WY one shot pronghorn hunt...circling the drain

[seeth07]

I guess hypotheticals with you western public land hunters is pointless because of how sore your feelings are from a long history of abuse by the state agencies. It's like your taking my comments as I'm in support of the current situations going on right now.

I honestly have no clue how much money of the 50k commissioner sheep tag at auction goes back to sheep. I know the DU auctions aren't pretty as almost 15% goes to "administration" paying the duck executives salaries over 500k a year.

I'm just trying to make the point that conservation can be bought.

 

[JLS]

I guess hypotheticals with you western public land hunters is pointless because of how sore your feelings are from a long history of abuse by the state agencies. It's like your taking my comments as I'm in support of the current situations going on right now.

I honestly have no clue how much money of the 50k commissioner sheep tag at auction goes back to sheep. I know the DU auctions aren't pretty as almost 15% goes to "administration" paying the duck executives salaries over 500k a year.

I'm just trying to make the point that conservation can be bought.

My feelings aren't sore, and this isn't about whatever abuse you're referring to. I'm a staunch advocate for maintaining the purity of the North American Model. It's a philosophical ideology that I hold in highest regard. Selling to the highest bidder is an erosion of that, pure and simple. Just because conservation can be bought, doesn't mean it should.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I guess hypotheticals with you western public land hunters is pointless because of how sore your feelings are from a long history of abuse by the state agencies. It's like your taking my comments as I'm in support of the current situations going on right now.

I honestly have no clue how much money of the 50k commissioner sheep tag at auction goes back to sheep. I know the DU auctions aren't pretty as almost 15% goes to "administration" paying the duck executives salaries over 500k a year.

I'm just trying to make the point that conservation can be bought.

Except what you are describing isn’t hypothetical. It’s a debate we have constantly because it’s happening all the time. And we’re telling you, from experience, we are not willing to sell our wildlife to the highest bidder to fund conservation, because it bites us in the ass.

 

[Addicting]

Picking a fight with Buzz is never a good idea. I sure do like to sit back and watch it though.

 

[rwc101]

Picking a fight with Buzz is never a good idea. I sure do like to sit back and watch it though.

I'm more afraid of @Hunting Wife, but same.

 

[wytex]

I guess hypotheticals with you western public land hunters is pointless because of how sore your feelings are from a long history of abuse by the state agencies. It's like your taking my comments as I'm in support of the current situations going on right now.

I honestly have no clue how much money of the 50k commissioner sheep tag at auction goes back to sheep. I know the DU auctions aren't pretty as almost 15% goes to "administration" paying the duck executives salaries over 500k a year.

I'm just trying to make the point that conservation can be bought.

I don't feel abused by our state agency at all.
Sore feeling may come from non residents telling us it's ok to sell tags to the highest bidder just because someone has the money to request it.

 

[seeth07]

I'm a staunch advocate for maintaining the purity of the North American Model. It's a philosophical ideology that I hold in highest regard. Selling to the highest bidder is an erosion of that, pure and simple. Just because conservation can be bought, doesn't mean it should.

Could you please break it down for me where in the 7 tenets of the North American Model for Wildlife does this apply? Here they all are for reference:

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
2. Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
4. Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
5. Wildlife is an international resource.
6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
7. Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.

I think we can easily rule out number 1,2,4,5,7.

Allocation of wildlife by democratic rule of law is more or less just stating that the government has the right to determine access to wildlife (i.e. why each state has all its rules and laws regarding hunting and fishing) but doesn't state or deface the idea of using wildlife as a funding source for itself.

Lastly, the democracy of hunting is probably where you can gain your most valid point as the fundamental intent of this tenet is that every American, regardless of race, background, wealth, status, etc. has the right to be able to access all aspects of wildlife. My counter argument is that everyone does have access to go hunt an Elk in America. Taking one tag out of the pool of an unlimited opportunity resource (so many LO, OTC options its not hard) to raise money to put MORE elk on the mountain does not all of a sudden brake down this principle and cause the whole model to suddenly disappear.

Now with all that said, I'll state it again that this DOES NOT automatically make me PRO AUCTION TAGS. You western states do a really shitty job of it as I actually just started looking at Utah and Oregon's wildlife financial statements and its appalling what is happening with that raised money.

 

[JLS]

Could you please break it down for me where in the 7 tenets of the North American Model for Wildlife does this apply?

Taken directly from the USFWS website. I think #7 clearly identifies what I am talking about

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

My counter argument is that everyone does have access to go hunt an Elk in America. Taking one tag out of the pool of an unlimited opportunity resource (so many LO, OTC options its not hard) to raise money to put MORE elk on the mountain does not all of a sudden brake down this principle and cause the whole model to suddenly disappear.

How does taking a tag away from the total pool not eliminate access for all? Particularly for something as limited as sheep tags? All of a sudden, someone has access to something based on wealth that the majority don't. If this isn't an erosion of the seven tenets, I don't know what the hell is? I never said it made it completely disappear. But, it IS an erosion pure and simple, and pretty soon folks justify more and more of it to "for conservayshon", and then you end up with Utah. Your argument is built upon false premises.

 

[406dn]

Except what you are describing isn’t hypothetical. It’s a debate we have constantly because it’s happening all the time. And we’re telling you, from experience, we are not willing to sell our wildlife to the highest bidder to fund conservation, because it bites us in the ass.

Truly, if a well heeled hunter has their heart in the right place,,, they DONATE some money to a good cause without an expectation of getting a direct personal benefit.

In the debated hypothetical,, first it's nonsensical in the amount. As much as I do not like the tags that do get auctioned, they are a fact of life. Ten million will buy a lot of those tags. So no one is knocking on the door for a workaround by offering far more than they could have spent at the auction.

 

[seeth07]

Here let me try a real world relatable example. Just don't rely on my numbers being relatable please, I'm no expert.

Let's say this particular area is a wintering ground for elk. In this area is a huge 20000 acre private ranch and every winter, the rancher being a good steward to wildlife leaves a hefty 1000 acres of hay for the elk every year. Life is good. Now I come along and since I clearly hate wildlife I decide to harvest all my hay and leave nothing for the elk. Over the next 5 years, this unit's herd starts to suffer and populations drastically drop because they relied on this feed so much. How do you restore order to the ecosystem and get elk numbers in this region back up?

 

[mtmuley]

Here let me try a real world relatable example. Just don't rely on my numbers being relatable please, I'm no expert.

Let's say this particular area is a wintering ground for elk. In this area is a huge 20000 acre private ranch and every winter, the rancher being a good steward to wildlife leaves a hefty 1000 acres of hay for the elk every year. Life is good. Now I come along and since I clearly hate wildlife I decide to harvest all my hay and leave nothing for the elk. Over the next 5 years, this unit herds starts to suffer and populations drastically drop because they relied on these feed so much. How do you restore order to the ecosystem and get elk numbers in this region back up?

I'm no expert either, but you are probably about to hear from some. mtmuley

 

[Hunting Wife]

I'm no expert either, but you are probably about to hear from some. mtmuley

Hope so. I’ll tune for the answer next week.

Gone camping in 5....4....3....2....1....

Get outside you guys!!

 

[mtmuley]

Hope so. I’ll tune for the answer next week.

Gone camping in 5....4....3....2....1....

Get outside you guys!!

Looking forward to your perspective. Have fun. mtmuley

 

[VikingsGuy]

I too object to any system that provides for state-granted hunting access in a way that prices out the "average joe/jane". Public land, public animals should be for everyone and not sold to the highest bidder even if one could rationalize the supposed benefit. In the US our fed/state/local governments spend about $8-9 TRILLION dollars. We have the funds to cover reasonable conservation efforts. If we lack the political will to actually allocate appropriate funds, then the answer is to work on public opinion, not to supplement by prostituting the system.

In addition, in many areas of government funding, it is clear these special "boosts" do not actually add funding over time, because the legislatures just start assuming those funds are there and allocate less general funds to even it out. That is why in most states that have dedicated funds to education, conservation, etc from things like lotteries, tobacco funds, special use taxes, etc they have subsequently reduced general fund allocations to these budget areas in commensurate (and sometimes even greater) amounts. There is no free lunch - money is fungible and the legislators know that.

 

[BuzzH]

Your taking this too personal and specific. I wasn't trying to support the one shot or how Wyoming does commission tags and your attacking me as if I am. I was just making the point that there is a time and place along side a proper dollar amount where it makes sense to use a rare resource as a cash cow of the resource.

What are talking about? Taking what personal? Your justification for the set aside tags was a metric YOU brought to the discussion, not me.

I'm asking how you reconcile the fact that you're stating a need based on the continued, or more opportunity, in exchange for giving commission/governors tags.

I'm showing you proof, that your justification for the tags, is not what's going on. For the second time, using your metric/justification, the idea behind the tags is failing. We're pumping more and more money into species via gov/com tags and getting less opportunity in return.

In full disclosure, I served on the WGBLC, specifically the moose committee. The reason that I served on that committee was to see first hand how the Governors tags worked. I found some things to like, and some things that were definitely wrong and needed improving.

For starters, Wyoming Wildlife the Foundation, a sub-foundation to the Wyoming Community Foundation was skimming 10% of the sale amount of the 25 Governors tags right off the top. The reason was for administering the tags, marketing the tags, etc. and there was also one person that was making a nice salary from that.

Interesting enough, in a heated discussion I had with a person with the WCF, regarding the one shot hunt and tags being expanded via legislation to include the women's pronghorn hunt, I was told by that individual, that I need to just get over the North American Model, that wildlife resources are to be exploited for $$$.

Me being me, I told that person, in not such a nice way, I didn't agree at all.

That really got me thinking that some changes needed to happen. So, I contacted one of the influential GF commissioners and told them about this exchange. It wasn't long and that commissioner was asking some pretty pointed questions about the 10% administration fees WWF was taking and what they were providing. All the while, that same commissioner was working to create a new foundation to handle the Governors license. Guess what? The WCF/WWF doesn't handle the Governors tags anymore, rather the new foundation is and that means another 10% of the Gov license fees are now doing what they were intended to do.

While all that was going on, Governor Mead broke his own MOU that was signed with the WGBLC, which stated precisely how the GOV tags would be allocated, and gave a Governors elk tag to a group outside the MOU. What I should have done, was walked away right then. But, I talked with the chair of the WGBLC and they assured me it wouldn't happen again. Well, it happened the very next year, this time Mead gave away a sheep tag, to you guessed it, Water for Wildlife Foundation, again breaking the MOU. I posted these facts on another hunting board and was promptly asked by the chair of the moose committee to resign...I guess posting the truth stings some folks. So be it, I wrote a resignation letter outlining exactly what transpired. I suspect that part of it had to do with the WCF exchange as well. But, I feel that I did the right thing by getting another 10% of the funds going to where its needed, and what Mead did with the Governors tags was also exposed. Didn't hurt him any politically since he did it during his second term, but, in my world integrity and living up to your MOU's and your word still means something. Mead was pretty good over-all for wildlife, but he lost a lot of respect from me and others over that move. My only mistake was I should have stood up and walked out the door the first time the MOU was broken.

Point being, that there are a lot of inside politics and BS that go along with these tags. In spite of what I initially thought was good over-sight of the Wyoming tags, it turned out to not be the case. All of which leads me to believe that if the level of tomfoolery that went on with GOV tags, under a signed MOU, was this questionable...its only worse when there is no accountability under something like the one shot event. Or what goes on in Utah, where I know there is even more political stuff going on, and even less accountability.

So, while you're great at living in dream land, where every penny goes to the resource from these tags, there are others that have seen the underbelly of what happens in reality...mainly because some have lived it.

That said, I still reluctantly think they have their place because in spite of the problems I saw with the GOV tags, there was also a whole pile of very good projects that were/are funded. I just wish people lived up to the agreements, 100% of the time, no exceptions. Sadly, that isn't always the case.

 

[seeth07]

What are talking about? Taking what personal? Your justification for the set aside tags was a metric YOU brought to the discussion, not me.

I'm asking how you reconcile the fact that you're stating a need based on the continued, or more opportunity, in exchange for giving commission/governors tags.

I'm showing you proof, that your justification for the tags, is not what's going on. For the second time, using your metric/justification, the idea behind the tags is failing. We're pumping more and more money into species via gov/com tags and getting less opportunity in return.

In full disclosure, I served on the WGBLC, specifically the moose committee. The reason that I served on that committee was to see first hand how the Governors tags worked. I found some things to like, and some things that were definitely wrong and needed improving.

For starters, Wyoming Wildlife the Foundation, a sub-foundation to the Wyoming Community Foundation was skimming 10% of the sale amount of the 25 Governors tags right off the top. The reason was for administering the tags, marketing the tags, etc. and there was also one person that was making a nice salary from that.

Interesting enough, in a heated discussion I had with a person with the WCF, regarding the one shot hunt and tags being expanded via legislation to include the women's pronghorn hunt, I was told by that individual, that I need to just get over the North American Model, that wildlife resources are to be exploited for $$$.

Me being me, I told that person, in not such a nice way, I didn't agree at all.

That really got me thinking that some changes needed to happen. So, I contacted one of the influential GF commissioners and told them about this exchange. It wasn't long and that commissioner was asking some pretty pointed questions about the 10% administration fees WWF was taking and what they were providing. All the while, that same commissioner was working to create a new foundation to handle the Governors license. Guess what? The WCF/WWF doesn't handle the Governors tags anymore, rather the new foundation is and that means another 10% of the Gov license fees are now doing what they were intended to do.

While all that was going on, Governor Mead broke his own MOU that was signed with the WGBLC, which stated precisely how the GOV tags would be allocated, and gave a Governors elk tag to a group outside the MOU. What I should have done, was walked away right then. But, I talked with the chair of the WGBLC and they assured me it wouldn't happen again. Well, it happened the very next year, this time Mead gave away a sheep tag, to you guessed it, Water for Wildlife Foundation, again breaking the MOU. I posted these facts on another hunting board and was promptly asked by the chair of the moose committee to resign...I guess posting the truth stings some folks. So be it, I wrote a resignation letter outlining exactly what transpired. I suspect that part of it had to do with the WCF exchange as well. But, I feel that I did the right thing by getting another 10% of the funds going to where its needed, and what Mead did with the Governors tags was also exposed. Didn't hurt him any politically since he did it during his second term, but, in my world integrity and living up to your MOU's and your word still means something. Mead was pretty good over-all for wildlife, but he lost a lot of respect from me and others over that move. My only mistake was I should have stood up and walked out the door the first time the MOU was broken.

Point being, that there are a lot of inside politics and BS that go along with these tags. In spite of what I initially thought was good over-sight of the Wyoming tags, it turned out to not be the case. All of which leads me to believe that if the level of tomfoolery that went on with GOV tags, under a signed MOU, was this questionable...its only worse when there is no accountability under something like the one shot event. Or what goes on in Utah, where I know there is even more political stuff going on, and even less accountability.

So, while you're great at living in dream land, where every penny goes to the resource from these tags, there are others that have seen the underbelly of what happens in reality...mainly because some have lived it.

That said, I still reluctantly think they have their place because in spite of the problems I saw with the GOV tags, there was also a whole pile of very good projects that were/are funded. I just wish people lived up to the agreements, 100% of the time, no exceptions. Sadly, that isn't always the case.

You basically proved the point I'm making. The ugly side of where it has all gone is the reason why so many are against it. In its purest form, the intent is there to do good for all and not screw anyone over. Just everyone has this big defense about the idea because of the politics involved.

 

[LopeHunter]

I'm no expert either, but you are probably about to hear from some. mtmuley

Here let me try a real world relatable example. Just don't rely on my numbers being relatable please, I'm no expert.

Let's say this particular area is a wintering ground for elk. In this area is a huge 20000 acre private ranch and every winter, the rancher being a good steward to wildlife leaves a hefty 1000 acres of hay for the elk every year. Life is good. Now I come along and since I clearly hate wildlife I decide to harvest all my hay and leave nothing for the elk. Over the next 5 years, this unit's herd starts to suffer and populations drastically drop because they relied on this feed so much. How do you restore order to the ecosystem and get elk numbers in this region back up?

I don't do anything. The habitat is what it is. That hay went away. The carrying capacity of the land for elk went down. Adjust accordingly. Washington state was feeding (and maybe still does) a few hundred elk with hay around Mount St. Helens each winter. I think is a bad idea to set up a feeding station that clusters elk and I would prefer the herd was adjusted so could survive most winters without any supplemental feeding. At some point, the elk are being taught to be more like cattle when the state creates and maintains an annual feedlot ecosystem. Trying to maximize elk herds using feedlots is asking for a disease outbreak and a change to behavior by the herds. 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.

 

[seeth07]

I don't do anything. The habitat is what it is. That hay went away. The carrying capacity of the land for elk went down. Adjust accordingly. Washington state was feeding (and maybe still does) a few hundred elk with hay around Mount St. Helens each winter. I think is a bad idea to set up a feeding station that clusters elk and I would prefer the herd was adjusted so could survive most winters without any supplemental feeding. At some point, the elk are being taught to be more like cattle when the state creates and maintains an annual feedlot ecosystem. Trying to maximize elk herds using feedlots is asking for a disease outbreak and a change to behavior by the herds. 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.

I appreciate that response and it's certainly valid. Just a very unpopular short term resolution as the 100 bull elk quote is now 10 upsetting 90 people a year that have been investing in this area to hunt it as "their opportunity"

 

[BuzzH]

You basically proved the point I'm making. The ugly side of where it has all gone is the reason why so many are against it. In its purest form, the intent is there to do good for all and not screw anyone over. Just everyone has this big defense about the idea because of the politics involved.

Its wayyyyyyyy more than the politics of Gov tags that Sportsmen are concerned about.

Hard to believe you're that bad at reading sign...and ignore what many have stated on this thread.

 

[JLS]

Let's say this particular area is a wintering ground for elk. In this area is a huge 20000 acre private ranch and every winter, the rancher being a good steward to wildlife leaves a hefty 1000 acres of hay for the elk every year. Life is good. Now I come along and since I clearly hate wildlife I decide to harvest all my hay and leave nothing for the elk. Over the next 5 years, this unit's herd starts to suffer and populations drastically drop because they relied on this feed so much. How do you restore order to the ecosystem and get elk numbers in this region back up?

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.