Hunt Options-Joe Public's Wildlife?

2lumpy · Mar 25, 2010

I prefer options. Spike units, branch antler units and maximum mature units and the opportunity to apply for the maximum mature units or the branch antler unit and hunt spikes most years if I choose to.

For the last 17 years I've choose to apply for the branch antler elk units because I didn't want to wait to draw the max, mature units. I've drawn two CWMU units and taken two bull a 300-320. The rest of the years I've hunted spikes, antlerless or choose not to hunt elk at all.

While I didn't want to wait it out to draw a max. mature unit I prefer a management system that allows for the opportunity for sportsman to have all of the above options to choose from. Why would we want to limit one man's choose and only provide for another man's preference? I don't believe it is necessary for all the units to be the same. What's wrong with options as long as the herd stays viable? Are we so anti-rich we just don't want a hunter to purchase a tag or is there some other reason for not wanting some units to be managed for max. mature bulls?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, these are mine.

Secondly, what is wrong with using some of the resource to help pay for the cost of growing and protecting the resource? In fact when we purchase a over the counter tag or a public draw tag aren't we all use the resource to pay for the resource?

We don't seem to have trouble with the government agencies who are selling OUR grass (joe public's grass) to rich cattlemen, OUR trees (joe public's trees) to rich lumber companies, OUR oil and gas (joe public's oil and gas) to rich international energy companies, or OUR precious metals (joe public's precious metals) to rich international mining companies?

Yet if the State sells some of OUR wildlife (joe public's wildlife, as we call it) to the rich hunters we pretend like it's the only time or the only resource the State ever sells to the rich. In truth they sell ALL of OUR other natural resources to the rich, except for wildlife, which is MOSTLY sold to us and we act we're being cheated.

Maybe we should be damn thankful the State doesn't just say to hell with it all and sell all hunting resources to the highest bidder like they do oil leases. Maybe Dell Webb Enterprises could offer the State 50 million dollars for a State wide hunting concession like they do at Lake Powell and Dell Webb could sell every tag to the rich.

What makes wildlife any different than any other nature resource the State controls. Wildlife only belong to joe public because of tradition, it no more belongs to joe public than any other natural. See how far you'll get walking into a public auction for a forest timber sale and demand your share because those big beautiful douglas fir belong to joe public.

We sound like a bunch of spoiled children, squalling and bawling because we have to share OUR candy with our best friends. My heck guys, think about how it sounds to the rest of the community. Am grateful these discussions aren't being published on the evening news.

DC

ILArcher · Mar 25, 2010

Did you mean to sign that DP.......or DC?

gleninaz · Mar 26, 2010

You can sell all of your state's public animals you want but keep your butt out of Arizona. Last guy that tried that one almost got hung from a pine tree. Contact SFW, SCI and your local Farm Bereau for support for your cause. Just because some resources are sold to raise revenue at a fraction of their actual value does not mean we should sell big game the same way. If we sold it to the highest bidder we could sell all of it and raise more money than all the average hunters combined. Does not make it the right thing to do.

BigFin · Mar 26, 2010

> What makes wildlife any different
>than any other nature resource
>the State controls. Wildlife
>only belong to joe public
>because of tradition, it no
>more belongs to joe public
>than any other natural.
>See how far you'll get
>walking into a public auction
>for a forest timber sale
>and demand your share because
>those big beautiful douglas fir
>belong to joe public.
>
>We sound like a bunch of
>spoiled children, squalling and bawling
>because we have to share
>OUR candy with our best
>friends. My heck guys,
>think about how it sounds
>to the rest of the
>community. Am grateful these
>discussions aren't being published on
>the evening news.
>
>DC

DC - Speak for yourself about sounding like a bunch of spoiled children............

If you studied the history of wildlife law in this country, you would understand why wildlife is so much different than those natural resources you mention. It is not by accident that wildlife is, and has been, treated differently than resouce commodities.

More study on your part would probably answer the question you posed and is quoted below.

"What makes wildlife any different than any other nature resource the State controls."

What makes it different?

- Probably the hundreds of US and State Supreme Court decisions that speak how wildlife should be handled. In other words, those cases specifically state why wildlife is not a commodity such as those you mention.

- The cases that say wildlife is not commerce and therefore many of the Interstate Commerce Clauses do not apply to wildlife, as they apply to other natural resources.

- The fact that wildlife is deemed to be held in a Public Trust, rather than as an identified property right that can be bought and sold, such as the those resources you mention.

- The fact that wildlife under US law has been determined as owned by NO person, until it has been legally killed/caught/trapped, and then becomes the property of the person legally taking such.

- And many other legal and historical issues that have be ajudicated to determine wildlife is very different than the resouces you mention.

And for those reasons, hunters get rather upset when some people advocate treating wildlife like timber or coal or oil or ........

It is not because they are a "bunch of spoiled children."

It is because they understand what wildlife represents legally, historically, and personally, and they are not going to stand by silently and let be treated as one of the commodities you mention.

If people want to have wildlife treated as a tradable commodity, that is their personal choice.

Those people wanting wildlife to be commoditized should not be surprised when the true conservationists who understand wildlife law and history speak out against such. Especially when those vocal opponents are armed with knowledge and information to support their protests, rather than the name calling and unsupported claims made by those wanting to commoditize wildlife.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

Jazz · Mar 26, 2010

First the rich lumber companies you mention. Please name a few. The bigger names have their own timberlands. For those of us who bid on Federal or State timber I would disagree about being rich in comparison or in comparison to the others you mentioned like oil. Secondly there is more timber "rotting" on the west coast on an annual basis then all of the mills combined can use. Third there is easily less than half of the timber companies left than there was 15 years ago. Many were eagerly invited to build mills in smaller rural towns to help extract and utilize the federal timber resources to build this country. The use of wood products has not diminished but the fed's have turned their backs on these smaller communities and the jobs that were provided. So guess what the jobs moved overseas and now you buy wood products from South Ameria, Russia and China. Yes you and others still buy them as the demand is still high, even during this most recent recession. Forth there were many other benefits from the timber sale program, including wildlife related projects, removal of decaying timber to reduce fire, tax dollars in the hundreds of millions to counties and states and JOBS JOBS JOBS. Lastly the timber was sold on a competitive basis at MARKET values not a fraction of the value as mentioned. Timber is renewable unlike our oil supply. There is more timber volume growing in the U.S. today than there was 100 years ago or before that. There would be even more if it were managed correctly. So this argument sounds like it's about states but don't forget the feds have a huge impact on what the states can do or not do. The wolf issue is a perfect example and why I would always advise to keep the feds out of everything we can.