a new hunter 'advocacy' group

[mtnprst]

Mtnprst, I'd like to hear you explain how you reconcile being a "conservation" org who is against bear baiting, which is arguably the best way to manage for healthy bear populations.

Our position on Bear baiting is based on Fair Chase. Would you think it okay to bait elk? Why are bear different? Fair Chase is the reason bear baiting is illegal in Montana.

But your point in terms of bear management is well taken, and we've received blowback from biologists about the bear population management, and the fewer bears killed without baiting.

I honestly don't have an answer for this, other than to allow wildlife management to cull bears as necessary for predator control. And I understand how that would be super controversial.

 

[JohnnyB]

This is hopefully just a troll trying to make BHA “ethics” police seem reasonable.

 

[cmahoney]

So over 400 yards is not fair chase based on the animals inability to detect humans. I get the argument, however I don’t agree with the proposed legislation. What about archery elk hunting during the rut, when they are less likely to detect danger due their natural instinct to breed? In addition to the rut itself, how about bugling and cow calls? Is it ethical for humans to fraudulently portray themselves as an elk? Would you support legislation to move all elk seasons to November?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRTreedogs]

Our position on Bear baiting is based on Fair Chase. Would you think it okay to bait elk? Why are bear different? Fair Chase is the reason bear baiting is illegal in Montana.

But your point in terms of bear management is well taken, and we've received blowback from biologists about the bear population management, and the fewer bears killed without baiting.

I honestly don't have an answer for this, other than to allow wildlife management to cull bears as necessary for predator control. And I understand how that would be super controversial.

Yeah let's spend thousands culling bears vs letting hunters manage them.
Man its astonishing how selfish you are.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Our position on Bear baiting is based on Fair Chase. Would you think it okay to bait elk? Why are bear different? Fair Chase is the reason bear baiting is illegal in Montana.

But your point in terms of bear management is well taken, and we've received blowback from biologists about the bear population management, and the fewer bears killed without baiting.

I honestly don't have an answer for this, other than to allow wildlife management to cull bears as necessary for predator control. And I understand how that would be super controversial.

So you would prefer tax dollars that could be used for wildlife conservation be wasted by using state and federal trappers to cull bears as opposed to allowing hunters to manage the populations?

Not only would you like to remove the best way for a hunter to adequately determine that he is taking the most mature animals thus increasing the overall health of the population, your stance would unnecessarily decrease wildlife funding.

All because of emotions.

 

[Redarrow]

Mtnprst, just because YOU think a certain way about how things should be done does not mean that every hunter out there has to do things your way. We all think differently about issues and to try to push your ethics down the throats of all hunters is very selfish. Hunt the way you want and let the rest of us hunt according to our own ethics.

 

[DenverCountryBoy]

Our position on Bear baiting is based on Fair Chase. Would you think it okay to bait elk? Why are bear different? Fair Chase is the reason bear baiting is illegal in Montana.

But your point in terms of bear management is well taken, and we've received blowback from biologists about the bear population management, and the fewer bears killed without baiting.

I honestly don't have an answer for this, other than to allow wildlife management to cull bears as necessary for predator control. And I understand how that would be super controversial.

 

[ODB]

Multiple hunting regulations across most states regulate Fair Chase ethics now including wanton waste and destruction regs, follow-up shot , restrictions against laser sites, restrictions against night hunting and the use of artificial lights, restrictions against crossbows during archery seasons in most western states, etc.

Ethics are owned by individuals, not states. You seem to be for tightening laws to regulate behaviour, but if you approach the idea of ethics the correct way, laws are superfluous. Understand, I agree with many of your points, and personally consider some of them even too lenient for my own set of ethics (does this make me “more” ethical than you?), but bandying about laws and restrictions in an effort to force people to change behaviour only begets pushback. My “keep thinking” comment was pointed at this habit of simply calling for more laws, which is the least creative way to drive permanent change.

I will give you credit for pointing out issues with the current trend in hunting orgs and “personality” based hunting shows, etc., but at the same time am wary of your own non-profit endeavours.

 

[Mike7]

Advocate all you want for people to personally agree with your idea of ethics, but before trying to push for actual new regulations that affect others, take just a moment and think about the possible unintended consequences of your actions.

What about this real life scenario. I went with a friend on a high country mule deer hunt. He has hiked 10 miles into a wilderness (an area with mixed open areas and timber pockets) on multiple occasions to scout over a 3 year period. He has taken classes and practiced shooting with his 300 winmag for years and years in many different weather conditions.

So we bust our a$$ hiking in while packing extra water and setting up a bivy camp and separate glassing location away from water based upon his recon, taking the wind, sun, & anticipated animal movement patterns into account. He is after a buck who knows every scent, movement, and shape in that canyon after living there every spring-fall for the last 6 years. After 4 straight days of vigillantly glassing for 12 hours he gets a short window at day break where a buck is just visible between timber patches while heading to bed, and my friend is prepared and makes a one shot kill at 600 yds.

While packing the deer out 10 miles on our backs through the adjoining canyon, we glass across the canyon and watch a group of 5 hunters just dropped off horses by an outfitter earlier that day try what appears to be a type of a deer drive of alpine timber patches. Other than the blazed orange hunters, we only see 2 does and 1 fawn come running out of one timber patch, but hear about 10-15 gun shots. Then, just before leaving we see a 3 point in our binos limping down a creek bed below the slopes where the guys had been hunting.

We ran into one of the hunters on the way out. They were all from Seattle. The shots were apparently from 3 different hunters and were aimed at 2 seemingly legal bucks they glimpsed momentarily at about 100 yds that they had pushed out of the timber. They didn't think that they hit anything though.

I personally think that the first hunting story above with my friend might be the more ethical situation and certainly better for the animals. That hunt was all about preparation, luck, hard work, knowledge, and persistence...and had minimal impact on other animals.

The guys in the second story would never make it hiking in there, had a huge camp right in the middle of the main valley meadow, and couldn't shoot for crap apparently (like me), which wasn't helped by their shooting at moving targets. Still, these guys from Seattle meant well, were really nice guys, and were having a good time.

Should I be pushing for some regulation that these guys be proficient shooters from 400 to 700 yds as needed to effectively hunt this area and that they not be allowed to use an outfitter??

Consider thinking more about unintended consequences and less about feelings when pushing legislation.

 

[Akwoodchuck]

I'm sitting in my living room, a block from the farthest western point you can drive in North America....you don't represent me, Shaul...**** off. Focus on "analyzing Instagram accounts from the non hunter perspective"....then **** off some more....

 

[TheCougar]

Well, although I disagree with Rob on pretty much all of his talking points, give the man some credit for being willing to defend them and not retaliating at the insults being hurled his way on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheCougar]

Rob,

I seem to recall your stance on maximum archery shots was 50 yards. How do you reconcile this range, given that your defense for the 400 yard rifle range is not applicable?

Also, and I mentioned this in my email to you, 99.7% of the US population is a Wyoming Nonresident, yet we fund the bulk of your wildlife management through some of the highest tag fees (I believe WY is now second only to Montana - please fact check that one). Yet your position is that there are too many NR in Wyoming. When will it end? How much should so few people have to pay so the 0.3% can have a better hunting experience? I’m grateful for the 16% that Wyoming allocates to NR, and all states that provide NR an opportunity to hunt game.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe your positions are going to accomplish what you desire, for a few reasons. To name a few: maximum hunting ranges are unenforceable, states should have the foresight to see how slashing their nonresident hunting opportunities will affect their budgets, and an anti-hunter isn’t going to care between a 399 yard shot and a 401 yard shot.

The solution to much of what you propose is self-policing within our community of hunters. If you want to see what self-policing looks like, go read the “MuleyFreak in Trouble” thread to find out how hunters who act unethically are treated around here. I would argue that this thread also is a form of self -policing, not of unethical behavior, but of a representative of the hunting community espousing a set of beliefs that is not shared by anyone other than a very small minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

Rob,

I seem to recall your stance on maximum archery shots was 50 yards. How do you reconcile this range, given that your defense for the 400 yard rifle range is not applicable?

Also, and I mentioned this in my email to you, 99.7% of the US population is a Wyoming Nonresident, yet we fund the bulk of your wildlife management through some of the highest tag fees (I believe WY is now second only to Montana - please fact check that one). Yet your position is that there are too many NR in Wyoming. When will it end? How much should so few people have to pay so the 0.3% can have a better hunting experience? I’m grateful for the 16% that Wyoming allocates to NR, and all states that provide NR an opportunity to hunt game.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe your positions are going to accomplish what you desire, for a few reasons. To name a few: maximum hunting ranges are unenforceable, states should have the foresight to see how slashing their nonresident hunting opportunities will affect their budgets, and an anti-hunter isn’t going to care between a 399 yard shot and a 401 yard shot.

The solution to much of what you propose is self-policing within our community of hunters. If you want to see what self-policing looks like, go read the “MuleyFreak in Trouble” thread to find out how hunters who act unethically are treated around here. I would argue that this thread also is a form of self -policing, not of unethical behavior, but of a representative of the hunting community espousing a set of beliefs that is not shared by anyone other than a very small minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post. I think even more dangerous to hunting than a 401 yard shot is the fact the west is being infiltrated by people from cities who simply don’t care about hunting, and who, when asked on an initiative, will have zero hesitation to restricting hunting. It is simply out of their realm of consideration that people should go kill things with guns or arrows. We can say all we want how ethical we are and they will simply respond, “But it’s MORE ethical not to kill at all.”

 

[KurtR]

When this guy kills a grizzly with wood arrows and a stone point maybe start talking about ethics but till then it is just another hypocrite looking to make money off western hunting

 

[JWP58]

So you're concerned about fair chase but you're cool with your boy Howell posing with a state-of-the-art compound bow, kuiu camo, etc?

Why would you be ok with someone wearing camo clothing specifically designed to undermine the natural defense of an animal? Seems unethical to me, almost an unfair advantage. What about the weaponry your VP is toting? Why would you need such an unfair advantage the modern compound bow provides the user? Heck he is even using a release....more unfairness.

You see how silly and out of hand a holier than thou ethical stance can get? Stick to strength and conditioning, and stop getting bent out of shape when you get out hunted by NR's.

 

[4ester]

I think he has been in Jackson Hole too long and the libtards are starting to rub off on him.

Saw you attended the WRATH rally. I was there supporting hunters, but I think you were on the “anti” side..... please explain? Are you also against the hunting of grizzly bears and wolves?

I agree with others here, Shaul you are not a voice for me. Best to keep your ideas to yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[juan trueno]

I’m good with this. We Need a moratorium on hunting and really all human activity on public land during rut periods and calving periods as well. I’d also like to see a program in place that would reclaim whether by eminent domain or armed occupation or both on any winter range that sees over 600 animal use hours between December and March.

I’d also like to see mixed sex MMA fights and I like the same sex MMA fights to go to the death. But that’s less of a hunting issue I suppose- nevertheless someone needs to be advocating for it

 

[BuzzH]

I favor the biologists managing tag allocations to balance wildlife funding and herd management and opportunity, not hunters dictating tag allocations to benefit themselves and exclude others.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Biologists don't manage tag allocations...the State Legislature does.

I think of all the points that Rob is making, reducing NR tag allocations on some species or license types is a good idea.

When I see MT, ID, NM, OR, NV, AZ, UT, etc. increasing their NR tag allocations to fall in line with Wyoming's generosity, I'll be more inclined to leave the WY allocations where they are. Right now, NR's are getting more than 50% of the pronghorn tags issued in WY, more than 16% of LQ elk tags, 20% of the moose tags, 25% of the sheep tags. That's wayyyyy over what any other state offers to NR's.

A good friend of mine was looking at the WY moose and sheep orders/regulations from 1976. That year, 1976, Wyoming issued over 2,000 moose permits and 390 bighorn sheep tags. This year, Wyoming issued 380 moose licenses and less than 200 sheep licenses. For the record, I drew a moose permit a few years back, and a sheep tag this year...so personally/selfishly I don't care anymore about the allocations. I'll never draw either again no matter what the allocations are, but I do care about younger/new Resident hunters having a better chance to draw tags in the state they reside in, over some old blue-haired NR.

I have no problem sharing with NR hunters, but when things have tightened up to this level, more priority should be given to the Residents. It's well past time to reduce both sheep and moose allocations to NR hunters to 10%...probably high demand elk, deer, and pronghorn as well.

As far as the argument that "NR's fund the bulk of the GF"...people better start getting their facts straight. That's not true, at all. NR's pay more in total license fees, but not more of the over-all GF budget.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/Commission/WGFD_ANNUALREPORT_2016.pdf

 

[twall13]

Biologists don't manage tag allocations...the State Legislature does.

I think of all the points that Rob is making, reducing NR tag allocations on some species or license types is a good idea.

When I see MT, ID, NM, OR, NV, AZ, UT, etc. increasing their NR tag allocations to fall in line with Wyoming's generosity, I'll be more inclined to leave the WY allocations where they are. Right now, NR's are getting more than 50% of the pronghorn tags issued in WY, more than 16% of LQ elk tags, 20% of the moose tags, 25% of the sheep tags. That's wayyyyy over what any other state offers to NR's.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/Commission/WGFD_ANNUALREPORT_2016.pdf

Biologists may not manage tag allocations but, at least in theory, tag numbers are based off biologist recommendations. How those get divided up becomes a numbers game to maximize what they think they can get from demand.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison between States either since Wyoming isn't as densely populated as other states and each state has to do the best they can with the available resources and demand for those resources. Still, I see where you are coming from and admit that, aside from the wilderness area restrictions, Wyoming is generous to nonresidents. I've only hunted there once but as things tighten up in every state I hope to hunt there again in the future.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

And now we know everyone opposed to Shaul's ideals is right. Glad its settled.