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

[mtnprst]

"A little more understanding" .... there's a reason the beef, poultry and pork industries don't post videos of how they kill cows, chickens and pigs, and then carve them up. It would be political and financial suicide.

The animal rights activists have to sneak in with undercover cameras to get the media for their marketing. But the hunting industry readily films the killing and gore and hands it over to the anti-hunters ready to edit for anti-hunting ads.

Solutions?
- DDD - this might reduce the media being used to end hunting, and de-glorification might help with hunting pressure. Overall - my sense is hunters need to hunker up and quiet down. Understand that much of this media is marketing aimed at monetization via product sales, subscriptions, "likes", etc. The backlash is building and I've already seen some hunting industry manufacturers begin to pivot.
- Use litigation/legislation to fight for wildlife.
- Fight for resident hunter preference

Understand that the last two are inter-state fights. Our fight for 90/10 in Wyoming (like Montana has already) is with the Wyoming outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry and the issue is money.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I believe it’s the Commission rather than WOGA. Looks like he has a strong case.

You’re right yes.

 

[jt13]

"A little more understanding" .... there's a reason the beef, poultry and pork industries don't post videos of how they kill cows, chickens and pigs, and then carve them up. It would be political and financial suicide.

The animal rights activists have to sneak in with undercover cameras to get the media for their marketing. But the hunting industry readily films the killing and gore and hands it over to the anti-hunters ready to edit for anti-hunting ads.

Pay no mind to the severed elk head your vice president is showing off....

 

[D_Walt]

“and an established network of G&F Commissioners, stockgrowers/ranchers, Outfitters, established hunting nonprofits, politicians and hunting industry who don't see the bigger concern and are benefiting financially from the current one”

so all the groups mentioned above are part of the problem and you and your group are more knowledgeable and have the resources to be better able to deal with the issues at hand? I can certainly understand some of your positions but it seems like you are going out of your way to pick a fight with groups you would be better off to win over than make enemies of. I do admire your passion, just not sure I agree with your direction.

 

[Wildabeest]

"A little more understanding" .... there's a reason the beef, poultry and pork industries don't post videos of how they kill cows, chickens and pigs, and then carve them up. It would be political and financial suicide.

The animal rights activists have to sneak in with undercover cameras to get the media for their marketing. But the hunting industry readily films the killing and gore and hands it over to the anti-hunters ready to edit for anti-hunting ads.

Solutions?
- DDD - this might reduce the media being used to end hunting, and de-glorification might help with hunting pressure. Overall - my sense is hunters need to hunker up and quiet down. Understand that much of this media is marketing aimed at monetization via product sales, subscriptions, "likes", etc. The backlash is building and I've already seen some hunting industry manufacturers begin to pivot.
- Use litigation/legislation to fight for wildlife.
- Fight for resident hunter preference

Understand that the last two are inter-state fights. Our fight for 90/10 in Wyoming (like Montana has already) is with the Wyoming outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry and the issue is money.

I appreciate the passion and dedication you obviously have for your cause, but you’re going to need to come up with more viable solutions. Simply screaming from the rooftops that it’s bad won’t fix anything. Money is a powerful influence and that’s not going to change. If there’s money to be made on something, then people will exploit it. There are areas of common ground where we can fight aspects of this such as outfitter welfare, science based game management, etc. But you need to get off your self-righteous high horse and realize how to build bridges and coalitions on common ground vs. coming onto a site and attacking its founding principles. If not, your cause will die on a lonely island.

 

[mtnprst]

“and an established network of G&F Commissioners, stockgrowers/ranchers, Outfitters, established hunting nonprofits, politicians and hunting industry who don't see the bigger concern and are benefiting financially from the current one”

so all the groups mentioned above are part of the problem and you and your group are more knowledgeable and have the resources to be better able to deal with the issues at hand? I can certainly understand some of your positions but it seems like you are going out of your way to pick a fight with groups you would be better off to win over than make enemies of. I do admire your passion, just not sure I agree with your direction.

An interesting example are the other hunting non-profit groups. This is specific to Wyoming, but in Wyoming, every G&F Commissioner each year, by state statute, gets 8 limited quota deer, antelope or elk tags to donate to a "nonprofit charitable organization" of his her/choice. The nonprofits then raffle or auction off the tags as fundraisers. Elk tags are the most valuable, and bring in $18k to $50k apiece.

Overall, hunting/sportsman nonprofits get the most tags - Wyoming Wildlife Federation, RMEF, Trout Unlimited, Muley Fanatics, Wild Sheep Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, BHA, etc.

On the surface this would seem appropriate, but what it also does is limit any criticism these nonprofits would bring to the Commission. For example, over the past 3 years, Muley Fanatics has received over 25 donated Commissioner Tags ... which at $20K/each, conservatively, means $500,000 in funding. MFF and the other hunting nonprofits have a direct, financial interest, in not criticizing the G&F Commissioners responsible for all this organizational funding.

Issue with the Outfitters is on 90/10 allocation. We agree with their lawsuit over keeping feed grounds open.

Stockgrowers also have a financial interest in keeping as many tags available for NRs as possible - as they lease hunting rights to outfitters - or are outfitters themselves. But the Stockgrowers also opposed designation of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer and Sublette Antelope Herd migration corridors.

Direction/Tactics - we started nice - reached out repeatedly to the outfitters and stockgrowers on on 90/10, published social media guidelines for the hunting industry, published a report on Commissioner tags, etc. Didn't work. Now we're in the fight.

 

[Wildabeest]

Understand that the last two are inter-state fights. Our fight for 90/10 in Wyoming (like Montana has already) is with the Wyoming outfitters, stockgrowers and lodging industry and the issue is money.

So what, then, is your solution to funding wildlife management? Majority of that is paid for with exhorbitant NR fees. I see both sides of that card, as an R in my home state (currently WY, previously UT) while also hunting other states as NR. I support state’s right to dictate their allocations and costs, and support WY’s proposed 10% allocation despite whether I’m a resident or not. However these shifts to more resident preference are simply not viable unless the residents (myself included) are willing to no longer be subsidized by the NR. That’s a tough political hill to climb. I think you need to balance your idealism with a little pragmatism, and again, look to build coalitions vs. simply picking fights you can’t win.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm sorry sir, missed the logo rule .... thought it better to right up front with my association of Mountain Pursuit as founder - I'm not hiding anything. Changed now.

I certainly understand it's your website. It's up to you if you allow a true free exchange of ideas or want an echo chamber. Financially, your best decision would be to ban me/us.

This forum isn't operated based on improving my finances. If so, it would have been folded up around 2010, the year after I took it over from the prior owner who got tired of the money pit. It has only become even more of a cash drain since them.

I always welcome a free exchange of ideas. Follow the rules and exchange as you wish. Don't follow the rules and you get asked to leave.

Implied threats that you are here to make my life difficult and financially impair my operations hardly come across as much of an exchange of ideas.

Promoting other platforms? Not sure what this means, but in a nutshell......

Here's what it means, in a nutshell......

Your organization is a platform you use to advocate for your beliefs and carryout your mission. Using this forum, to promote your organization/platform is against the Terms of Service. Not sure how many times I have to point that out to you.

You're smart. You know there's a problem.

Yeah, there are lots of problems in this world. I'm not smart enough to know how to fix them. I'll just keep trying to do what I can to make a difference in my little part of the world and leave the heavy lifting to those self-righteous souls who know every perspective, understand every motivation, and have every solution.

If you want to make your point that I'm the downfall of American hunting knock yourself out. The odds of you being allowed to use my platforms (at no cost to you), gets even less when you can't follow the rules I ask of all others.

And when I ask multiple times, you find it cool to provide smart ass answers and implied threats to my requests.

Carry on, I've got work to do .....

 

[jlong17]

This forum isn't operated based on improving my finances. If so, it would have been folded up around 2010, the year after I took it over from the prior owner who got tired of the money pit. It has only become even more of a cash drain since them.

I always welcome a free exchange of ideas. Follow the rules and exchange as you wish. Don't follow the rules and you get asked to leave.

Implied threats that you are here to make my life difficult and financially impair my operations hardly come across as much of an exchange of ideas.


Here's what it means, in a nutshell......

Your organization is a platform you use to advocate for your beliefs and carryout your mission. Using this forum, to promote your organization/platform is against the Terms of Service. Not sure how many times I have to point that out to you.


Yeah, there are lots of problems in this world. I'm not smart enough to know how to fix them. I'll just keep trying to do what I can to make a difference in my little part of the world and leave the heavy lifting to those self-righteous souls who know every perspective, understand every motivation, and have every solution.

If you want to make your point that I'm the downfall of American hunting knock yourself out. The odds of you being allowed to use my platforms (at no cost to you), gets even less when you can't follow the rules I ask of all others.

And when I ask multiple times, you find it cool to provide smart ass answers and implied threats to my requests.

Carry on, I've got work to do .....

Thanks for ruining hunting, Randy! Because of you I discovered a passion that will provide a lifetime of memories shared with family and friends. I never would’ve known such opportunities existed, and I’m forever grateful. Keep fighting the good fight... your mission statement is honorable

 

[BuzzH]

So what, then, is your solution to funding wildlife management? Majority of that is paid for with exhorbitant NR fees. I see both sides of that card, as an R in my home state (currently WY, previously UT) while also hunting other states as NR. I support state’s right to dictate their allocations and costs, and support WY’s proposed 10% allocation despite whether I’m a resident or not. However these shifts to more resident preference are simply not viable unless the residents (myself included) are willing to no longer be subsidized by the NR. That’s a tough political hill to climb. I think you need to balance your idealism with a little pragmatism, and again, look to build coalitions vs. simply picking fights you can’t win.

Really?

$38 dollars for a NR doe pronghorn is not "exhorbitant" NR fees, its a joke.

Also, a "majority" of license FEES are paid by NR's but not the over-all budget. We aren't being subsidized by NR's...Residents do a vast majority of the heavy lifting at the legislature, commission, etc. level. The only states I really get a good deal on, in regard to investment of time and money, are the states I hunt as a NR. Cutting a check is no big deal and the easiest part of hunting advocacy I do.

I have, for decades, been all about raising Resident fee's, they're also a joke and stupid cheap.

Also, I've posted a lot of data on how to make up the difference in a 90-10 scenario...its as simple as increasing Resident fishing licenses by $3 for a 90-10 split on sheep, moose, goat, bison and LQ elk. For an across the board 90-10 split for everything but reduced priced tags...the $3 Resident fishing license increase and adding $10 to all full priced Resident tags.

Total revenue to GF lost would be: $191,038 from a combination of sheep, moose, bison, and goat permits going 90-10.

To make up the loss in revenue, with room to spare, raising Resident fishing licenses from $27 annually to $30 annually would raise $222,540. A simple $3 increase in resident fishing licenses would more than cover the NR license revenue.

If full 90-10 was across the board for full priced antlered/horned game, it would be a license revenue loss to the Department of $1,629,634 dollars based on 2020 quotas. (this would assume reduced priced tags stay at current splits.)

To make up the revenue loss, if we raised every full priced Resident license $10...that would generate $1,486,770.

So....by raising each Resident full priced license sold here by $10 and raising Resident fishing licenses by $3, we would generate $1,709,310. More than enough to cover the license revenue loss for 90-10.

 

[mtnprst]

So what, then, is your solution to funding wildlife management? Majority of that is paid for with exhorbitant NR fees. I see both sides of that card, as an R in my home state (currently WY, previously UT) while also hunting other states as NR. I support state’s right to dictate their allocations and costs, and support WY’s proposed 10% allocation despite whether I’m a resident or not. However these shifts to more resident preference are simply not viable unless the residents (myself included) are willing to no longer be subsidized by the NR. That’s a tough political hill to climb. I think you need to balance your idealism with a little pragmatism, and again, look to build coalitions vs. simply picking fights you can’t win.

This year's 90/10 bill included NR tag price hikes - bringing Wyoming's prices up to the market levels charged by other states. Even with the reduction in total number of NR tag sale if 90/10 was implemented, the G&F department audit predicted a net revenue increase if $8 million/year.

That being said - your point is a good one. At issue not only is the resident, nonresident hunter split, but also other residents who enjoy wildlife, but don't hunt, and thus don't pay for management.

We're investigating the Missouri Model, where the Department of Conservation is funded through a small conservation sales tax on all taxable goods - for every $8 spent, 1 penny goes to the MCD. In 2018, the MDC received $117 million from the sales tax, and $33 million from license sales.

Could something like this pass in anti-tax Wyoming and other western states? I'm not sure - but one recent example is the Wildlife Conservation license plate in Wyoming that did make it through the legislature.

On one hand, this would make G&F funding less reliant on tag sales and reduce Outfitter influence on the Commission. On the other, it could mean non-hunters would want more say in wildlife management.

This is tricky - last year or the year before, after she was sworn in, the New Democratic governor of New Mexico fired the entire G&F Commission and appointed a new board which included environmental nonprofit leaders. One of the justifications she used was that the previous Commission members only represented sportsmen.

I'm still trying to puzzle all this out and how it would impact hunting. Many western states (AZ, NV, NM, CO) are as divided as the country along urban/rural lines - and Montana is headed that way. Hunting is a rural value, not an urban one - even if the city is Denver, Phoenix, Missoula, etc.

 

[RobertD]

Really?

$38 dollars for a NR doe pronghorn is not "exhorbitant" NR fees, its a joke.

Also, a "majority" of license FEES are paid by NR's but not the over-all budget. We aren't being subsidized by NR's...Residents do a vast majority of the heavy lifting at the legislature, commission, etc. level. The only states I really get a good deal on, in regard to investment of time and money, are the states I hunt as a NR. Cutting a check is no big deal and the easiest part of hunting advocacy I do.

I have, for decades, been all about raising Resident fee's, they're also a joke and stupid cheap.

Also, I've posted a lot of data on how to make up the difference in a 90-10 scenario...its as simple as increasing Resident fishing licenses by $3 for a 90-10 split on sheep, moose, goat, bison and LQ elk. For an across the board 90-10 split for everything but reduced priced tags...the $3 Resident fishing license increase and adding $10 to all full priced Resident tags.

Total revenue to GF lost would be: $191,038 from a combination of sheep, moose, bison, and goat permits going 90-10.

To make up the loss in revenue, with room to spare, raising Resident fishing licenses from $27 annually to $30 annually would raise $222,540. A simple $3 increase in resident fishing licenses would more than cover the NR license revenue.

If full 90-10 was across the board for full priced antlered/horned game, it would be a license revenue loss to the Department of $1,629,634 dollars based on 2020 quotas. (this would assume reduced priced tags stay at current splits.)

To make up the revenue loss, if we raised every full priced Resident license $10...that would generate $1,486,770.

So....by raising each Resident full priced license sold here by $10 and raising Resident fishing licenses by $3, we would generate $1,709,310. More than enough to cover the license revenue loss for 90-10.

Good Lord, I'm over here making a NRs-fund-hunting argument in another thread and come to this thread and just get taken to school. Thanks for the fact check.

 

[Wildabeest]

Really?

$38 dollars for a NR doe pronghorn is not "exhorbitant" NR fees, its a joke.

Also, a "majority" of license FEES are paid by NR's but not the over-all budget. We aren't being subsidized by NR's...Residents do a vast majority of the heavy lifting at the legislature, commission, etc. level. The only states I really get a good deal on, in regard to investment of time and money, are the states I hunt as a NR. Cutting a check is no big deal and the easiest part of hunting advocacy I do.

I have, for decades, been all about raising Resident fee's, they're also a joke and stupid cheap.

Also, I've posted a lot of data on how to make up the difference in a 90-10 scenario...its as simple as increasing Resident fishing licenses by $3 for a 90-10 split on sheep, moose, goat, bison and LQ elk. For an across the board 90-10 split for everything but reduced priced tags...the $3 Resident fishing license increase and adding $10 to all full priced Resident tags.

Total revenue to GF lost would be: $191,038 from a combination of sheep, moose, bison, and goat permits going 90-10.

To make up the loss in revenue, with room to spare, raising Resident fishing licenses from $27 annually to $30 annually would raise $222,540. A simple $3 increase in resident fishing licenses would more than cover the NR license revenue.

If full 90-10 was across the board for full priced antlered/horned game, it would be a license revenue loss to the Department of $1,629,634 dollars based on 2020 quotas. (this would assume reduced priced tags stay at current splits.)

To make up the revenue loss, if we raised every full priced Resident license $10...that would generate $1,486,770.

So....by raising each Resident full priced license sold here by $10 and raising Resident fishing licenses by $3, we would generate $1,709,310. More than enough to cover the license revenue loss for 90-10.

Unwind your panties Buzz, we’re aligned on this! No need to pull that whole other thread into this one. Was just trying to make a point that these solutions aren’t simple. There’s multiple factors at play and when suggesting solutions, we need to cover all the bases. It’s one thing scream “resident preference” from the rooftops. It’s another thing to say “how do we pay for that?”. I’m all about resident preference, but I’m also willing to admit that many residents aren’t willing to take on the financial burden associated with that. You and I are exceptions to that, IMO.

 

[mtnprst]

If you want to make your point that I'm the downfall of American hunting knock yourself out. The odds of you being allowed to use my platforms (at no cost to you), gets even less when you can't follow the rules I ask of all others.

Sir - short term, operating as you have is a financial win, though we predict a diminishing one.

Long term, there's no hunting industry if there's no hunting.

 

[RobertD]

Sir - short term, operating as you have is a financial win, though we predict a diminishing one.

Long term, there's no hunting industry if there's no hunting.

I thought demonetize meant we were getting rid of the hunting industry?

 

[Big Fin]

Sir - short term, operating as you have is a financial win, though we predict a diminishing one.

Your understanding of the net change to my financial situation as a result of operating these platforms seems based on some seriously flawed assumptions.

Carry on ......

 

[Wildabeest]

the New Democratic governor of New Mexico fired the entire G&F Commission and appointed a new board which included environmental nonprofit leaders.

And the recently elected Republican control in MT is demonstrating equally if not more threatening things to the hunting community - at least the “non commercialized public lands” community. So this is not partisan, although it is. The extremes on either side are the enemy, not the side. If your stated values around commercialization are genuine, then I’d think you would be much more upset with what is happening in MT than in NM. If you’re just a partisan hack, then yeah, NM.

Again, I’m all for resident preference. So long as residents understand that comes with a cost. I equally support that as a resident and NR.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

To quote the now passed on Black Rob "WHOA"

 

[BoulderBulls]

Wow. Just finished this thread...for now anyway. I feel just like I do after bingeing bad tv for too many hours, you can't stop but you know it's way past bedtime and you need to turn it off.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Awesome criticism and feedback .!

Exploding activity in the West - you're absolutely accurate. We sued the USFS over MTB in Wilderness Study Areas because of their impact on wildlife and significantly increased recreation is rapidly becoming the biggest threat to wildlife populations in areas like Jackson, Bozeman, and all of Colorado. The non-hunting recreation industry (ski, MTB, hike, summer guiding/outfitting) is very powerful in many western communities, and the glorified recreation images are used by the real estate industry (agents, banks, title companies, contractors, etc.) to great marketing effect.

FPLMA - The Executive can decide what an "emergency" is - impose restrictions, and states would need to go to court to get the decision overruled. This could take years - closest recent political example I can think of is Obama's Dreamers executive order. Not the best example, - but it shows how the executive can make a change, and how long it takes the courts to react. And in the meantime, the change can gain more broad political currency - like the Dreamer's act has.

Refuges - had no idea ... which means some eastern/southern hunters could be as vulnerable to executive order as western hunters, and thus have a direct political interest in policing hunting-related social and other media.

Hunting Art? Certainly hunting media can be done tastefully, but little is. Kill shots are still filmed and broadcasts on Netflix and Amazon hunting shows - let alone YouTube. And I'm sure you've seen the gore there. If this was restricted to private hunting networks that would be one thing, but it isn't - and that's a real political problem for the future of hunting. Gore/kill shots are easy ammo for anti-hunters, and difficult to explain to non hunters. Killing and blood is a reality of hunting - but it doesn't need to be shoved in non hunter's faces. A Broadhead manufacturer's video of kill shot after kill shot demonstrating the lethality of their broadhead may be targeted to hunters who know and understand what they are looking at, but anyone can see it and without the context of a "quick kill" being more ethical, non hunters can easily watch and come away thinking hunting is about gruesome killing, and nothing more.

We're not out on a limb here in terms of taste and unnecessary killing. If we were, Idaho G&F Commissioner Blake Fischer wouldn't have been forced to resign for circulating a photo of him posing with a family of dead baboons he shot with is stick bow in 2018. This is recent and significant example.

I disagree a bit with the idea of an executive order with regard to hunting, while possible it's a lot of grandstanding for hunting. Mostly likely Sec Interior would simple promulgate rules.

That said we are lucky that there are a number of important members of both parties who support hunting and fishing.

Congressional Clays Competition – Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

congressionalsportsmen.org

To your points about Fischer and glorification of gore in hunting, I agree incredibly distasteful. I regularly throw shade at Hushin and Eric in particular for similar kinds of behavior and media.

Certainly a strong part of why we hunt is that it's fun, I think anyone who says otherwise is full of chit.

That said, taking a life is never trivial and there is a certain amount of respect this requires, from your material it seems like you and I align on this.

Both Eric and Randy/Steve have made poor shots, we all have. Eric acts like it's "totally cool bro" while Steve and Randy show regret. Specifically I'm thinking about the Eric's fire bull versus the bear Randy lost on POW.

Eric shows a lack of maturity time and again in his content. Certainly I have wanted to troll him on his social media, but that won't change a thing, he won't change because some guy on instagram calls him an idiot.

What I can do is support and share content that I believe represents my morals and ethics, and think about each and every hunting story I share, and the message I want to convey.

In a democracy it's always a war for hearts and minds, I get it being a dick is fast and easy, but those supporters are ephemeral. If you want to build a coalition and an image that lasts you have to be authentic you have to build something real.