D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I think I got blocked for poking fun on that one; later on, when he shot an elk during a shoulder season.
Matt Rinella knocking it outta the park
- Thread starter Point Creep
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, going to have to disagree with this.
There are lots of conservation issues that are directly tied to access issues, including corner crossing.
If access isn't part of conservation, then why do agencies spend so much time on it in relation to game management, recruitment, etc.?
Also not sure why most states want funding for access, blocking up public lands via sales, etc. Having better access makes conservation and management a whole lot easier.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I was surprised I didn’t. I think I even tagged him in a post about it.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Never too late to try again!
Meriam Webster defines Conservation as the "careful preservation and protection of something."
State game agencies are in the business of selling licenses as well as conserving our natural resources, some agencies also have state parks to deal with, etc. But from the wildlife side, you can't sell something you can't get too, therefore to an extent, management of some wildlife species is partially reliant on access. So - in areas where it's a voluntary program such as Access Yes, Habitat MT, etc, then it's part of the conservation matrix as landowners are being incentivized for their participation and thanked for their opening up properties.
The key difference is that access programs are voluntary, and CC isn't. By it's nature, the issue is going to create winners and losers and create more conflict on both sides. The other programs don't do this, instead favoring bringing landowners & hunters together.
Blocking up isolated parcels, removing inholdings in public lands, etc are all resource management issues relative to habitat management & stewardship of the land more so than critter counting & licenses. Again, that's a willing seller/willing buyer situation where it's an amicable agreement. To me, it's the conflict that moves it out of conservation and solely to an access issue.
What am I missing?
BuzzH
Well-known member
If a hunter can access elk in over objective hunting units via corner crossing, how is that NOT a part of conservation efforts? With landowners unwilling to work with agencies and hunters to help control elk, deer, etc. corner crossing would allow conservation efforts to move forward.
I don't view corner crossing as having a winner or loser, it's clarifying whether or not the American Public has wrongly been excluded from our public lands for decades. Also, if that's the case, we've been wrongly excluded, those that have been doing so aren't losing anything, they got something for nothing for way too long.
Conversely, corner crossing hasn't been occurring for those same decades, so we can't lose what we largely have not been doing or had.
This is no more of a conflict than what happened with stream access or gaining access to State lands, same exact thing.
Sure, there was whining, bitching, and temper tantrums when those passed too, but they both helped with conservation efforts. Samee, same with CC.
You must be chatting with WWF judging by that post. Not every issue can be solved from the same side of the table singing kumbia, eating noodle salad, and drinking hot cocoa.
Just an FYI, access has not been talked about more in WY than since CC became an issue. Funny that, when the public actually has a chip and a chair...along with some good attorneys.
Last edited:
Elky Welky
Well-known member
This whole thread has gone delightfully off the rails, so I'll just weigh in on this completely tangential discussion:
Nor should CC be voluntary. Private landowners are not the gatekeepers to public land and have no right to deny the public access to land they pay taxes on. You stated something earlier in this thread that I am referencing here: both you and @Eric Albus have made this argument that something would be "lost" if corner crossing becomes more clearly legal and defined. Private landowners aren't losing anything that wasn't theirs to begin with.
I would argue that once CC is settled, it really won't create more conflict. One way or another folks will move on. Are there amicable ways to work around CC via access agreements, etc.? Absolutely. I would also advocate for exploring those options. And if private landowners were smart, they would try to jump on those options now and perhaps get some benefit from granting access, instead of losing it when the 10th circuit and other courts affirm what happened in WY.
brocksw
Well-known member
You guys are ruining this thread. We’re talking about Hanes, and much to Buzz’s enjoyment (and Ben’s chagrin), we ain’t singing kumbuya, eating noodle salad, or drinking hot cocoa.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's just disappointing to know you're being stabbed in the back by your own supposed "team".
But, not unexpected either, to quote P. Sinclair..."money and elk make people do things they normally wouldn't."
huntin24/7
Well-known member
To see the look on his face when you show up for the truck you won, and he puts two and two together and recognizes you from the hunting forums would be epic.
brocksw
Well-known member
Ain’t that the truth. Piles of corn can be added to that list.
Just wear a stop hammering shirt when you go pick up the truck, now that would be funny…
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Somewhere in Oregon, I bet there’s an anonymous new lurker on this site that is clicking on this topic about 300 times a day the last few days.
First & foremost, it's Kumbaya. And no, I haven't been talking to WWF on it. I've been talking to a lot of landowners as well as others who are expressing some concerns about the issue, especially the approach. I really do think that some empathy and understanding their perspective is important.
Most importantly, I appreciate your thorough response.
As to the issue of over objective units: How does throwing more hunter days on those units increase harvest? It likely won't be as large due to the effort involved. Furthermore, you're only spreading pressure out on public land which kinda doesn't have an overabundance issue, and those ranches that aren't open will still get the elk when they seek security. Corner crossing, without season structure change is just more hunter days and less success after a few years as animals learn they're not safe there anymore.
As for state lands recreation & stream access: I would respectfully disagree. Both of those are still contentious in MT, and WY doesn't have either, really. There are always going to be people trying to unring those bells, especially with stream access. The access issue around some infrastructure issue wasn't even settled until we did the bridge access bill in 09 (?), I can't remember any more. Since the Dirty Ditch bill in 11, there have been about 3 attempts to undermine stream access. I can't think that the conflict is resolved, especially with the Mitchel Slough landowners starting to talk again. State lands access was garnered by working with landowners and the various agencies. That's why it's been less contentious, and it's still being refined to this day.
Don't get me wrong Buzz, I'm glad that you guys rallied on the defense. It needed to happen. My concerns are what happens when legislatures start to overreact, especially when the politics of today are so much more toxic than yesterday. That's the loss I'm talking about as well as landowners pulling out of Block, etc. You avoid that by talking with your adversaries.
Why was nobody in Wyoming talking about access? Seems like a big misstep on the hunting groups part.
Since the inception of the PAL program, over 500,000 acres of landlocked public land have been opened. Seems like that model could work at the federal level as well as other states. Block Mgt opens landlocked public land as well as Habitat MT, Upland Game Bird program and the wetlands restoration account.
I think you have to look more broadly than just the issue. Everything is interconnected here. what you lose may have nothing to do with corner crossing at all. The loss could simply be moving to the UT model, disenrollment of Block Mgt acres, and more leasing as landowners look to avoid entanglements with the public. If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, then game out what that opposite reaction is and have plan for it.
AS for going off the rails, well, at least this is productive internet bitching.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Ham Canes
D
Deleted member 52937
Guest
Cautionary warning…DO NOT turn this song on while driving down the canyon in inclement weather. Apparently it may cause one to excessively hammer on the gas…
Similar threads
