My audio is poor. He actually said that? Sickening."We have to be proud of who we are, we are the FWP, we have a long heritage of doing amazing work. Now, how do we get our landowners 10 bull tags and the rich guys 5 bonus points in 1/5th of the time...cause this idea looks good on paper!"
Landowners can sponsor two deer licenses, not five. The extra 5 bonus points scenario doesn’t happen for deer.Is it true? His comment that we've been doing the exact same thing with Landowner Sponsor tags for deer that last 20-25 years? (1:28:00+) They are only valid on that landowners property? "And it hasn't been an issue".
If I understand right... we don't / have not given 5 bonus points "on private land over objective" for past deer landowner sponsored tags.
Is this accurate? I oppose the bonus, greased palms bonus points however, if we've had precedence for deer... help me understand the difference between the two and why elk are being viewed differently from the opposition to HB505.
Also - he shared it removes the peoples ability to hunt bulls thus the exchange for bonus points? That accurate? Seems a stretch especially 5 points that become a preference for select people to build points whereas not available to all for our general pool of points.
"When we vetted it we tried to get all the groups together to let them know what was going to happen". Accurate? The word, "tried" has a twist if not the case.
Again, a few people get their panties in a wad when someone asks questions w/o slurping at the <choose side> kool-aid stand. Some need to clear their stomachs of the kool-aid mentality and realize open dialogue and honest discussion helps a stronger army. My questions do/does not mean, "you're with the other side"... it means I would like to understand.
He is right about this not being "Ranching for Wildlife". This is worse. Ranching for wildlife in CO is giving tags for allowing a certain number hunters access. There are plenty of issues with ranching for wildlife but it is better than just giving out landowner tags.Oh FFS! He claims this isn't 'Ranching for Wildlife'. Noooo, of course not. It is giving 10 tags to landowners for them to distribute as they see fit. Instead, that's a "creative idea". The telling part is that when he asks for comments all he gets is silence. That tells me either people are afraid to speak up, or they can tell he is full of BS and there is no point in discussing.
I don't take you to be a wadded panty person. A few play that when really it's a matter of understanding.Landowners can sponsor two deer licenses, not five. The extra 5 bonus points scenario doesn’t happen for deer.
Not to speak for anyone else, but this is pretty blatant commercialization of elk. It’s not slurping kool aid for people to be seriously pissed off about this, and I can’t understand why more people aren’t up in arms over it.
Deer and elk are not managed the same. Elk have population objectives, deer don't. The objectives are the core part of the problem. Elk numbers are over objective so politicians feel like they can do whatever they have to in order to get them down because some rancher in their district complained. But that isn't the what is really going on here. We could add a change that says you can only get the 10tags if you had a verified game damage complaint over the last 5 yrs and see what happens. Or make it only for resident landowners and exclude non-residents LOs. Let's see what the reaction is.I don't take you to be a wadded panty person. A few play that when really it's a matter of understanding.
See, you guys wonder wtf is up with peoe not up in arms about it. However, while @mtmiller comment relates to the other side... on the side that is not interested in this commercialized method... it doesn't seem to hold a unified voice that simplifies it for the average Joe/ Jane hunter in MT.
Thanks for the info. Though, if it's available for deer the past 25 years - if managed the same... 2 tags, etc. What would be the difference?
I haven’t / don't hear anything about the deer portion as adverse. I agree the bonus points commercialize it, imo... though based on objectives?
Reality from my view... 2 or 5 tags are not going to change objectives. So is this the main point?
This needs a unified position shared by whomever. I don't understand this shit. I follow by what I take as best objective numbers vs the tag along hype that may/may not be righteously founded. Ithink many follow w/o care to comprehend.
Glad we have this forum. The reason for my questions.