Lobbying Wyoming game and fish negatively affecting non-resident elk hunters

[bsnedeker]

But on the flip side, if half the public was sold in WY and replaced in KS, MN, MO, KY, TN and WI these elk herds could be managed to grow and increase resident opportunities.

Fact is if there was more public land in every state and less in the west, people wouldn’t really be too upset about allocations in the west, if they can hunt most of the same animals in their home state as easily. Be greatfull the rest of the country see’s a need for so much public land in the west that provides amazing outdoor opportunities in the west.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

I try to keep my opinions on things based on the reality that we actually live in, not some hypothetical world where this country was constructed entirely differently than it actually is.

 

[bsnedeker]

Yeah but is it a few hundred animals or thousands? Hard to compare a NR op in a state with only a few hundred animals, if there were only 100 mt goat or bighorns in MT there understandably wouldn’t of ever been a NR op.

I doubt the herd is ever allowed to get big, like here in KS it’s managed to keep a few hundred on the military base and wipe out everything off it, therefore it never grows. Too much development and people, I wish they would try to expand the herd and stop all hunting outside of the military base but the AG business is too loud since it’ll be them feeding the herds not the feds.

Also if MT ever only gave out 20 tags for anything, I’d expect them to 100% go to residents, but I doubt you want to see that few of tags issued even though a few years of that would vastly help the elk herds decimated by wolves, same for mule deer.

What difference does the number of animals make? Think about what you are saying for just 1 second.

Let's say there are 50 elk in MN, and MT has 120,000 elk. You think that MN should be able to delegate their elk tags to residents because it's a "small" number, and you think that MT shouldn't because it's a big number? Ok, that means that you believe that somewhere between 50 and 120,000 there is a specific number of elk where the state should not be allowed to manage their own elk....tell me, where is that number? Also, give me even one tiny bit of logic as to how you arrived at that number. Hint: Don't waste your time, because you have no logical basis for your argument.

Ok, so let's not base it on just pure elk numbers, let's base it on something else. I know you are a big fan of getting rid of public lands, so let's tie that in. Let's throw something about federal land in there...

Hmm....how about acres of public land per elk....ooops, nope, that wouldn't work out very well for you so we better look at something else. Oh, ok, let's look at the amount of federal dollars on public land per elk....nope, that's gonna be bad for you too.

Gee whiz, it's almost like your argument is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in logic or facts at all, and seems entirely based on you being butthurt that you aren't getting the number of tags you want. Could that be possible?

 

[Gutshot007]

I don't know if you guys have heard of the new Federal program ? it's called "Hunters feeding hunters" I guess it starts next year . The Federal government welfare land leases have decided to also legislate additional funding and provide HOT LUNCHES at all trailheads to returning hunters . AOC was quoted as saying "it''s inhumane to expect hunters to eat mountain house freeze dried meals with the high sodium and feet swelling" . Meals will be provided to all race,religions,sex,creed and caliber (even those shooting 6.5 Creedmoor will also be included). Free cheese provided at departure. Sorry no pizza or chocolate milk per Michelle Obama do to the obesity epidemic. Think of it resident and nonresident hunters sharing rice cakes on the mountain.

 

[Gutshot007]

Nutritious and delicious

 

[Wyobohunter]

But on the flip side, if half the public was sold in WY and replaced in KS, MN, MO, KY, TN and WI these elk herds could be managed to grow and increase resident opportunities.

It’s cute that you think that this is realistic. It’s ok to have dreams. Sometimes I dream that the trees in my yard will start to grow money leaves. Let’s both keep our fingers crossed. Until then I’ll have to settle with being “greatfull”.

 

[JakeSCH]

I haven't read any comments past the first page...but if my red state brothers really want to stop californians from moving to your state, I would make it easier to visit once a year and not give motive to move there. Lol

 

[tdhanses]

What difference does the number of animals make? Think about what you are saying for just 1 second.

Let's say there are 50 elk in MN, and MT has 120,000 elk. You think that MN should be able to delegate their elk tags to residents because it's a "small" number, and you think that MT shouldn't because it's a big number? Ok, that means that you believe that somewhere between 50 and 120,000 there is a specific number of elk where the state should not be allowed to manage their own elk....tell me, where is that number? Also, give me even one tiny bit of logic as to how you arrived at that number. Hint: Don't waste your time, because you have no logical basis for your argument.

Ok, so let's not base it on just pure elk numbers, let's base it on something else. I know you are a big fan of getting rid of public lands, so let's tie that in. Let's throw something about federal land in there...

Hmm....how about acres of public land per elk....ooops, nope, that wouldn't work out very well for you so we better look at something else. Oh, ok, let's look at the amount of federal dollars on public land per elk....nope, that's gonna be bad for you too.

Gee whiz, it's almost like your argument is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in logic or facts at all, and seems entirely based on you being butthurt that you aren't getting the number of tags you want. Could that be possible?

Reread what I said, I agreed with a 100% allocation to residents for states that have such a limited amount of tags, sub 20 tags for example. Never once did I say a state doesn’t have a right or what % they should even giv a NR, just pointing out how it’s silly to compare a state like MN with just over 100 elk in the state to one with 120k+ about NR opportunities.

Take the emotion down a level and relax.

 

[tdhanses]

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

I try to keep my opinions on things based on the reality that we actually live in, not some hypothetical world where this country was constructed entirely differently than it actually is.

Reality is none of us know the future of public lands but your right it’s more likely they are sold and not replaced then they would be replaced in other states and the way the country is headed don’t be shocked if this gets traction at some point once the AOC’s of the world realize it’s an easy transition of funds to those more in need then those of us that us them for hobbies, the far right would jump to join in.

 

[Fordguy]

Here we go again...

Federal Land Agency Managers' Frequently Asked Questions About Fish and Wildlife Management on Federal Lands

www.cfc.umt.edu

 

[bsnedeker]

Reread what I said, I agreed with a 100% allocation to residents for states that have such a limited amount of tags, sub 20 tags for example. Never once did I say a state doesn’t have a right or what % they should even giv a NR, just pointing out how it’s silly to compare a state like MN with just over 100 elk in the state to one with 120k+ about NR opportunities.

Take the emotion down a level and relax.

You are the one who needs to reread what you wrote, not me. There is absolutely no logic to any points you have made throughout this entire thread. You have literally advocated for punishing western states based on the number of NR tags they give out.

You think MN should be held to a different standard because of the number of elk in the state... so where's the line dude? What is the specific number of elk that should enable the state to set there own tag allocations without losing federal lands and funding?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Paul_E_Hunter]

I hesitate to even mention but since I open the box..South Dakota has a lot more elk than MN, only open to residents as with their big horn sheep. North Dakota has more moose than MN now and yep only open to residents. As a NR I appreciate the opportunities afforded me to hunt in other states. As discussed above, it is each state's right to manage as they seem fit.

I did know of northern MN herd and I did the math and as a MN resident don't even bother. In fact, there is more than likely to be elk introduced just south of Duluth MN in the next several years. In my lifetime I doubt it will grow to a huntable population.

 

[dirtytough]

I haven't read any comments past the first page...but if my red state brothers really want to stop californians from moving to your state, I would make it easier to visit once a year and not give motive to move there. Lol

Agreed.

 

[RMM]

You are the one who needs to reread what you wrote, not me. There is absolutely no logic to any points you have made throughout this entire thread. You have literally advocated for punishing western states based on the number of NR tags they give out.

You think MN should be held to a different standard because of the number of elk in the state... so where's the line dude? What is the specific number of elk that should enable the state to set there own tag allocations without losing federal lands and funding?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

The difference is, MN didn't sell millions of dollars of preference points and use verbiage like "will guarantee you draw a tag eventually" just to move the goal posts and make it all but impossible to draw a tag.

 

[tdhanses]

You are the one who needs to reread what you wrote, not me. There is absolutely no logic to any points you have made throughout this entire thread. You have literally advocated for punishing western states based on the number of NR tags they give out.

You think MN should be held to a different standard because of the number of elk in the state... so where's the line dude? What is the specific number of elk that should enable the state to set there own tag allocations without losing federal lands and funding?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Tell me how it makes sense to have 90% of public lands where 3% of the population resides, I for one would be for cutting the current public in the west by 50% or more and expanding the public available in the midwest and east coast, there would be just as much opportunity for you to go visit the public lands if they aren’t in the west.

Haha, so you think NR‘s should have an opportunity even if there are only 2 tags?

Hard to say where the line is but would you of moved to MT if the public land was decreased by 50% in MT and MN had 10 million acres more of it with a herd of 50k elk?

It is hilarious to see people defend public lands, yet not see that it would be good for the overall public for those in the west to take a large reduction in these lands and open up more public lands closer to others in the country. Also everyone this affects could easily travel and experience the lands of the Midwest and East. Seems most are pro public as long as it’s to their benefit.

The only reason you say there are no points is because you would prefer the public be in your backyard and not someone elses. As fas as tag allocations go I’ve never said a state doesn‘t have a right to set these but if MT only had 200 tags to give out next year I expect them to all go to residents, there is a line there somewhere, no idea where, probably for most it’s where the reduction hits budgets.

If MT and WY wanted they could go 100% native resident and still most wouldn’t hunt moose, sheep and goat and they could do this without going through political suicide as the majority of hunters are native residents. Same could be done for LE elk and deer really.

 

[bsnedeker]

Tell me how it makes sense to have 90% of public lands where 3% of the population resides, I for one would be for cutting the current public in the west by 50% or more and expanding the public available in the midwest and east coast, there would be just as much opportunity for you to go visit the public lands if they aren’t in the west.

Haha, so you think NR‘s should have an opportunity even if there are only 2 tags?

Hard to say where the line is but would you of moved to MT if the public land was decreased by 50% in MT and MN had 10 million acres more of it with a herd of 50k elk?

It is hilarious to see people defend public lands, yet not see that it would be good for the overall public for those in the west to take a large reduction in these lands and open up more public lands closer to others in the country. Also everyone this affects could easily travel and experience the lands of the Midwest and East. Seems most are pro public as long as it’s to their benefit.

The only reason you say there are no points is because you would prefer the public be in your backyard and not someone elses. As fas as tag allocations go I’ve never said a state doesn‘t have a right to set these but if MT only had 200 tags to give out next year I expect them to all go to residents, there is a line there somewhere, no idea where, probably for most it’s where the reduction hits budgets.

If MT and WY wanted they could go 100% native resident and still most wouldn’t hunt moose, sheep and goat and they could do this without going through political suicide as the majority of hunters are native residents. Same could be done for LE elk and deer really.

Where's the line? Or would you like to just admit that you are a hypocrite?

Minnesota has a ton of public land, by the way.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[bsnedeker]

The difference is, MN didn't sell millions of dollars of preference points and use verbiage like "will guarantee you draw a tag eventually" just to move the goal posts and make it all but impossible to draw a tag.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that they guaranteed a tag.

I'll wait.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Where's the line? Or would you like to just admit that you are a hypocrite?

Minnesota has a ton of public land, by the way.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Does it have 20 million acres?

Ok I‘m fine if you call me a hypocrite if you can’t understand the difference in having 100 elk in a state vs 120k and a state having the right to set who gets what, I may not like the choices states make but I’ve never once said it isn’t their right but I also know logic doesn’t apply the same to every situation.

 

[tdhanses]

Please show me any evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that they guaranteed a tag.

I'll wait.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Haha, copying Buzz now? In WY it was marketed that way for many years, not sure if you ever applied there or not, they have since changed the language on their website.

 

[bsnedeker]

Does it have 20 million acres?

Ok I‘m fine if you call me a hypocrite if you can’t understand the difference in having 100 elk in a state vs 120k and a state having the right to set who gets what.

Lol.... you can't even remotely justify your position so your response to me is just "if you don't get it I can't explain it." Pathetic.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[bsnedeker]

Haha, copying Buzz now? In WY it was marketed that way for many years, not sure if you ever applied there or not, they have since changed the language on their website.

Show me. If it was marketed that way for years should be easy to provide proof. nothing is ever deleted off the internet.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk