seeth07
Well-known member
Correct. Thus the need for a loophole or exception
WY one shot pronghorn hunt...circling the drain
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@ClearCreek True, though you could is issue private land only tags, I think that is more what @seeth07 was driving at, some sort of tag that doesn't impact the draw odds or take away opportunity from the general public.
JM77
Well-known member
The women's hunt does not impact resident or nonresident hunters. Comparing them in any way to the One Shot is apples and oranges. Only thing they both do the same is limit their participants to one gender and hunt antelope.
BUT, the women's hunt lobbied for more tags, even though they could get every woman a tag in the drawing. They lobbied for another set-aside because the men got it. They didn't want to deal with the drawing. They wanted to hand a list over like the men did and they want to sell the leftovers, just like the men do. That is wrong and why I lobbied for the eighty original set-aside tags to be spilt between the two hunts. Political pressure, even though the One Shot hunt behaved badly, was too much.
BUT, the women's hunt lobbied for more tags, even though they could get every woman a tag in the drawing. They lobbied for another set-aside because the men got it. They didn't want to deal with the drawing. They wanted to hand a list over like the men did and they want to sell the leftovers, just like the men do. That is wrong and why I lobbied for the eighty original set-aside tags to be spilt between the two hunts. Political pressure, even though the One Shot hunt behaved badly, was too much.
BuzzH
Well-known member
No, there does not.
Lets get a few things straight, the big one being that WY residents are strongly opposed to "loopholes" in license allocation. In particular any kind of transferable LO tag, or outfitter set asides. A vast majority of Residents disagree on many things to do with wildlife conservation, hunting regulations, seasons, etc...but there is one thing that a vast majority agree on, and that's NO transferable LO tags. Loopholes and special set asides, transferable tags, etc. always morph into something unintended. Wyoming's exception for the one shot hunt resulted in a "separate but equal" situation, and now they number of set aside tags has doubled from the original 80, to now up to 160.
To think it will stop there is naïve...another group has asked for an additional 80 tags that are part of an airstream camper club that wants to put on their own hunt. Yeah, sounds ridiculous, but so does a hunt that gives away 56 tags to a past shooters club. The sad thing is, the airstream camper club has just as legitimate of a need for the tags as the other 2 hunts. Once you start down the road of giving tags away, why should it stop at 80, 160, 320 , 640? What's the difference?
The best way for all these groups to go about their hunts is to apply like everyone else. Find an area they can draw, just like everyone else. The North American Model even speaks to equitable access to the publics wildlife resources...handing out 56 tags a year for decades to a group of past shooters is not equitable distribution of the States Wildlife Assets.
Frankly, I couldn't give a chit less about either hunt, make fun of Women, sip your cognac, smoke a $20 cigar in your matching smoking jackets (all traditions of the one shot hunt), just do it with the tags you acquire through the draw. Just don't give priority to this crap through a state allocation of tags for them only. That's the problem
If the airstream group, men's only one shot, women's only hunt, etc. etc. etc. group want to have these hunts, fine with me...just don't expect something special and your own allocation of tags. Tags that should go to all NR and R hunters.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I know many on this board may disagree with Mountain Pursuits on some issues...but they do their homework and put together some great data found here:
It names names...and does a good job of pointing out just how ridiculous this whole one shot deal is.
Got my notes together for tomorrow, worth the drive to be there in person.
It names names...and does a good job of pointing out just how ridiculous this whole one shot deal is.
Got my notes together for tomorrow, worth the drive to be there in person.
Of all the times I disagree with Buzz, I could not agree with him more on this. " Women's One Shot in an area of the state with an abundance of antelope tags and mostly private land I would say is the one exception where its legit for a state to give a special set of tags for a special group of people." Really? special group of people??? Like women make up only 52 percent of the worlds population so they are "special"?? Last I checked women were not barred from applying in the regular draw.
NEWHunter
Well-known member
Thank you
seeth07
Well-known member
I get and understand your point and to a point, I agree that once there is an in through legislation, everyone tries to grab a piece of the pie and it gets expanded.
I'm not from Wyoming so I think that is partially why my view is a little different. I also only know a lot about how the Womens one shot works as my wife awhile back applied for a chance to attend through a local organization. Up until this year, any woman could have applied in the draw and received a tag guaranteed for both of the units where the event is held at. By just giving them the tags off the top before the draw, it made it much more convenient to hold the event. The various groups that pay for the tags and use them as "scholarships" don't have to have a candidate selected already in May before the draw. They also don't have to cut them a check to have the cash to do the draw (since you have to front the tag fee) nor do they have to worry about an applicant applying incorrectly. Hell Wyoming is confusing as even I screwed up my application last year and drew a tag I didn't even want. The times are changing though as this year I saw that unit wasn't 100% anymore and therefore my argument here fizzles away....
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Colorado dentist has received 10 tags.... of course he’s a dentist
grosventre
New member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17
This is ridiculous and needs to stop. The one shot has outgrown the times. More news organizations need to pick up this story along with flooding social media. My e-mails have been sent.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Just got back from the commission meeting, where 3 people gave testimony opposing the 80 tag allocation for the one shot hunt.
The topic of the tags was supposed to be a 10 minute deal on the agenda...turned into over an hour long discussion.
Was an interesting hour, and lets just say the one guy trying to defend the one shot may not be too happy his testimony was recorded come November. The commission felt an obligation to issue the tags this year, all 80, but they asked a ton of questions and not of the good variety if you're a supporter of the one-shot hunt.
For all those that sent emails, they made a HUGE impact, Commissioners, Mike Schmid and Ralph Brokaw both commented that their email accounts were lit up and they are going to have to address this issue at the November Meeting.
I've been at this for about 3 years on this particular issue, and this is the most discussion I've seen on this and as close as I've seen it where you could "feel" the commission wanting to deny the tags.
Also, just an FYI, Tom Chambers, a Field Representative for the Wyoming BHA chapter, presented the Game and Fish a check for $1500 for Accessyes to the Department on behalf of the Wyoming Chapter, to start the meeting off on a positive note.
Thank you to all that sent emails.
Will be interesting to get mulecreeks take on this as he was there and commented as well, great testimony as per always.
The topic of the tags was supposed to be a 10 minute deal on the agenda...turned into over an hour long discussion.
Was an interesting hour, and lets just say the one guy trying to defend the one shot may not be too happy his testimony was recorded come November. The commission felt an obligation to issue the tags this year, all 80, but they asked a ton of questions and not of the good variety if you're a supporter of the one-shot hunt.
For all those that sent emails, they made a HUGE impact, Commissioners, Mike Schmid and Ralph Brokaw both commented that their email accounts were lit up and they are going to have to address this issue at the November Meeting.
I've been at this for about 3 years on this particular issue, and this is the most discussion I've seen on this and as close as I've seen it where you could "feel" the commission wanting to deny the tags.
Also, just an FYI, Tom Chambers, a Field Representative for the Wyoming BHA chapter, presented the Game and Fish a check for $1500 for Accessyes to the Department on behalf of the Wyoming Chapter, to start the meeting off on a positive note.
Thank you to all that sent emails.
Will be interesting to get mulecreeks take on this as he was there and commented as well, great testimony as per always.
seeth07
Well-known member
Glad to hear. Echos the response I got to my email from two of the commissioners
LuketheDog
Well-known member
I have to ask here, if the above is true, why all the continued dragging heels over the One Shot? Is it just simple bureaucracy? "Tradition"? Strings being pulled by those with power who are involved?
walking buffalo
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 111
The war headdress makes me wonder....
Without knowing the provenance....
I see similar ones for sale on Ebay, made from turkey feathers instead of eagle.
It wouldn't be the first time this gag has been played on Powerful White men.
Without knowing the provenance....
I see similar ones for sale on Ebay, made from turkey feathers instead of eagle.
It wouldn't be the first time this gag has been played on Powerful White men.
Mosquito
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2020
- Messages
- 109
Changes takes time sometimes. The squeaky wheel gets the grease eventually. Keep after it. Let us know if you need help from afar and thanks for your efforts .
Last edited:
Got a response from Ralph Brokaw about noon today. We've actually known him for about 25 years or so.
He stated they felt obligated because of the statutory requirement to allocate the licenses this year but also stated that the discussion shows change is coming.
Good work all .
He stated they felt obligated because of the statutory requirement to allocate the licenses this year but also stated that the discussion shows change is coming.
Good work all .
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, good question.
Hope I don't get too far out in the weeds with the answer.
Up until 3 or so years ago, they one shot hunt largely flew under the radar. It all got blown up by a legislative move when the women's hunt started lobbying the legislature to get the same allocation as the men's only one shot hunt. Before myself and a couple others decided to take action on what we were going to do about the women's hunt wanting tags, we figured it would be best to see what the deal was with the one shot hunt. I had always assumed, wrongly, that they were getting tags under the statute in an area with difficult public access and I always assumed, again wrongly it was the unit that makes up the Wind River Reservation area. Jeff and I started doing some digging and it wasn't before we figured out what a joke this thing was.
I opposed the legislative move to add another 80 tags via the women's hunt, but that doesn't mean I don't understand and appreciate why they did it. The unfairness and bullchittery that goes on with the lander one shot hunt that's been described in other posts, was the root cause. Its also a lesson why its never a good idea to go to the legislature with your "problems". I tried pretty hard to talk the women's hunt into not taking their request to the legislature as I knew it wasn't going to be pretty. I also knew I was going to oppose it, not on the optics or merit of the hunt, but rather to the point that special allocations of tags is just flat wrong. It defies the North American Model, and creates classes and exclusiveness within the hunting community.
In the meantime, the one shot hunt was coming at Jeff and I pretty hard, making accusations that we "lied" on Randy's podcast about what goes on during the one shot event. I asked Carl Asbell exactly what it was we lied about, and he said he would have to listen to the podcast again, and get back to us...well, 3 years later I'm still waiting for the phone call, email, snail mail, or homing pigeon message exactly what it was we lied about. For the record, after his testimony today to the commission, I think he's the last person that should talk about being truthful about the one shot event. Come November, there will be some things clarified regarding his public testimony.
In the meantime, during the legislative process where the women were trying to pass their bill, I did a ton of work to try to get the legislature to consider taking the current 80 tags that the one-shot was currently getting, making a change to that statute and splitting the tags 40-40 between the 2 hunts. Interestingly enough, pretty quick the one shot crew and the women's hunt were lobbying together like long lost buddies opposing anything that Jeff and I put on the table to come to a reasonable resolution. I was even asked by Jim Allen, who is no longer a state legislature, to come up with the proposal to split the tags. He said he would recommend the change during a committee hearing and in no surprise to me, he flat lied to me. He never brought it up at all and when I corned him on it, he said to try to make the changes to the allocation at the commission level. What they did do is change the statute to allow up to 2 hunts, not specifying either the women's hunt, or the one shot hunt in Statute. They removed existing language, that was illegal, that did specifically set tags aside for the lander one shot hunt. That is a clear violation of the State Constitution as they cant pass legislation to expressly name a group for a state asset. What the new bill did was take the responsibility off the legislature, made the tags available to ANY 2 groups, and placed this mess on the lap of the commission, including just giving the commission the authority to issue UP to 80 for each hunt, and also to pick the 2 hunts.
So, there was an application period for any group that wanted to, could apply for one of the two 80 tag allocations and put on a hunt. The criteria of course, that the GF put into regulation for the application process pretty much left only 3-4 groups with a legitimate shot at the 80 tags. The hunts are also approved for 3 year time periods (IIRC, that's in Statute, but would have to look again), so once a group gets the tags, they get them for a 3 year time period. I heard there were a couple other groups that were going to apply, but didn't, I hope that changes in the future.
Once the 2 groups were identified, then the commission had to change regulation naming the lander one shot hunt and the women's hunt as the groups receiving the tags in regulation. But, for the first time, Jeff and I and a few others started pressuring the commission and reminding them they have the authority to not issue any, issue 1, 2, 24, or 80 but they don't have to approve any.
Where things get tricky is that the commission, right, wrong or indifferent, thinks that they must follow legislative intent, meaning they must issue all 80 tags if the hunts request them. That's not true, and the way I look at, if the legislature wanted all 80 tags issued for sure, they shouldn't have added the "up to" language.
That's a long way to say, that even though the commission has the authority, there is going to be some serious foot dragging reducing the tag numbers that they approve. Its even more ridiculous with the Department, which is absolutely scared chitless to do anything but condone the hunts because they RARELY, if EVER, go against the grain of legislative intent. I don't blame them on the one hand, and its not a slam on them, its just the facts of the matter.
So, at the end of the day, trying to look out for the best interest of all hunters, stop the special allocation of tags regardless of the worthiness of the groups requesting the allocation...Jeff and I are the monsters. We're the a-holes because we opposed the women's bill, a-holes because we've shined a light on the bogus one shot, and the commission and GF Department are probably not really happy that we're now pressuring them to make some needed changes.
The buck has to stop somewhere and its as interesting as it is troubling that nobody seems to see this from the 10K foot level on the optics of the one shot hunt, or how these set asides cause a snow-ball effect and before you know it, 80 tags is 160, 160 can turn into 240 and on and on and on.
But, I will say that the commission is starting to see the problems and todays meeting was the first time where I have a feeling things are going to change...and its wayyyyyyy past due.
Finally, I don't see why doing the right thing for all sportsmen, expecting all the tags to be available to either R or NR hunters, and cleaning up this issue is so tough to do. It shouldn't take this much effort over 3, going on 4 years to clean it up. Yet, here we are. Every issue it seems, a person has to keep in mind its a marathon, not a sprint.
Similar threads
