brocksw
Well-known member
Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
I get it Buzz... You can't rightfully oppose WYOGA Wilderness welfare clients when your part of the leadership of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers who have been asked for a position on the matter yet, refuse to take a side on an obvious issue most all BHA members oppose.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Go back and read...Put up or shut up Buzz... Y'er changing the rules - your negotiating tactics are stellar,
BuzzH
Well-known member
brocksw
Well-known member
I think the 3 of us need to share a duck slough.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I can oppose anything I want, but its up to the WY Chapter executive board and we have much larger fish to fry at the moment.
Like opening up several million acres of public land for everyone to access.
Not as concerned about a law that can any NR can get around free of charge.
BuzzH
Well-known member
As long as you eat all the ducks, and its not the first week of the season I reckon.
brocksw
Well-known member
I'd recommend trying some picked mallard or blue wing teal before giving it away. I'll play chef.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I've been known to kill some waterfowl...lots of them. You can have my share for the table...BTDT don't care much for them. One Christmas break my Brother, Buddy, and I killed 86 mallards (one hen, on accident), and 42 geese...we didn't do much missing back then, got plenty of practice.
Pheasants, chukar, ruff grouse...different deal.
brocksw
Well-known member
Did you pick the breasts though?I've been known to kill some waterfowl...lots of them. You can have my share for the table...BTDT don't care much for them. One Christmas break my Brother, Buddy, and I killed 86 mallards (one hen), and 42 geese...we didn't do much missing back then, got plenty of practice.
Pheasants, chukar, ruff grouse...different deal.
Attachments
BuzzH
Well-known member
Did them every way you can think of, and probably more. Picked, skinned, breasted, pressure cooker, roasted, grilled, fried, smoked, blah blah...
Some better than others, but none are a pheasant, chukar, or ruffed grouse.
Last waterfowl I shot were on Kodiak about 10 years ago, simply for a couple mounts (harlequin and bufflehead). I didn't forget how to shoot, just don't like eating them and I can't find anyone that wants them.
Had a guy in Missoula that would take every single one we could give him. Once he died, I sort of stopped hunting waterfowl for the most part.
Fun to do and miss it sometimes.
brocksw
Well-known member
It's subjective for sure. I've converted a lot people to picking breasts instead of just breasting em out. Really changes the flavor and approach to cooking. That's why I ask.
Oh right... very challenging to take a position. Bigger fish to fry - nice cop out. To make an official position is that challenging? I can find other issues BHA has taken a position that are not currently in a legal batle to immediately resolve though hey, put up or shut up, right?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Your words though your own failure to, "put up"
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wrong, but your story, make it as dumb as you want.
You set the bar pretty low for Dumb, buzz...
brocksw
Well-known member
All right, Guys. Let's take a minute. I can appreciate a feisty conversation. But let's make sure we don't get too carried away here.
brocksw
Well-known member
I think what frustrates me the most is the fact that conservation groups and people who at an individual level who support much of the same conservation efforts, are constantly cornered into positions with their backs against the wall. Words like compromise are often used to justify it, and sometimes thats true. Compromise is needed and it's more than appropriate in a lot of instances.
But sometimes, it's just fear. Fear of opening up a can of worms, fear of losing, fear of backlash, etc. Meanwhile, the opposition is aggressive and coordinated, they have financial backing and political connections. They can nationalize issues (sometimes even unrelated issues) and use that to their advantage. In other cases, they will throw anything at the wall to see what sticks. It's a completely different plan of attack and almost NONE of the major lifting is done by volunteer level people.
It's not specific to Wyoming. I'd be willing to wager every single state has conservation issues that fall victim to this dynamic.
But it's chipping away at this more conceptual level view of hunting a lot of us(I think) share. I dislike that. It's also not for one person to really change. It will take a collective change of attitude from the same people/groups I mention above. On top of that, there are those within those groups that think the status quo is the only way forward. They might be right. I don't know. Seems as though we're always fighting from a reactionary position and over the left overs. The general direction of the conservation movement seems hampered by compromise, while the movement for commercialization and privatization seems to be gaining ground. Then we have a law like the subject of this discussion, and its just allowed to exist. A decade from now the outfitters will have set asides and the wilderness law. The ball will just continue to roll in that direction until we're basically Europe. Maybe I'm just pessimistic and someone should slap me for it.
I just wonder if we're not being aggressive and coordinated enough. They fight for their cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't always feel like we take that approach when sometimes I wish we would. But, and snowymountaineer laid this dynamic out beautifully earlier in that thread, maybe I'm wrong in wanting to be more aggressive and "the devil known" is statistically the better route.
I still think Buzz is wrong if his personal stance is in support of this specific law, devoid of any other issues.
But I understand the situation and his perspective.
But sometimes, it's just fear. Fear of opening up a can of worms, fear of losing, fear of backlash, etc. Meanwhile, the opposition is aggressive and coordinated, they have financial backing and political connections. They can nationalize issues (sometimes even unrelated issues) and use that to their advantage. In other cases, they will throw anything at the wall to see what sticks. It's a completely different plan of attack and almost NONE of the major lifting is done by volunteer level people.
It's not specific to Wyoming. I'd be willing to wager every single state has conservation issues that fall victim to this dynamic.
But it's chipping away at this more conceptual level view of hunting a lot of us(I think) share. I dislike that. It's also not for one person to really change. It will take a collective change of attitude from the same people/groups I mention above. On top of that, there are those within those groups that think the status quo is the only way forward. They might be right. I don't know. Seems as though we're always fighting from a reactionary position and over the left overs. The general direction of the conservation movement seems hampered by compromise, while the movement for commercialization and privatization seems to be gaining ground. Then we have a law like the subject of this discussion, and its just allowed to exist. A decade from now the outfitters will have set asides and the wilderness law. The ball will just continue to roll in that direction until we're basically Europe. Maybe I'm just pessimistic and someone should slap me for it.
I just wonder if we're not being aggressive and coordinated enough. They fight for their cake and the ability to eat it too. It doesn't always feel like we take that approach when sometimes I wish we would. But, and snowymountaineer laid this dynamic out beautifully earlier in that thread, maybe I'm wrong in wanting to be more aggressive and "the devil known" is statistically the better route.
I still think Buzz is wrong if his personal stance is in support of this specific law, devoid of any other issues.
But I understand the situation and his perspective.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think where you get bogged down is that you fail to listen...
I hate the law, I also hate the AK guide requirement too.
But what you're asking me to do is ONLY going to happen one way and that is for you, as a NR and all other NR's, to take an absolute beating to get your way on it.
This law has been challenged in court, it won't be changed that way. So that's off the table.
You can try to run a ballot initiative in the most difficult state that allows ballot initiatives to pass. Keep in mind that many R's here support the wilderness restrictions on NR. Ballot initiatives are expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming in states and on issues that Residents are supportive of. Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to gather signatures? Yeah, Residents, that's who.
So that leaves a legislative fix, one that CAN be had, but like I already stated, NR's will take a beating, a thrashing actually to get it. I have NO doubt that I could call Sy right now and get him to agree to repealing the Wilderness guide law in exchange for my support of an outfitter set aside. He'd do it in a heartbeat. I could also get all the Resident support I'd need if residents get 90-10...no question. A bill sponsor is no problem, I have the very guy on speed dial that would draft it, support it, and he's wayyy up the food chain in Senate Leadership.
That's the ONLY way this will change, period. Any other waty is pissing up a rope...its all been argued and tried before.
So, the question becomes, is gaining access to wilderness without getting a Resident to sign of for you with a FREE resident guide license worth 75% of your NR tags?
Its that simple...
I'm a results driven person and if you want results I'm going to tell you upfront what it will cost and the way to get it done.
Similar threads
