Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[The Hedgehog]

 

[rjthehunter]

Is that based on your vast experience of elk hunting in Wyoming?

I'm still working on drawing a general elk tag in Wyoming.

But my experience in other states? Yes buzz. It is.

Point out in the stats you posted the breakdown of general elk tags sold to residents. Please try to comprehend your own tables there Chief.

You posted statewide TOTAL statistics for ALL elk tags, of which each hunter here can have 3. Which include general AND LQ tags issued.

Sure, very possible to have significantly less R general tags sold from year to year as LQ elk tags increase.

For instance, I didn't buy a general elk tag this year, I drew a LQ any elk tag. Don't forget, Residents can only have one antlered or any elk tag per year. I can't have a LQ elk tag AND a general tags, its one or the other. Which, let me break out the crayons, means that as more Residents draw LQ elk tags, they purchase less general tags. So, yes, general R elk tag sales are going to fluctuate.

So, no, the only thing you've proven is how little you know about both statistics and elk management here.

Active hunters declining/fluctuating from year to year means zippo. There are lots of R elk hunters in Wyoming that buy 3 tags, fill one, and never even bother to hunt the other 2.

Not all elk hunters are created equally, mine get filled, but a majority don't.

Provide some better evidence that resident hunter numbers aren't declining then. Your post is full of speculations.

Wouldn't a tag that goes unhunted be filed under license sold and not "Active Hunter". Active Hunters isn't labeled "Actively hunted licenses". There's a column showing "Licenses Sold"

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[BuzzH]

I'm still working on drawing a general elk tag in Wyoming.

But my experience in other states? Yes buzz. It is.

Provide some better evidence that resident hunter numbers aren't declining then. Your post is full of speculations.

Wouldn't a tag that goes unhunted be filed under license sold and not "Active Hunter". Active Hunters isn't labeled "Actively hunted licenses". There's a column showing "Licenses Sold"

Look at your own statistics...the number of licenses and active hunters is going to fluctuate for a variety of reasons.

License fluctuations are primarily due to LQ tags increasing and decreasing in number.

The number of active hunters depends on which tags are drawn and on what each hunter decides to do with their tag, or two tags, or 3 tags.

Like I already told you, lots of elk hunters in Wyoming buy 3 tags, fill one, and call it a season and never even hunt their other 2 tags. That doesn't mean there's less R elk hunters.

All you did is look at statewide totals and make the wrong assumption that R elk hunter numbers are declining. You didn't even know that the LQ tags and cow/calf tags were part of the statewide totals.

There really isn't enough crayon colors in the box to get anything through to you...

 

[The Hedgehog]

There really isn't enough crayon colors in the box to get anything through to you...

Do you not have any questions about what caliber to choose when defending yourself against an angry grizzly bear today?

 

[BuzzH]

Do you not have any questions about what caliber to choose when defending yourself against an angry grizzly bear today?

I'm rooting for the grizzly bear...

 

[The Hedgehog]

I mean, like 10mm right? Duh. Proven facts here man.

 

[Irrelevant]

There might be a better understanding and might be why it is so common in our comments and emails.

And maybe a better understanding does result in people realizing more and more how it is a system designed to favor the residents of said state, and therefore the non-resident is merely along for the ride, however rough that ride might be in terms of cost and low opportunity.

I tried to read this thread and I just can't, it's too long with too much bitching. But I'd like to respond to this point

How often does reality dictate your opinion on a topic? I'd argue that most of my decisions in life are based on my own morality and outlook on how I think life should work as opposed to how it actually works.

There is multitude of things that are either legal or possible (with little risk) that I refrain from, similarly their are financially advantageous discussions that I choose to go against on an almost daily bases because it would be the "wrong" choice.

My point is, I put almost no value in "that's just the way it is" when I form an opinion on something, wildlife management included. So just because the SCOTUS said wildlife can be managed however the States want (even through there is a mountain of exceptions), I don't really give-a-shit. I still look at the problems and potential solutions apply my own flavor of morality to come to my own thoughts and conclusions. With regard to wildlife management, what we have doesn't make a lick of sense, it's undemocratic and flies in the face of almost everything people value about America.

I will always support wildlife, but I've stopped supporting the structure that governs the preferential allowance and allocation of wildlife to be killed through hunting fishing by a select group.

 

[perma]

I mean, like 10mm right? Duh. Proven facts here man.

While it might seem counterintuitive, there are scenarios where a 1 cm pistol could potentially be more advantageous than a 10 mm pistol. Here's why:

1. Concealability: A 1 cm pistol, being smaller and more compact, would likely be easier to conceal than a bulkier 10 mm pistol. This can be crucial in situations where discretion is necessary, such as undercover operations or self-defense in crowded urban areas.
2. Weight and Comfort: A smaller pistol typically weighs less, which can contribute to greater comfort for the user, especially if carrying it for extended periods. This can be particularly important for individuals with smaller frames or those who prioritize comfort during extended carry.
3. Precision and Accuracy: While the 10 mm pistol might have more firepower and stopping power, the 1 cm pistol might offer superior precision and accuracy due to its reduced recoil and potentially better ergonomics. This could be advantageous in situations requiring precise shots, such as competitive shooting or scenarios where collateral damage must be minimized.
4. Ammunition Availability and Cost: Depending on the specific caliber, availability and cost of ammunition can vary significantly. A less common caliber like 1 cm might be more readily available and affordable compared to the more popular and powerful 10 mm, making it more practical for some users in terms of training and regular practice.
5. Personal Preference and Skill: Ultimately, the effectiveness of a firearm depends on the proficiency and comfort level of the user. Some individuals may simply prefer the handling and feel of a smaller caliber pistol, and with proper training and practice, they can effectively utilize it in various situations.

In summary, while a 10 mm pistol may offer greater firepower, there are circumstances where the compact size, concealability, comfort, precision, and personal preference of a 1 cm pistol can make it a better choice for certain users and scenarios. It's essential to consider the specific needs and priorities of the user when selecting a firearm for any given situation.

 

[Straight Arrow]

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

how I think life should work as opposed to how it actually works.

My point is, I put almost no value in "that's just the way it is" when I form an opinion on something, wildlife management included. So just because the SCOTUS said wildlife can be managed however the States want... With regard to wildlife management, what we have doesn't make a lick of sense, it's undemocratic and flies in the face of almost everything people value about America.

Though if you look at Alaska the feds are far far less democratic than the states when it comes to wildlife management.

 

[Visiting Hunter]

Il tune back in later, see if it keeps circling back... still not seeing much for creative ideas to move forward.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I tried to read this thread and I just can't, it's too long with too much bitching. But I'd like to respond to this point

How often does reality dictate your opinion on a topic? I'd argue that most of my decisions in life are based on my own morality and outlook on how I think life should work as opposed to how it actually works.

There is multitude of things that are either legal or possible (with little risk) that I refrain from, similarly their are financially advantageous discussions that I choose to go against on an almost daily bases because it would be the "wrong" choice.

My point is, I put almost no value in "that's just the way it is" when I form an opinion on something, wildlife management included. So just because the SCOTUS said wildlife can be managed however the States want (even through there is a mountain of exceptions), I don't really give-a-shit. I still look at the problems and potential solutions apply my own flavor of morality to come to my own thoughts and conclusions. With regard to wildlife management, what we have doesn't make a lick of sense, it's undemocratic and flies in the face of almost everything people value about America.

I will always support wildlife, but I've stopped supporting the structure that governs the preferential allowance and allocation of wildlife to be killed through hunting fishing by a select group.

You really think that a federal managed system would result in more opportunity? For r/nr? I doubt it.

 

[Irrelevant]

You really think that a federal managed system would result in more opportunity? For r/nr? I doubt it.

Why does "more" have the be the metric we measure by? Why not "better" or "equal"?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I tried to read this thread and I just can't, it's too long with too much bitching. But I'd like to respond to this point

How often does reality dictate your opinion on a topic? I'd argue that most of my decisions in life are based on my own morality and outlook on how I think life should work as opposed to how it actually works.

There is multitude of things that are either legal or possible (with little risk) that I refrain from, similarly their are financially advantageous discussions that I choose to go against on an almost daily bases because it would be the "wrong" choice.

My point is, I put almost no value in "that's just the way it is" when I form an opinion on something, wildlife management included. So just because the SCOTUS said wildlife can be managed however the States want (even through there is a mountain of exceptions), I don't really give-a-shit. I still look at the problems and potential solutions apply my own flavor of morality to come to my own thoughts and conclusions. With regard to wildlife management, what we have doesn't make a lick of sense, it's undemocratic and flies in the face of almost everything people value about America.

I will always support wildlife, but I've stopped supporting the structure that governs the preferential allowance and allocation of wildlife to be killed through hunting fishing by a select group.

I think that's a very fair point and I can see the rationale. My perspective is that I have a moral obligation to object to, or sometimes even advocate against, things that are central to human worth and health. I just don't believe that going on vacation to hunt deer/elk/antelope falls into that category. That sounds a little glib but I'm not sure how else to put it.

 

[Elky Welky]

How often does reality dictate your opinion on a topic?

My point is, I put almost no value in "that's just the way it is" when I form an opinion on something, wildlife management included

Do you see the inherent contradiction here?

 

[Irrelevant]

Though if you look at Alaska the feds are far far less democratic than the states when it comes to wildlife management.

Again, "that's just the way it is" isn't going to be a peg I hang my hat on.

I think that's a very fair point and I can see the rationale. My perspective is that I have a moral obligation to object to, or sometimes even advocate against, things that are central to human worth and health. I just don't believe that going on vacation to hunt deer/elk/antelope falls into that category. That sounds a little glib but I'm not sure how else to put it.

Ok, why? What specifically should make that activity different?

Personally, I don't see why you should have less access to the spring chinook that spawn in the Icicle River in Leavenworth, that are the product of a federally funded hatchery. I can't make any logical ideologic justification for it.

 

[Irrelevant]

Do you see the inherent contradiction here?

no, please, inform me.

 

[Irrelevant]

Though if you look at Alaska the feds are far far less democratic than the states when it comes to wildlife management.

Do you feel the same about migratory ducks?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Ok, why? What specifically should make that activity different?

Probably comes down to worldview I suppose, and what kinds of engagement are worth time and money prioritization to me.

Personally, I don't see why you should have less access to the spring chinook that spawn in the Icicle River in Leavenworth, that are the product of a federally funded hatchery. I can't make any logical ideologic justification for it.

If you wanted a different outcome in that case, you/me/anyone else can put in the time and effort to advocate for a change. I just don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze.