• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.

WY one shot pronghorn hunt...circling the drain

Mosquito

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
51
I don't argue this right. I agree and strongly stand behind all things in support of it. However, the idea of ridiculously pricing a tag doesn't infringe this right. I'm fact the conceptual concept of the idea is to actually improve that right by provide the opportunity to MORE citizens allowing more to enjoy it. In my example, taking all 10 elk tags and selling them all to the highest bidder would be wrong.
I value your opinion and your open mind. However I 100% disagree .
 

wytex

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
2,261
Location
Wyoming
I don't understand option two. I'm a nasty land owner that doesn't give two shits about the elk. I just care about my hay sales and by removing it before the elk get there, none left for them. The population in this region will never be the same again without that feed. So to your first option, that is very well possible. The herd population objectives are just now lower and it aligns with what @LopeHunter would do. But doesn't that create less opportunity for the hunter? Doesn't this argument stem on the premise of opportunity?
You do know hay keeps growing even after you cut it, unless you cut it too short then you'll have issues next spring.
I know what happens in the area we work a ranch, they elk find another place to feed when they get pushed out.
The opportunity now lies somewhere else, wildlife in our state is not managed for private property benefit. The owner will not receive any damage compensation because they do not allow hunting.
 

ajricketts

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,249
Location
South Florida
Bingo....costs money. It's where I was going with this example.

Sustainable elk at acceptable hunting populations=money
"Today on hunttalking while high and, "Let's move the goalposts!" . . . ."

No it's not. It all comes down to the value of the herd. How much is a reduction in 90 tags worth? What if one extra tag sold at 100k in a state raffle or auction solely funds that easement and gets the population back up to where it's at 100 elk tags again? That one tag, one bought elk funds 90 tags....sounds like a great ratio to me
And what has been said time and time again is that the $100K for the easement isn't the problem. That money will come from somewhere other than Mr. Wealthy Dude. In your own example, the landowner was a bastard and didn't allow that easement. So that $100K didn't buy jack, and the opportunity actually declined due to selling 1 tag to the highest bidder.

You keep spouting off random hypothetical scenarios which happen to work in your favor while ignoring real world examples others are giving that show it doesn't work.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
3,867
Location
Wenatchee
So we can either fund wildlife through a few tags to the rich, similar to the European system, or we can fund it through donations and general taxes. Yes, I could see where in the short term you could get more wildlife with the former (less hunting, more money), but you lose the long game by losing advocates and obviously hunting goes away for most people. What people on here are saying is that they can work with the grey area in the middle, most tags issued democratically and try to raise additional revenue, and some tags for lots of money to help raise that revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLS
Top