WY one shot pronghorn hunt...circling the drain

[mtmuley]

I'm starting to wonder if seeth07 actually hunts and kills, or if he just wants to study those that do. mtmuley

 

[VikingsGuy]

We could raise elk like a trout hatchery raises trout and then each fall let elk loose to be hunted. I doubt that appeals to many of us on this forum.

But they would still be tasty, right? .

 

[Bigjay73]

Why the silence? Maybe because two guys warned him about the One Shot and he went anyways? Did he put on the women's shawl, because his team did not win?
I posted on Meateater Facebook page asking the last question and the post lasted all of 5 minutes before it was deleted.

How about it Steve?

And today one of his celebrity guests was accused of sexual assault, not that that is any of his fault, but another headache for Mr Rinella

 

[VikingsGuy]

I posted on Meateater Facebook page asking the last question and the post lasted all of 5 minutes before it was deleted.

How bush-league of his social media team. Choose not to respond, fine. But to delete the post is chicken-bleep.

 

[seeth07]

You either:

1) Re-evaluate population objectives for the unit, or
2) Explore conservation easement agreements with the landowner.

If the ranch is that critical to the populations of the unit, then you need to evaluate it on a long term perspective rather than a year to year basis. What is the access to the elk during the season? That is a huge wildcard you have to take into account.

Issuing landowner tags seems like a simple and low cost way of achieving the same goal, and if elk are largely accessible to the public and it has a minimal impact on quotas, then you can view it in the light of the lesser of the evils, and what is the net gain to the public. I hate this approach. It's still not nearly as desirable as crafting a long term easement that allows for better future planning of population goals and objectives. One is a band aid fix, the other is a real fix.

I don't understand option two. I'm a nasty land owner that doesn't give two shits about the elk. I just care about my hay sales and by removing it before the elk get there, none left for them. The population in this region will never be the same again without that feed. So to your first option, that is very well possible. The herd population objectives are just now lower and it aligns with what @LopeHunter would do. But doesn't that create less opportunity for the hunter? Doesn't this argument stem on the premise of opportunity?

 

[seeth07]

I'm starting to wonder if seeth07 actually hunts and kills, or if he just wants to study those that do. mtmuley

Lol maybe that's the case! Ha nope I'm actually an avid big game hunter and huge avocate for promoting hunting to our youth and getting them involved. I just like to get people thinking and try to get conversations brewing around topics I'm passionate about. When someone is so dead set on a concept, ie miss @huntingwife I just like to play the other side to try and open their minds up that nothing is purely black and white.

 

[mtmuley]

Lol maybe that's the case! Ha nope I'm actually an avid big game hunter and huge avocate for promoting hunting to our youth and getting them involved. I just like to get people thinking and try to get conversations brewing around topics I'm passionate about. When someone is so dead set on a concept, ie miss @huntingwife I just like to play the other side to try and open their minds up that nothing is purely black and white.

I'll be watching. mtmuley

 

[JLS]

I don't understand option two. I'm a nasty land owner that doesn't give two shits about the elk. I just care about my hay sales and by removing it before the elk get there, none left for them. The population in this region will never be the same again without that feed. So to your first option, that is very well possible. The herd population objectives are just now lower and it aligns with what @LopeHunter would do. But doesn't that create less opportunity for the hunter? Doesn't this argument stem on the premise of opportunity?

What don't you understand? Conservation easements typically provide a financial incentive for a landowner to provide habitat protection and/or improvement via rest-rotation grazing, riparian buffers, and may provide for a forage allotment for wildlife. They can oftentimes improve the productivity of the ranch through the grazing management and as a result, may increase the net profits a rancher realizes each year. In addition, the public benefits from the increased habitat availability.

If you're a nasty landowner that doesn't care about elk and isn't willing to enter an easement, then it's very simple. You reduce the population objectives to the ranch. Yes, it creates less opportunity.

The only other alternative is to provide for transferable landowner tags, where the rancher can make his money via those. This is a short sighted approach, that while widely used, doesn't provide the long term planning options that an easement does.

 

[JLS]

When someone is so dead set on a concept, ie miss @huntingwife I just like to play the other side to try and open their minds up that nothing is purely black and white.

This seems rather condescending in nature. No, life isn't black and white. It just depends on how much one is willing to compromise principles. When it comes to access to animals based on wealth, I'm not willing to compromise very much, if any.

 

[seeth07]

Conservation easements typically provide a financial incentive

Bingo....costs money. It's where I was going with this example.

Sustainable elk at acceptable hunting populations=money

 

[JLS]

Bingo....costs money. It's where I was going with this example.

No shit it costs money. No one said it didn't. There is a big difference between funding conservation easements through NGOs and Pittman Robertson monies, and auctioning off tags to high bidders. This argument is ridiculous.

 

[seeth07]

This argument is ridiculous.

No it's not. It all comes down to the value of the herd. How much is a reduction in 90 tags worth? What if one extra tag sold at 100k in a state raffle or auction solely funds that easement and gets the population back up to where it's at 100 elk tags again? That one tag, one bought elk funds 90 tags....sounds like a great ratio to me

 

[JLS]

No it's not. It all comes down to the value of the herd. How much is a reduction in 90 tags worth? What if one extra tag sold at 100k in a state raffle or auction solely funds that easement and gets the population back up to where it's at 100 elk tags again? That one tag, one bought elk funds 90 tags....sounds like a great ratio to me

I thought you said you didn't understand the easement? Have fun arguing with yourself.

 

[mtmuley]

I thought you said you didn't understand the easement? Have fun arguing with yourself.

From Utah maybe? I know he isn't but.... mtmuley

 

[Addicting]

 

[JM77]

Why feed his habit guys, he really ruined this thread...

 

[shootbrownelk]

That's pretty naive of you. Your telling me that if you were on the commissioner board and I went to the board and said "I would like to buy a bighorn sheep tag from the state for 10 million dollars but the stipulation of this transaction is that all 10 million goes directly into big horn sheep projects to help increase the population and ensure my grandchildren can have sheep on the mountain" you would reject that?

How would your plan work out for you in Wisconsin?

 

[seeth07]

How would your plan work out for you in Wisconsin?

If someone offered up to the state of Wisconsin a check for 10 million with a guarantee from the state that all 10 million went directly into management of our tiny little elk herd (it needs so much help its not even funny although its almost all political rather than actual habitat), and all this person wanted in return is 1 of the 10 elk tags issued each year, I would take that deal in a heartbeat. Its drastically more money than RMEF gets from the raffle they do for the 1 tag they get each year and not all of that money earned goes directly to Wisconsin elk. So its a no brainer.

Maybe this is actually a good example of why someone from say a state like mine would think the way I am.

 

[Mosquito]

If someone offered up to the state of Wisconsin a check for 10 million with a guarantee from the state that all 10 million went directly into management of our tiny little elk herd (it needs so much help its not even funny although its almost all political rather than actual habitat), and all this person wanted in return is 1 of the 10 elk tags issued each year, I would take that deal in a heartbeat. Its drastically more money than RMEF gets from the raffle they do for the 1 tag they get each year and not all of that money earned goes directly to Wisconsin elk. So its a no brainer.

Maybe this is actually a good example of why someone from say a state like mine would think the way I am.

I realize the point your trying to make . First off the numbers your your using are WAY out there ( again your just ballooning the number to try and get your point across). Second its NOT right . Hunting is a beautiful gift we are given in this country and its one of the few things that shouldn't matter how much money you make or how much your daddy left you . Its like standing for the flag .... for a short period of time we SHOULD be all be standing together in unity as equals. Once you start down a slippery slope then its very hard to stop . Im a huge supporter of women hunters . I think its even more important to take are daughter's out then are sons. My number one hunting buddy is my daughter. However i don't support the women's hunt either. ( not in the way of a dedication of tags ) . Its just not morally right. Its like selling a little part of Yellowstone to a billionaire. Its just a few acres that could do so much good .... NO NO ...NO

 

[seeth07]

Hunting is a beautiful gift we are given in this country and its one of the few things that shouldn't matter how much money you make or how much your daddy left you .

I don't argue this right. I agree and strongly stand behind all things in support of it. However, the idea of ridiculously pricing a tag doesn't infringe this right. I'm fact the conceptual concept of the idea is to actually improve that right by provide the opportunity to MORE citizens allowing more to enjoy it. In my example, taking all 10 elk tags and selling them all to the highest bidder would be wrong.