management option available of hiring a sharpshooter to kill a large quantity of elk cows/calves. Some landowners simply do not want to interface with hunters from the general public, and I think the general public needs to be OK with that.

The Iron Mountain elk reduction last hunting season referenced by the author had direct oversight from WG&F, and there was no nefarious outfitting scheme. A well-planned population reduction with sufficient accountability from the wildlife agency is not the bogeyman it is sometimes made out to be.

However, common sense proposals such as sharpshooter removal programs are a tough sell because the public hunter often cannot trust either the landowner or the state government to fairly administer the program, and for good reason. There are plenty of fair-handed large ranchers in WY, but they get overshadowed by their bad-actor peers. Likewise, there are WY state legislators who actually represent their constituents, but they are out-shadowed by the majority of their peers who favor the landed ruling class.

There are absolutely valid concerns from hunters when entities such as WYOGA, WSGA and friends actively seek to pervert state-sanctioned damage control measures in thinly-veiled money grabs. This is seen again and again via various efforts to privatize wildlife: converting LQ units to general units (w/ unlimited bull tags), deputizing landowners and their designated representatives to forcefully detain alleged trespassers, the current dubious crop damage payment proposal, outfitter tag set-asides, special draw tag fee hikes, the Wyoming Wildlife (Privatization) Taskforce, etc., etc.

Elk have become big money in WY, and people are greedy. Many big landowners are in bed with WY politicians and their big money friends, and they’ll get their way eventually. Resident public land hunters do not have much of a voice until they choose to vote out the corrupt politicians who favor feudal lords over the peasantry…and when is that ever going to happen.
 
Could say the same about NM:

"Elk have become big money in WY, and people are greedy. Many big landowners are in bed with WY politicians and their big money friends, and they’ll get their way eventually. Resident public land hunters do not have much of a voice until they choose to vote out the corrupt politicians who favor feudal lords over the peasantry…and when is that ever going to happen."
 
No thanks. I love where I live, and my family is thriving here.

It’s not about that. Getting a tag isn’t that difficult. It’s about what is best for the majority of beneficiaries as well as what is best for the resource.
*The majority of the beneficiaries that reside where those animals are held in the state's trust as well as what is best for the resource.

Your pro-privatization arguments are a bit obnoxious.
 
The majority of the beneficiaries that reside where those animals are held in the state's trust as well as what is best for the resource.

Yep, correct. That’s exactly what I am saying. Don't forget about non-hunter beneficiaries.

I don’t get the privatization point you’re trying to make at all, its literally the opposite: these tags are open to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Yep, correct. That’s exactly what I am saying. Don't forget about non-hunter beneficiaries.

I don’t get the privatization point you’re trying to make at all, its literally the opposite: these tags are open to everyone.
Wrong, they are only open to those who can afford them.
 
Wrong, they are only open to those who can afford them.

That’s true- just like everything else in life though right? If you want it bad enough, you can make it happen (really no different than NR WY special tag in that regard).

It is way cheaper to afford a landowner tag than move, as was previously suggested. In addition, it is a common misconception that all landowner tags are super expensive- they aren’t.
 
That’s true- just like everything else in life though right? If you want it bad enough, you can make it happen (really no different than NR WY special tag in that regard).

It is way cheaper to afford a landowner tag than move, as was previously suggested. In addition, it is a common misconception that all landowner tags are super expensive- they aren’t.
I gave you the plug on a nm raghorn tag - what made you not buy it?
 
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.
Who is this "we" you speak of?

I think a lot of hunters and wildlife beneficiaries have a problem with raffle, auction, LO tags and exploiting wildlife for money.

Arizona just shit-canned their auction tags for an example. Montana did away with outfitter sponsored tags. Wyoming has never had transferable LO tags or outfitter sponsored tags. The list goes on and on.

If you're going to speak non-sense, speak for yourself as "we" don't agree with you.
 
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.
 
Are you suggesting that a vast majority of HT members would not vote to ban all raffle, auction, and transferable LO tags?

You are conflating three things here. I do not dispute that HT would vote to ban auction and LO tags, and never said otherwise (although support is definitely building for LO tags, hard to dispute that).

I absolutely feel that HT strongly supports raffle tags, including @Big Fin.

Here is a bit of evidence to support my claim- look at the amount of support this recieved (and for the record, I support them too):

HT Supports Raffle Tags
 
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.
I agree, Chris is. He was the editor of "Wyoming Wildlife" magazine for decades, earning from all readers, including me, a deep respect for his writing.

When a local rancher charges a $1,000 access fee, plus a "trophy" fee for hunting moose on her place, I have a hard time with that. When a local rancher receives $250,000 per year for NOT irrigating, and no one knows whether it will alleviate the drought or where the water will end up, I have a hard time with that. When a local rancher gets new fencing for free because it's allegedly in a migration corridor, I can't help but wonder whether it was really an impediment, especially if the migration corridor is not designated or protected from other kinds of development. With just these few examples of what appears to be pure greed, you can see how I would question whether paying ranchers for access to hunt our wildlife is always a good idea.

Our wildlife, our water: our commonwealth. Not a source of wealth for just a few.
 
You are conflating three things here. I do not dispute that HT would vote to ban auction and LO tags, and never said otherwise (although support is definitely building for LO tags, hard to dispute that).

I absolutely feel that HT strongly supports raffle tags, including @Big Fin.

Here is a bit of evidence to support my claim- look at the amount of support this recieved (and for the record, I support them too):

HT Supports Raffle Tags
Most hunters I know don't agree with any set aside tags, raffle, auction or otherwise.

Don't conflate raffle tags as having support, they're just more palatable than a tag going to the highest bidder.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,980
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top