De-publicize, De-glorify and De-monetize Western State Hunting

[rwc101]

Can’t argue that point.

I am open to all reasonable suggestions on things that I can do to help grow the herds and expand public land access everywhere.

Bring a ski mask and a bolt cutter and we'll open up some migration corridors. I'll bring the beer.

 

[mtnprst]

I think there is a distinction to be made between fighting for a bigger, more healthy resource as a whole and fighting for a bigger share of the resource for oneself.

I feel like I know which category the OP fits in.

Makes me see that I need to make sure I never slip into the latter category.

We've seen first hand the effectiveness the environmental organizations have had in using litigation to fight for wildlife species and other conservation issues. This is an approach we've already deployed by filing a lawsuit vs. the USFS over MTB and ORV use in wilderness study areas which was negatively impacting big game and we're preparing similar litigation for other issues - including migration corridor protection for deer and antelope.

Our approach is different than the traditional non-confrontational hunting nonprofit in this.

One complicating factor is that many of the wildlife issues we're concerned about - migration corridors - for example, are handled at the state level, and while there is plenty of previous litigation we can model for federal lawsuits, we're finding squat at the state level - so we'll get out front and likely get bloodied up a little as we learn the ropes.

We recently sued the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission over giving Commissioner Tags to the Wyoming Outfitter & Guides Association, which is indirectly related to wildlife (bigger story).

Our response to Wyoming's non-designation of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer and Sublette Antelope Herd migration corridors was much different than the passive response from the established hunting groups. I'd post a link here but Big Fin says I can't do that.

We are actively researching litigation over these migration corridors as well as potentially suing a local government over a ski area expansion in Wyoming and it's impact on winter range.

Some of the recent comments in this thread on rapidly declining bighorn sheep and moose numbers in Wyoming and the west are spot on. We took a look just on how this decrease in herd populations impacted hunting opportunity for moose.

In 1998, Wyoming allocated 1,032 resident moose tags.
In 2018, Wyoming allocated just 248 resident moose tags - a decrease of 76% - all because of population decline.

On the western side of the state, Mule deer populations are 25% below objective, and the antelope population are below objective also. We've written about this and how the environmental movement, with all it's money, is focused on bears and wolves (both above population objectives) while ungulates wither. But again, I can't post the link.

 

[jt13]

I think we also need to look at other states growing their herds of elk. If PA can support 1.5 million deer, seems plausible they could lose 300k deer and grow a herd of 150k elk.

RMEF has said in the past there are issues with landowner tolerance. Welcome to the club, so PA hunters now that you are stoked on elk from hunting in WY take that and work to get elk on private at home.

I think the east could easily support a larger elk herd then the rockies.

I'm not the elk biologist but the reasoning I've been told is mostly related to agricultural damage concerns. There's a reason our 1,500 +/- elk are where they are, it's that it's the most unpopulated and remote area of the state. The herd is growing but slowly. Farmers here are legally allowed to kill every single deer or elk that sets foot in a standing crop field. Day or night. No seasons. No limits.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

According to Penn State University, PA has about 1.5MM whitetails living on about 44,742.70 sq. miles (total land mass of PA).

PA has about 500,000 more hunters than the entire population of WY all using about 12,500 sq miles of land open to the public as compared to WY with 48,620 sq. miles of public land - now that brings it into perspective

Fewer Deer, Fewer Hunters

www.pgc.pa.gov

http://

Don't worry, it's coming. Elk only in national parks and some national forest land. Suburban deer and turkeys. Housing division on housing division on housing division. It pains me to think of what will happen to the American landscape during my lifetime. That's why I'm working so hard toward getting to hunt elk and antelope and anything else out there I possibly can right now.

Thats also why I think the OP is pointless. Hunters have no control over the things that will actually kill what we love. Time waits for nobody and people have to live somewhere and eat something.

I think that people will protect what you love. If you want to protect the heritage of hunting, having hunting land and the access to public land you just need to band together.

Here is the thing, The East, Mid West and West Coast has been overdeveloped in terms of use of resources and green space. It's not right or wrong, it just is. When it was being developed we were a 3rd world country and didn't have a lot of regulations as to the use. For example, Maryland is a small State in terms of area (9,700 sq. miles), and population (6MM ), that only has about 4% of it's land mass as public land and much of that is marsh that couldn't be built on. There WERE elk in MD when my ancestors settled on Delmarva in the 1620s from the Hampton Roads VA area, but we ate them during unregulated hunting. Same with bears. It's one of the oldest populated areas in North America and has seen lots of changes to land use and is now its a beautiful suburb after suburb. My wife loves some of the old fishing towns in DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, NH, MA & ME. She really likes the shadow of the heritage of life gone past but not necessarily the grit that got it there. Anyone who has lived in a once ruff and tumble town that has been gentrified, then you will know what I mean.

New Jersey is a small state with about 1,700 people per sq. mile. I believe about 15% of the land is public land (most owned by the State). That may sound like a reasonable amount but the land mass is only 7,300 sq. miles housing about 8.8MM people. The types of public land use in NJ is varied and honestly hunters get the most competition from the non-hunters using the same space for a lot of other things (weird things). Given all this, the government has to accommodate everyone but the majority of folks are not hunters. Anti hunting and anti guns are ramped is such a populous state. You all may have seen the bear hunt issue in NJ. The politicians are wearing this ban as a badge of honor to all those other public interest groups. They couldn't technically outlaw bear hunting without a vote, so the Gov just outlawed it on State owned lands. Given the land situation, that's the same as outlawing bear hunting.

The Western mountain States are going to change as new populations move in but you can guide the development of the land and land use arrangements that will benefit everyone in the State. You have the benefit of not being over developed with lots of public land, so you can design what your future looks like.

 

[rwc101]

You can kill an elk and (legally) punch your deer tag if a elk steps outside of Buchanan County in Virginia yet expanding elk range is a non-issue in VA.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Water is the limiting factor, there just isn't the biomass in the west. So you will never have east coast numbers.

Goats probably not going to get a ton more of them.

Sheep could go up a chit load.

Elk/Deer depends on private landowner tolerance, not sure what carrying capacity actually is, a lot of trophy units are areas that don't support huge numbers, so you will never have 2000 permits in unit 10 in CO. But in general I bet a lot more, it's crazy CO has way more elk than Montana.

Bison... can of worms...


I think we also need to look at other states growing their herds of elk. If PA can support 1.5 million deer, seems plausible they could lose 300k deer and grow a herd of 150k elk.

RMEF has said in the past there are issues with landowner tolerance. Welcome to the club, so PA hunters now that you are stoked on elk from hunting in WY take that and work to get elk on private at home.

I think the east could easily support a larger elk herd then the rockies.

I think that the question is about tolerance and space. PA has water but doesn't have the land mass that WY does (about half), and the vast majority of that is private. They would be happy to let the Elk take over from deer but they do tend to migrate more than deer do and eat somewhat different things. People would have to tolerate Elk chewing up their 1/4 acre lots and farm fields designed to feed 12MM people.

 

[np307]

http://

I think that people will protect what you love. If you want to protect the heritage of hunting, having hunting land and the access to public land you just need to band together.

Here is the thing, The East, Mid West and West Coast has been overdeveloped in terms of use of resources and green space. It's not right or wrong, it just is. When it was being developed we were a 3rd world country and didn't have a lot of regulations as to the use. For example, Maryland is a small State in terms of area (9,700 sq. miles), and population (6MM ), that only has about 4% of it's land mass as public land and much of that is marsh that couldn't be built on. There WERE elk in MD when my ancestors settled on Delmarva in the 1620s from the Hampton Roads VA area, but we ate them during unregulated hunting. Same with bears. It's one of the oldest populated areas in North America and has seen lots of changes to land use and is now its a beautiful suburb after suburb. My wife loves some of the old fishing towns in DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, NH, MA & ME. She really likes the shadow of the heritage of life gone past but not necessarily the grit that got it there. Anyone who has lived in a once ruff and tumble town that has been gentrified, then you will know what I mean.

New Jersey is a small state with about 1,700 people per sq. mile. I believe about 15% of the land is public land (most owned by the State). That may sound like a reasonable amount but the land mass is only 7,300 sq. miles housing about 8.8MM people. The types of public land use in NJ is varied and honestly hunters get the most competition from the non-hunters using the same space for a lot of other things (weird things). Given all this, the government has to accommodate everyone but the majority of folks are not hunters. Anti hunting and anti guns are ramped is such a populous state. You all may have seen the bear hunt issue in NJ. The politicians are wearing this ban as a badge of honor to all those other public interest groups. They couldn't technically outlaw bear hunting without a vote, so the Gov just outlawed it on State owned lands. Given the land situation, that's the same as outlawing bear hunting.

The Western mountain States are going to change as new populations move in but you can guide the development of the land and land use arrangements that will benefit everyone in the State. You have the benefit of not being over developed with lots of public land, so you can design what your future looks like.

Don't look to New England to see what I'm talking about. Come to the Southeast. Money talks. All the good ol' boys who complain about lease prices and have hunting pride sold out of daddy's land. Game lands are getting crowded out by dog walkers who don't like the idea that they share the woods with people who have guns so they lobby to close it down because its "too dangerous". In some cases they are right. Housing developments backing up to national forest land. Major cities within an hour.

We can stall as long as possible and I think we should. We should fight tooth and nail to hold onto as much wild land as possible. But it won't matter in the long run. My son will not have the same opportunities I have to enjoy all of this. Read about Boone's time in the Yadkin Valley and I'll show you what it looks like now. Read the prelude to Faulkner's Big Woods. Read The Old Man and the Boy, set 100 years ago, and come to NC and I'll show you how quickly things change.

The dirty little secret? It all happened with the consent of people who loved it and wanted it to stay. But in the end, what I said earlier remains true. People have to live somewhere and people have to eat something. So the family farm gets sold to the big hog farmers or the timber company or whoever else and the kids get a job in tech because that pays the bills. And 30 years later those times outdoors are a fond memory of a world that doesn't exist anymore. Every time I chase deer or turkeys or trout I look at the places I'm hunting and fishing and think to myself "these will be the places I tell my grandkids what they used to look like."

Maybe I'm a pessimist. I hope I am wrong.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I get it, but I don't think there is even a real effort amongst most NR hunters to "grow the herd." People throw some money at BHA and RMEF for sure, but the complaints only come in when NR opportunities get reduced.

What makes most sense to me, and may be the point of this whole thread, is for resident hunters to do everything they can to grow the herds in their home state, then share some of the fruits of their labor with NRs. I’m actively involved in that here in Oregon, but in other states, not so much. On big stuff I’ll write emails and make phone calls, but I’m only aware of those issues because of residents sharing info about them. But as far as the day-to-day stuff goes, like was said earlier in this thread—too many irons in the fire.

You take care of yours, I’ll take care of mine, and we’ll share a little. (And yes, I realize the irony and ridiculousness of that statement with you being in Wyoming and me being in Oregon. Lots of work to do here to make that less ridiculous, starting with the upcoming mule deer plan.)

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Don't look to New England to see what I'm talking about. Come to the Southeast. Money talks. All the good ol' boys who complain about lease prices and have hunting pride sold out of daddy's land. Game lands are getting crowded out by dog walkers who don't like the idea that they share the woods with people who have guns so they lobby to close it down because its "too dangerous". In some cases they are right. Housing developments backing up to national forest land. Major cities within an hour.

We can stall as long as possible and I think we should. We should fight tooth and nail to hold onto as much wild land as possible. But it won't matter in the long run. My son will not have the same opportunities I have to enjoy all of this. Read about Boone's time in the Yadkin Valley and I'll show you what it looks like now. Read the prelude to Faulkner's Big Woods. Read The Old Man and the Boy, set 100 years ago, and come to NC and I'll show you how quickly things change.

The dirty little secret? It all happened with the consent of people who loved it and wanted it to stay. But in the end, what I said earlier remains true. People have to live somewhere and people have to eat something. So the family farm gets sold to the big hog farmers or the timber company or whoever else and the kids get a job in tech because that pays the bills. And 30 years later those times outdoors are a fond memory of a world that doesn't exist anymore. Every time I chase deer or turkeys or trout I look at the places I'm hunting and fishing and think to myself "these will be the places I tell my grandkids what they used to look like."

Maybe I'm a pessimist. I hope I am wrong.

Your depressing me man.

 

[Shangobango]

We've seen first hand the effectiveness the environmental organizations have had in using litigation to fight for wildlife species and other conservation issues. This is an approach we've already deployed by filing a lawsuit vs. the USFS over MTB and ORV use in wilderness study areas which was negatively impacting big game and we're preparing similar litigation for other issues - including migration corridor protection for deer and antelope.

Our approach is different than the traditional non-confrontational hunting nonprofit in this.

One complicating factor is that many of the wildlife issues we're concerned about - migration corridors - for example, are handled at the state level, and while there is plenty of previous litigation we can model for federal lawsuits, we're finding squat at the state level - so we'll get out front and likely get bloodied up a little as we learn the ropes.

We recently sued the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission over giving Commissioner Tags to the Wyoming Outfitter & Guides Association, which is indirectly related to wildlife (bigger story).

Our response to Wyoming's non-designation of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer and Sublette Antelope Herd migration corridors was much different than the passive response from the established hunting groups. I'd post a link here but Big Fin says I can't do that.

We are actively researching litigation over these migration corridors as well as potentially suing a local government over a ski area expansion in Wyoming and it's impact on winter range.

Some of the recent comments in this thread on rapidly declining bighorn sheep and moose numbers in Wyoming and the west are spot on. We took a look just on how this decrease in herd populations impacted hunting opportunity for moose.

In 1998, Wyoming allocated 1,032 resident moose tags.
In 2018, Wyoming allocated just 248 resident moose tags - a decrease of 76% - all because of population decline.

On the western side of the state, Mule deer populations are 25% below objective, and the antelope population are below objective also. We've written about this and how the environmental movement, with all it's money, is focused on bears and wolves (both above population objectives) while ungulates wither. But again, I can't post the link.

I don’t want you to misunderstand and think that I disagree with all your activities and positions. In the time I took to research, we share some common ground.

I guess I fail to see how advocating for a 90/10 spilt vs. 80/20 split in tag allocation creates a bigger pie vs. giving residents a bigger slice of the same pie.

Once again, residents should have better opportunity in their State than non-tesidemts I am not arguing that point. The flip side of that is that when non residents buy tags at non resident prices they are throwing a lot of monetary support toward whichever State the are buying tags in. Discounting that contribution seems a bit silly to me.

But hey, what do I know? I am just a guy who likes to hunt in and enjoy new landscapes that is willing to pay through the nose to do it.

 

[Shangobango]

Bring a ski mask and a bolt cutter and we'll open up some migration corridors. I'll bring the beer.

Sounds like a date!

I’ll bring bail money lol.

 

[np307]

Your depressing me man.

Sometimes it gets pretty heavy. Thats why I try to take advantage of every single chance I have to be out there.

 

[rwc101]

What makes most sense to me, and may be the point of this whole thread, is for resident hunters to do everything they can to grow the herds in their home state, then share some of the fruits of their labor with NRs. I’m actively involved in that here in Oregon, but in other states, not so much. On big stuff I’ll write emails and make phone calls, but I’m only aware of those issues because of residents sharing info about them. But as far as the day-to-day stuff goes, like was said earlier in this thread—too many irons in the fire.

You take care of yours, I’ll take care of mine, and we’ll share a little. (And yes, I realize the irony and ridiculousness of that statement with you being in Wyoming and me being in Oregon. Lots of work to do here to make that less ridiculous, starting with the upcoming mule deer plan.)

Totally agree. I don't really expect someone in Georgia to dedicate their lives to Wyoming's ungulate populations. It's not easy to fight the energy industry, disrupted migration patterns, and a terrible legislature, so bear with us.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

I agree with demonetizing wildlife. We should start with lowering the non-resident tag pricing. The hunting companies aren't to blame, the wildlife management departments, people who blame everything on out of state-eers and politicians are.

When I grew up wild game meat was for poor folk and you would be embarrassed to tell people in school that that's what you ate. Buying meat and veggies at a grocery store was a status symbol. I grew up in the East Coast, lived all over but always dreamt of hunting Elk, Moose, Sheep and for what ever reason Mountain Goats. Guess I read all the same stuff everyone else did. When I was in my 20s I was in sticker shock for big game tags and refused to buy the corrupt western state big game tag for years. Now, I can barely afford to hunt!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think that the question is about tolerance and space. PA has water but doesn't have the land mass that WY does (about half), and the vast majority of that is private. They would be happy to let the Elk take over from deer but they do tend to migrate more than deer do and eat somewhat different things. People would have to tolerate Elk chewing up their 1/4 acre lots and farm fields designed to feed 12MM people.

It’s the same. Land status doesn’t matter, it’s the same thing as MT people don’t tolerate wildlife. To act otherwise is ridiculous, the reason there aren’t 100k elk in PA is the same reason there aren’t 300k in Montana. Can’t look at me with a straight face and tell me Montana doesn’t have a lot of agg.

 

[mtnprst]

I don’t want you to misunderstand and think that I disagree with all your activities and positions. In the time I took to research, we share some common ground.

I guess I fail to see how advocating for a 90/10 spilt vs. 80/20 split in tag allocation creates a bigger pie vs. giving residents a bigger slice of the same pie.

Once again, residents should have better opportunity in their State than non-tesidemts I am not arguing that point. The flip side of that is that when non residents buy tags at non resident prices they are throwing a lot of monetary support toward whichever State the are buying tags in. Discounting that contribution seems a bit silly to me.

But hey, what do I know? I am just a guy who likes to hunt in and enjoy new landscapes that is willing to pay through the nose to do it.

90/10 doesn't create a bigger pie by itself.

It gives residents a bigger slice of the same pie - specific to Wyoming, around 3,600 limited quota tags across all species, per year, based on 2019 numbers/populations - including 30+ bighorn sheep tags. Right now it takes 19+ years to draw a bighorn sheep tag even as a resident in Wyoming.

Does this 30 extra tags greatly increase any one person's odds of drawing? No .... but at least these 30 tags are going to people from Casper, Lusk, Big Piney, Sheridan, Cody, Lander, Laramie, Greybull .... etc., - someone who suffers through the long winters in Wyoming, low wages, etc. A simple truth about Wyoming is that everyone who lives here - except real estate agents in Jackson and those in the minerals industry - can make more money living somewhere else. So why do we stay? - for family and the outdoors - including hunting.

Understand I don't have any basic animosity toward NR hunters in terms of tag allocation - though it might seem that way. But in Wyoming we look around at neighboring states and wonder why those states treat their resident hunters better than Wyoming treats us. Our fight isn't with NR hunters, it's with the outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry within Wyoming.

It's pretty simple - If I have a choice between giving a once-in-a-lifetime sheep tag to someone from Sundance who's made a life in Wyoming, or someone from Dallas who hasn't - I'm going Sundance all the way.

Here's a local perspective - specific to Newberg and Rinella - both are recent move-ins to the west from Michigan, and the first thing they do is glorify, glamorize, publicize and then monetize western-state hunting. Hunter numbers are up - not only from NR hunters, but also resident hunters.

This benefits the hunting industry - but does it benefit hunters? It's harder to draw tags, trailheads are crowded, and social media is flooded with dead animal photos and kill shots - every upload turning non hunters against us and threatening the future of hunting.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

90/10 doesn't create a bigger pie by itself.

It gives residents a bigger slice of the same pie - specific to Wyoming, around 3,600 limited quota tags across all species, per year, based on 2019 numbers/populations - including 30+ bighorn sheep tags. Right now it takes 19+ years to draw a bighorn sheep tag even as a resident in Wyoming.

Does this 30 extra tags greatly increase any one person's odds of drawing? No .... but at least these 30 tags are going to people from Casper, Lusk, Big Piney, Sheridan, Cody, Lander, Laramie, Greybull .... etc., - someone who suffers through the long winters in Wyoming, low wages, etc. A simple truth about Wyoming is that everyone who lives here - except real estate agents in Jackson and those in the minerals industry - can make more money living somewhere else. So why do we stay? - for family and the outdoors - including hunting.

Understand I don't have any basic animosity toward NR hunters in terms of tag allocation - though it might seem that way. But in Wyoming we look around at neighboring states and wonder why those states treat their resident hunters better than Wyoming treats us. Our fight isn't with NR hunters, it's with the outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry within Wyoming.

It's pretty simple - If I have a choice between giving a once-in-a-lifetime sheep tag to someone from Sundance who's made a life in Wyoming, or someone from Dallas who hasn't - I'm going Sundance all the way.

Here's a local perspective - specific to Newberg and Rinella - both are recent move-ins to the west from Michigan, and the first thing they do is glorify, glamorize, publicize and then monetize western-state hunting. Hunter numbers are up - not only from NR hunters, but also resident hunters.

This benefits the hunting industry - but does it benefit hunters? It's harder to draw tags, trailheads are crowded, and social media is flooded with dead animal photos and kill shots - every upload turning non hunters against us and threatening the future of hunting.

I watched a bunch of Colorado meetings this year. Every state reference each other, WY will lower their allocation this year, next year CO will do the same citing WY, then MT will jump in and say guided only, then NM guides will get the ball.

Things will settle out for a bit, 5 years people will forget this went down.

Rob won’t have drawn his sheep tag and he will tell a tale of a Sundance kid and start his 98/2 campaign.

Give me a break.

 

[Shangobango]

90/10 doesn't create a bigger pie by itself.

It gives residents a bigger slice of the same pie - specific to Wyoming, around 3,600 limited quota tags across all species, per year, based on 2019 numbers/populations - including 30+ bighorn sheep tags. Right now it takes 19+ years to draw a bighorn sheep tag even as a resident in Wyoming.

Does this 30 extra tags greatly increase any one person's odds of drawing? No .... but at least these 30 tags are going to people from Casper, Lusk, Big Piney, Sheridan, Cody, Lander, Laramie, Greybull .... etc., - someone who suffers through the long winters in Wyoming, low wages, etc. A simple truth about Wyoming is that everyone who lives here - except real estate agents in Jackson and those in the minerals industry - can make more money living somewhere else. So why do we stay? - for family and the outdoors - including hunting.

Understand I don't have any basic animosity toward NR hunters in terms of tag allocation - though it might seem that way. But in Wyoming we look around at neighboring states and wonder why those states treat their resident hunters better than Wyoming treats us. Our fight isn't with NR hunters, it's with the outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry within Wyoming.

It's pretty simple - If I have a choice between giving a once-in-a-lifetime sheep tag to someone from Sundance who's made a life in Wyoming, or someone from Dallas who hasn't - I'm going Sundance all the way.

Here's a local perspective - specific to Newberg and Rinella - both are recent move-ins to the west from Michigan, and the first thing they do is glorify, glamorize, publicize and then monetize western-state hunting. Hunter numbers are up - not only from NR hunters, but also resident hunters.

This benefits the hunting industry - but does it benefit hunters? It's harder to draw tags, trailheads are crowded, and social media is flooded with dead animal photos and kill shots - every upload turning non hunters against us and threatening the future of hunting.

I think that you are putting too much weight on the affect of hunting media and too little weight on the affect of migration into the west. I would wager that the vast majority of people moving out there aren’t moving out there because of Fresh Tracks and Meateater or even with hunting as a major consideration.

I think that western States, no most States period, have a resident hunter problem not a non-resident hunter problem.

Which States have seen a rise in non-resident allocations in the last decade?

 

[jt13]

Here's a local perspective - specific to Newberg and Rinella - both are recent move-ins to the west from Michigan, and the first thing they do is glorify, glamorize, publicize and then monetize western-state hunting. Hunter numbers are up - not only from NR hunters, but also resident hunters.

This benefits the hunting industry - but does it benefit hunters? It's harder to draw tags, trailheads are crowded, and social media is flooded with dead animal photos and kill shots - every upload turning non hunters against us and threatening the future of hunting.

@Big Fin has been in Montana for over 30 years and he's not from Michigan either.

@mtnprst you're doing a great job making yourself look bad, keep it up

DDD is a pipe dream.

 

[Desk Pop]

90/10 doesn't create a bigger pie by itself.

It gives residents a bigger slice of the same pie - specific to Wyoming, around 3,600 limited quota tags across all species, per year, based on 2019 numbers/populations - including 30+ bighorn sheep tags. Right now it takes 19+ years to draw a bighorn sheep tag even as a resident in Wyoming.

Does this 30 extra tags greatly increase any one person's odds of drawing? No .... but at least these 30 tags are going to people from Casper, Lusk, Big Piney, Sheridan, Cody, Lander, Laramie, Greybull .... etc., - someone who suffers through the long winters in Wyoming, low wages, etc. A simple truth about Wyoming is that everyone who lives here - except real estate agents in Jackson and those in the minerals industry - can make more money living somewhere else. So why do we stay? - for family and the outdoors - including hunting.

Understand I don't have any basic animosity toward NR hunters in terms of tag allocation - though it might seem that way. But in Wyoming we look around at neighboring states and wonder why those states treat their resident hunters better than Wyoming treats us. Our fight isn't with NR hunters, it's with the outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry within Wyoming.

It's pretty simple - If I have a choice between giving a once-in-a-lifetime sheep tag to someone from Sundance who's made a life in Wyoming, or someone from Dallas who hasn't - I'm going Sundance all the way.

Here's a local perspective - specific to Newberg and Rinella - both are recent move-ins to the west from Michigan, and the first thing they do is glorify, glamorize, publicize and then monetize western-state hunting. Hunter numbers are up - not only from NR hunters, but also resident hunters.

This benefits the hunting industry - but does it benefit hunters? It's harder to draw tags, trailheads are crowded, and social media is flooded with dead animal photos and kill shots - every upload turning non hunters against us and threatening the future of hunting.

Dude. We get it. You want more tags.

And every hunter living outside of Wyoming who hunts there would like to be able to hunt the wilderness federal public land we all own.

At first I thought you had like 19 different causes and double that of things you are against, but after reading this it is clear it boils down to you wanting NR to have less so you can have more...and you pretty much hate everybody who has ever taken a photo with a dead animal.

I personally think hunters who cannot stop posting pictures of themselves lifting weights are a bigger problem than the guys who post tasteful kill shots that honor the hunt and the game.

And you openly detest the guy whose forum you use to peddle this stuff.