WTH is Nebraska doing?
- Thread starter Whiskey Freak
- Start date
Because there’s a need for protein in this country and grains that feed the animals that supply that protein. Removing one field will push them to the next and so on. I wish we had elk dispersed across the state and we could manage them like deer, but they don’t act like deer. They aren’t really hunter enough here to be afraid of people. The past 2 years I’ve been a part of 2 elk kills in Nebraska and in both instances an elk was killed with a rifle and the rest of the herd stood and watched from 100 yards or less as we approached the downed elk. It’s a chicken and egg scenario. Do we want the elk to spread and increase into areas by offering only a few tags, or do we issue a ton of tags and reduce the population across the board. I’d rather target specific areas to push them into more tolerated areas so they can continue to expand east.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,982
This appears to be one of those stories that sounds horrible at first but once you dig into it, it seems like a nothing burger. It’s relatively few problem animals creating havoc outside of where the public hunt actually occurs with restrictions that make it fairly mundane. I think if you can put your visceral reaction to 1) landowner benefits 2) timing of the hunt 3) the appearance of unrestricted harvest: put all that aside I think it’s good they are letting hunters actually harvest a few animals rather than just disposing of them in some other manner which would be the other option.
If there was something that was erasing your livelihood I bet you’d feel different. If they weren’t letting people hunt I’d be with you. It’s not just profits. These guys are losing tens of thousands of dollars every year in input costs.
There’s not many people that live out there and those that do almost solely rely on agriculture. From fertilizer, elevators, hauling grain, feeding cattle, ect. If you take $1,000,000 out of a community of 500 people that’s a big deal. It’s easy from the outside looking in to tell them to pack up, but I’m not sure that’s the solution when we are talking about 50 elk in a herd of several thousand.
Djfan
Well-known member
If they are getting folks to come out and harvest elk, why would anyone not want to get one?
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,990
Wildlife needs to be kept in check to keep it "wild." We have always been one source of control. Now that all others have essentially been eliminated in that area, we need to step up the natural culling. You eat the groceries those farmers raise. It's a balancing act. Letting things go "naturally" is a ridiculous fiction. Humans have essentially modified natural selection everywhere on this planet.
Attachments
Djfan
Well-known member
Any Nebraska folks want to let a Wyoming guy in on your land owner connections for this?
seeth07
Well-known member
In my neck of the woods, it is just profit. It is extremely sad watching one family dairy farm after another get bought out by a big commercial operation. These operations only care about $$$. The family dairy farmer had a great appreciation and pride for their land. Most if not all are (were) great stewards of the land, conservation and the ecosystem. Now, these big commercial operations are clear cutting sections of forest, removing tree lines, installing drain tile and massive water reflows drastically impacting nearby marshes, creeks and rivers, using airplanes to lay down destructive fertilizers and weed killers, and probably many other negatives I'm missing.
So yeah, I'll say it again. I have ZERO, absolutely no sympathy for the farmer that has a few square miles of corn crops netting a huge profit and then complaining because a group of 10 elk reduced his total yield by less than 1% over his entire harvest.
Now if these tags were advertised as being only valid in agricultural fields on properties owned by a landowner with less than 400 acres I will be on board.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,596
‘Murica.
Sure, I mean Wyoming is always looking out for us Nonresidents right?
You can’t grow a tomato plant on 400 acres out there. It’s the moon compared to the main agricultural Midwest. I’d bet it’s 99% family owned for generations. Not much “corporate” money goes to buy ag land in that area. I guess bankrupting the family ranchers that have eeked out a meager existence in the area for generations so a corporation can buy it for Pennys on the dollar, then lobby the legislature to eradicate the elk in the future is the answer.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
NE can pass regs as it sees fit, but I'll refrain from the "way of life" sympathies. None of that green is natural or sustainable.
seeth07
Well-known member
Omg you just made my point for me. If its not efficient or remotely ideal for ag fields, why the **** are they there when it could just be restored back to plains habitat?
Not to drag this into an agricultural debate, but would you rather have crops grown on pasture ground, the clear cut Brazilian rainforest, or kill off a billion people for “sustainability”? It takes x amount of land, x amount of water, to feed x amount of people. As far as irrigation and canals that water is going to the Gulf of Mexico, so by reducing flow rates into it, it’s reducing the “dead zone” of nutrient runoff there.
Agriculture always gets demonized, but I sure see a lot of over weight people wandering around.
Carry on.
Tear your house down and return it then.
Wait, the guy who lives 20 minutes from the Columbia Basin is going to look down his nose at Nebraska's irrigation? Let's compare our water sources and decide which has more of an impact on the "natural" world.
