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

[Irrelevant]

what is right and wrong on this topic is vastly more subjective and personal than the morality of beating ones wife.

It is also, clearly, hypocritical from an ideological standpoint.

 

[TOGIE]

It is also, clearly, hypocritical from an ideological standpoint.

welcome to just about everything there is on this planet. better get used to it

but really, whether or not it's ideologically hypocritical is in fact a subjective take, not a fact.

one I don't adhere to, but i point i absolutely see.

 

[Elky Welky]

regulations used to be less geared toward benefiting R hunters at the detriment of NR hunters.

What is problematic in this take is that it assumes prioritizing Rs is to the "detriment" of NRs. But they are different things. Rs have the right, NRs have the privilege. So prioritizing Rs is not to anyone's "detriment" because they aren't on even footing to begin with. As is oft pointed out, NRs really seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. But if you truly want the benefit, there's a simple solution guaranteed to all of us; and that's that we get to choose where we live.

Also, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum separate from morality. As social norms change, so too does the law. You're right, it is the baseline, but it is not without logic either. And the argument that because the land is public therefore the wildlife should be everyone's too doesn't really hold much water, because these are different resources entirely.

Part of why regulations didn't have to deal with this as much historically is that people didn't travel to destination hunt every single year. For most people who didn't reside in the West, they treated hunting out west the same way many people in the west treat hunting in AK: it's a once or twice in a lifetime thing. But that model has changed, and now many people are abandoning hunting their home state to hunt in the west, which is unsustainable for the resource.

What the State is obligated to do, as the managers of these public trusts resources for the people of the state, is to regulate R/NR allocation to the benefit of the resource.

 

[Irrelevant]

And the argument that because the land is public therefore the wildlife should be everyone's too doesn't really hold much water, because these are different resources entirely.

It actually holds a lot of water, but arguing with an attorney is futile, I've never met one that wasn't convinced they were right about everything under the sun. Though it begs a reminder that 50% of all attorneys are wrong in every situation.

Part of why regulations didn't have to deal with this as much historically is that people didn't travel to destination hunt every single year. For most people who didn't reside in the West, they treated hunting out west the same way many people in the west treat hunting in AK: it's a once or twice in a lifetime thing. But that model has changed, and now many people are abandoning hunting their home state to hunt in the west, which is unsustainable for the resource.

You haven't read many accounts from outfitters? I have a couple of book reviews over on the "water are you reading" thread from two pretty well known ones in and around the Bob, both are absolutely filled with accounts of consistently returning customers.

one I don't adhere to, but i point i absolutely see.

I get it. Most [wildlife] rich people don't voluntarily share their wealth with the [wildlife] poor people. I don't want to share our mountains with Oregonians, or Californians, or those damn Canadians, heck I don't want to share Eastern WA with Western WA. It's selfish and I know it. Side note, I don't think we're very far from Hawaii excluding or at least limiting use to Public Land resources, or limiting NRs entirely within their State. I get that too.

 

[Archer86]

I get it. Most [wildlife] rich people don't voluntarily share their wealth with the [wildlife] poor people. I don't want to share our mountains with Oregonians, or Californians, or those damn Canadians, heck I don't want to share Eastern WA with Western WA. It's selfish and I know it. Side note, I don't think we're very far from Hawaii excluding or at least limiting use to Public Land resources, or limiting NRs entirely within their State. I get that too.

It's funny hearing this from someone from Washington ...that's a state that sure makes it easy for a nr to apply for limited quota tags... pay nr price for a deer and elk tag to apply for a limited quota tag then if you don't draw you are stuck with a crappy general tag you can't return easy way to reduce the nr from applying and keeping all the limited quota tag for all the residents...maybe start getting things changed in your own state and other will follow

 

[CoHunter1991]

Allow them to market what they Own which is land and access. The tags on the other hand need to be democratically allocated. This is the best way to support the North American model and if a landowner really wants elk removed then they will adjust their access price to apply as much pressure as they want.

 

[Handlebar]

Greed and envy will likely harm NAM long before the anti-hunters

 

[TOGIE]

It actually holds a lot of water, but arguing with an attorney is futile, I've never met one that wasn't convinced they were right about everything under the sun. Though it begs a reminder that 50% of all attorneys are wrong in every situation.


You haven't read many accounts from outfitters? I have a couple of book reviews over on the "water are you reading" thread from two pretty well known ones in and around the Bob, both are absolutely filled with accounts of consistently returning customers.

I get it. Most [wildlife] rich people don't voluntarily share their wealth with the [wildlife] poor people. I don't want to share our mountains with Oregonians, or Californians, or those damn Canadians, heck I don't want to share Eastern WA with Western WA. It's selfish and I know it. Side note, I don't think we're very far from Hawaii excluding or at least limiting use to Public Land resources, or limiting NRs entirely within their State. I get that too.

The argument holds water only if one posits and it is agreed upon that they should indeed exist under the same legal paradigms. They don't exist under the same legal paradigms, obviously. So, we're left arguing whether or not they should and it's hard to win arguments of opinion. But the fact is they do not fall under the same legal paradigm and you can't snap a finger and make it be that they do. And, while laws obviously change, as @Elky Welky is saying, with shifting societal values and norms, they could in theory fall under that same legal paradigm if society demands it be so. But, it's IMO nearly pointless to discuss/debate because the long history of case law and statutes say that this is the way it is. I'm personally not gonna bet on that changing in my lifetime and I won't say never, but i'd be hesitant to bet on it ever happening too.

There are pros and cons to living in every state for hundreds of different reasons, wildlife being one of them. That doesn't mean every state needs to democratize their pros lists and give it out piece by piece so everyone in every state is able to experience all the same things. It's not a practical way of looking at the world. Same could be said for cities, towns, counties, countries, etc.

So, that brings us full circle to one of the reasons landowner tags are attractive to some folks.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Allow them to market what they Own which is land and access. The tags on the other hand need to be democratically allocated. This is the best way to support the North American model and if a landowner really wants elk removed then they will adjust their access price to apply as much pressure as they want.

So - are you saying states should issue tags and they should cost the same to NR/R and residents should have no priority?

What would the tags cost? Wonder how many apply?

 

[Irrelevant]

So, we're left arguing whether or not they should and it's hard to win arguments of opinion.

very true. Also, great post.

 

[Irrelevant]

It's funny hearing this from someone from Washington ...that's a state that sure makes it easy for a nr to apply for limited quota tags... pay nr price for a deer and elk tag to apply for a limited quota tag then if you don't draw you are stuck with a crappy general tag you can't return easy way to reduce the nr from applying and keeping all the limited quota tag for all the residents...maybe start getting things changed in your own state and other will follow

Wait, did you have to apply for that general tag or do all NRs get the same opportunity as every R to buy a tag OTC every year to hunt elk in WA? F if that doesn't sounds pretty damn democratic.

 

[Archer86]

Wait, did you have to apply for that general tag or do all NRs get the same opportunity as every R to buy a tag OTC every year to hunt elk in WA? F if that doesn't sounds pretty damn democratic.

Haha yeah very few areas you call it hunting in Washington on a general tag more like a nature hike with a firearm and a tag That is mostly only good for a spike

seams to be the reason most washington hunters would rather pay 1000 for a out of state tag then hunt at home? Wyoming should implement something similiar unlimited otc In a few select areas with little to no elk and make it spike only just to be able to apply and make the tag non refundable they would make some money on that deal I am sure.

 

[Irrelevant]

Haha yeah very few areas you call it hunting in Washington on a general tag more like a nature hike with a firearm and a tag That is mostly only good for a spike

seams to be the reason most washington hunters would rather pay 1000 for a out of state tag then hunt at home? Wyoming should implement something similiar unlimited otc In a few select areas with little to no elk and make it spike only just to be able to apply and make the tag non refundable they would make some money on that deal I am sure.

You completely missed the point. But feel free to keep ranting on WA elk hunting, I agree, it's terrible.

 

[TheTone]

The real danger is in thinking that landowners are a monolithic block. They are varied and nuanced. They are all running a business that provides a lifestyle that they treasure and an income that isn't all that awesome. Their overhead is massive and their stresses are based on a market and economy that is constantly squeezing them and the end user for profit. Add wildlife in that starts eating into your slim margins already, and I can see why folks want to cash in on licenses. Some of those landowners aren't struggling for revenue in any shape or form, while others are putting the 6th fuel pump in an 88 Chevy to keep it running long enough to get feed out.

We can say that for our old school farmer/rancher but I don’t think it applies to a bunch of landowners that are beyond wealthy and are snatching up big properties for a private playground. Getting all sorts of handout tags is just another feather in the cap allowing them more hunting privileges than the commoner. I follow a couple different instagram accounts that truly show this; one in Montana and one in Colorado. Both massive properties sold recently. The Colorado one plainly shows the commoner that gets a tag gets to shoot a cow or management bull while the ranch owners and those paying big dollars get to shoot giants

I have a property near me that has sold twice in the last decade simply as a hunting property. The first owner I know of sold it as soon as he drew a moose tag and killed one on the land. No clue how long the new owner will keep it. I know it shelters a bunch of deer and elk that the neighboring farmers struggle with

 

[Archer86]

You completely missed the point. But feel free to keep ranting on WA elk hunting, I agree, it's terrible.

Didn't miss the point. washington forces you to buy a crap tag to apply for limited quota tags and you think that acceptable because it gives the nr the same opportunity as residents do you actually belive if washington had decent hunting and had a demand for nr hunters that they wouldnt cap them?

 

[Ben Lamb]

We can say that for our old school farmer/rancher but I don’t think it applies to a bunch of landowners that are beyond wealthy and are snatching up big properties for a private playground. Getting all sorts of handout tags is just another feather in the cap allowing them more hunting privileges than the commoner. I follow a couple different instagram accounts that truly show this; one in Montana and one in Colorado. Both massive properties sold recently. The Colorado one plainly shows the commoner that gets a tag gets to shoot a cow or management bull while the ranch owners and those paying big dollars get to shoot giants

I have a property near me that has sold twice in the last decade simply as a hunting property. The first owner I know of sold it as soon as he drew a moose tag and killed one on the land. No clue how long the new owner will keep it. I know it shelters a bunch of deer and elk that the neighboring farmers struggle with

No doubt that distinction exists. The wealthy who come in and purchase large properties are a blessing and a curse but that variety & nuance exists within them as well. However, if we're honest with ourselves, I don't think their desire to hunt properties they own is about feathers in their cap. If it's just about dead animals and wall hangings, you can buy that opportunity in many other states for record-book critters.

Some properties I'm seeing that are going for ridiculous sums are clearly playgrounds for elites, but I'm also seeing some of these owners invest millions in restoration, noxious weed mgt, etc. The new landowner isn't monolithic either. Not everyone operates on a closed-gate basis, and some are offering a ton of opportunity, while others are still exploring how to be better neighbors and community members. I hope those efforts continue.

The guy who sold the land after getting a moose may have other factors come to play, such as land valuation, which is the primary reason people purchase these properties - as an investment. Given the rise in value that recreational properties have seen since COVID, it makes selling very attractive.

That land price is another factor that pits new landowners against legacy families. The question is not so much "how do we get them to stop coming here" (because they aren't going to stop), but rather "how can we help these people assimilate to the culture and norms of the communities into which they move." For every guy like Fred Eschelman, there's an Arthur Blank as an antidote.

 

[Irrelevant]

Didn't miss the point. washington forces you to buy a crap tag to apply for limited quota tags and you think that acceptable because it gives the nr the same opportunity as residents do you actually belive if washington had decent hunting and had a demand for nr hunters that they wouldnt cap them?

Look at how they manage now. It's almost the complete opposite of every other Western state. They promote the ability of everyone to go hunting every year, while significantly hampering the likelihood of success. There's no way we could handle the current resident pressure under anything that most other places would consider reasonable hunting regulations. We sold 93k elk tags in 2022 and there's only an estimated 50k elk in all of WA!

OR which has almost 1/2 the people population, and 2.5x the elk population, has already had to go to a draw for 1/2 the state to ensure they don't kill too many elk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Look at how they manage now. It's almost the complete opposite of every other Western state. They promote the ability of everyone to go hunting every year, while significantly hampering the likelihood of success. There's no way we could handle the current resident pressure under anything that most other places would consider reasonable hunting regulations. We sold 93k elk tags in 2022 and there's only an estimated 50k elk in all of WA!

OR which has almost 1/2 the people population, and 2.5x the elk population, has already had to go to a draw for 1/2 the state to ensure they don't kill too many elk.

Sounds like to me that washington isnt serving the residents of the state well at all. Thats a shame.

 

[Archer86]

Look at how they manage now. It's almost the complete opposite of every other Western state. They promote the ability of everyone to go hunting every year, while significantly hampering the likelihood of success. There's no way we could handle the current resident pressure under anything that most other places would consider reasonable hunting regulations. We sold 93k elk tags in 2022 and there's only an estimated 50k elk in all of WA!

OR which has almost 1/2 the people population, and 2.5x the elk population, has already had to go to a draw for 1/2 the state to ensure they don't kill too many elk.

We are not talking about resident opportunities you complain that nr in other states don't get a FAIR opportunities in other western states. Then you are try to argue that washington forcing nr to pay 739 for a deer and elk tag plus 110 per application fees so north of 1000 dollars just to apply for a limited quota then if you don't draw you are stuck hunting spikes most likely since you have to pick east or west when it comes to elk and most of the good bull tags are on the east side and all those general units are spike only

Effectively washington has set up a system to discourge nr applicants and you are OK with that but other western states the set aside a specific number of tags for nr is not fair when likely less then 1 percent of your own states limited quota tags go to nr.....

 

[Irrelevant]

We are not talking about resident opportunities you complain that nr in other states don't get a FAIR opportunities in other western states. Then you are try to argue that washington forcing nr to pay 739 for a deer and elk tag plus 110 per application fees so north of 1000 dollars just to apply for a limited quota then if you don't draw you are stuck hunting spikes most likely since you have to pick east or west when it comes to elk and most of the good bull tags are on the east side and all those general units are spike only

Effectively washington has set up a system to discourge nr applicants and you are OK with that but other western states the set aside a specific number of tags for nr is not fair when likely less then 1 percent of your own states limited quota tags go to nr.....

WA allows every to elk hunt every year regardless of who you are or where you live.

Sounds like to me that washington isnt serving the residents of the state well at all. Thats a shame.

If you value hunting over harvest, the experience over the result, then no, it's serving it very well. If they managed for success you'd be lucky to draw more than 2-3 elk tags in your life.

I can see where shitty lazy hunters may have a problem with it...