Big Bend National Park To Cull Auodads

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

The NM OTC area was supposed to be aerial gunned but the hunter outcry stopped that plan and they changed it to OTC. The number of sheep on that area had remained somewhat constant. The did reintroduce bighorn sheep but they’re somewhat spatially confined to the northern part of the Alamogordo Rim and there have been documented events of aoudad rams defending bighorn ewes from bighorn rams. It doesn’t happen a ton, but it does happen. If the agency wants aoudad gone, aerial gunning is the only way to even have a shot at it and even then you’ll likely have to continue doing it from time to time to prevent repopulation from immigrating sheep.

The number of sheep on that landscape seemed pretty sparse the times I was there (compared to areas that weren't OTC).

Also before going to aerial gunning if they waived the salvage requirement on hunters (just like the gunners) in the NM OTC area the numbers could be knocked back further. In NM when you spot the sheep somewhere you can't retrieve them you can't shoot them.

I am in no way arguing hunters are as effective as helo gunners. But I am arguing hunters can be a lot more effective at knocking down numbers of something if they have less restrictions (quantity and retrieval for example) as the gunners do.

Why pay for gunners versus letting the public hammer on any barbary sheep seen in the gordo cliffs if they want the numbers reduced further? If that proves to be ineffective then circle around on the discussion but the current OTC regulations restrict the effectiveness of the public if eradication is the intention.

 

[elkhunter505]

The number of sheep on that landscape seemed pretty sparse the times I was there (compared to areas that weren't OTC).

Also before going to aerial gunning if they waived the salvage requirement on hunters (just like the gunners) in the NM OTC area the numbers could be knocked back further. In NM when you spot the sheep somewhere you can't retrieve them you can't shoot them.

I am in no way arguing hunters are as effective as helo gunners. But I am arguing hunters can be a lot more effective at knocking down numbers of something if they have less restrictions (quantity and retrieval for example) as the gunners do.

Why pay for gunners versus letting the public hammer on any barbary sheep seen in the gordo cliffs if they want the numbers reduced further? If that proves to be ineffective then circle around on the discussion but the current OTC regulations restrict the effectiveness of the public if eradication is the

I don’t disagree with you completely. The problem is that NM hunters are not supportive of eradication in that area because it is essentially one of the two or three places you can always go to hunt barbary. If they were supportive of it, I’m certain the department would choose aerial gunning first. Allowing hunters open bag with no wanton waste would be a public relations nightmare waiting to happen. Another piece of ammo for anti hunters. The result would be helpful but aerial gunning would definitely be required. Theres also the fact that that tag makes more money than all the draw bighorn sheep tags combined by an order of magnitude. Charging for a tag wouldn’t be feasible in my eyes. That would be a large funding hit which the department would likely not be too happy about. I disagree with doing things for funding in wildlife management but it is a reality in many instances.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I don’t disagree with you completely. The problem is that NM hunters are not supportive of eradication in that area because it is essentially one of the two or three places you can always go to hunt barbary. If they were supportive of it, I’m certain the department would choose aerial gunning first. Allowing hunters open bag with no wanton waste would be a public relations nightmare waiting to happen. Another piece of ammo for anti hunters. The result would be helpful but aerial gunning would definitely be required. Theres also the fact that that tag makes more money than all the draw bighorn sheep tags combined by an order of magnitude. Charging for a tag wouldn’t be feasible in my eyes. That would be a large funding hit which the department would likely not be too happy about. I disagree with doing things for funding in wildlife management but it is a reality in many instances.

It draws folks in from outside that area too, IE I've gone and hunted it in the past personally. Yes its a draw and it makes money so thus I don't want them aerial gunning in there. BUT if they were at the point of wanting to gun I think it would be wise to first let hunters have an open season on it. I don't get why the relations would be any different allowing hunters to waste the sheep versus the gunners to do it, in that specific area for a specific purpose. That's just my thought though.

You are making me want to hunt barbary again sometime soon...

 

[CorbLand]

It draws folks in from outside that area too, IE I've gone and hunted it in the past personally. Yes its a draw and it makes money so thus I don't want them aerial gunning in there. BUT if they were at the point of wanting to gun I think it would be wise to first let hunters have an open season on it. I don't get why the relations would be any different allowing hunters to waste the sheep versus the gunners to do it, in that specific area for a specific purpose. That's just my thought though.

You are making me want to hunt barbary again sometime soon...

As to the public relations part, you have to remember that a fair amount of people that are anti hunting, aren’t the most logical people. They don’t see a dead animal as a dead animal, regardless of how it’s killed. They don’t want you hunting it. They don’t care that the government goes in and shoots it. They just don’t want a hunter doing it.

California kills just as many mountain lions at the tax payer expense as they did when hunters paid to hunt them. The anti hunting people don’t care. They aren’t being hunted. That’s all they care about.

It was the same way in Idaho with wolves. Government contracted trappers and “sharpshooters” were ok. Hunting seasons open, hunters bad.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

As to the public relations part, you have to remember that a fair amount of people that are anti hunting, aren’t the most logical people. They don’t see a dead animal as a dead animal, regardless of how it’s killed. They don’t want you hunting it. They don’t care that the government goes in and shoots it. They just don’t want a hunter doing it.

California kills just as many mountain lions at the tax payer expense as they did when hunters paid to hunt them. The anti hunting people don’t care. They aren’t being hunted. That’s all they care about.

I think its more they don't know/realize the gov is doing it. I think the strong anti-hunters don't want anyone killing them at all, even the gov. The latter just doesn't have seasons and licenses published, etc. to protest.

 

[CorbLand]

I think its more they don't know/realize the gov is doing it. I think the strong anti-hunters don't want anyone killing them at all, even the gov. The latter just doesn't have seasons and licenses published, etc. to protest.

There is definitely an aspect of that but those are definitely on the fringe and not the majority.

I know a few anti hunters and they aren’t the “no animals should be killed” type. They just don’t see the lack of logic between the government paying to kill animals and hunters paying to kill animals. One of them is acceptable and the other is not.

I agree that before shooting them from the air, it should be opened up to hunters. A dead animal is a dead animal regardless of how it was shot but anti hunters will not and do not see it that way.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I know a few anti hunters and they aren’t the “no animals should be killed” type. They just don’t see the lack of logic between the government paying to kill animals and hunters paying to kill animals. One of them is acceptable and the other is not.

Same ones that eat factory farmed meat but think hunting isn't ethical I suppose.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The NPS needs to follow USFW lead. It’s acceptable to do both. Draw hunts and heli culling.

This is exactly what has happened with NWR with nilgai fever tick culling.

Regardless if exotic they are still a public resource and public should be able to utilize the resource, because they will never be exterminated, due to private property rights

Should be a draw hunt every year, and a heli hunt in conjunction at a min every other year, but every year would be ideal

 

[CorbLand]

Same ones that eat factory farmed meat but think hunting isn't ethical I suppose.

Yep. The one I don’t get is people that will eat fish as their meat source looking down anyone that eats red meat. Fish must not have souls or something.