|
|
Post by hikerjer on Mar 3, 2016 17:22:19 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 19:09:47 GMT -8
So-called "wildlife management" at the state level is largely "hunter management." It is state-controlled Big Business that operates much like state lotteries. Funding is derived from the sale of lottery tickets, optimistically named "game tags." There is no refund for unsuccessful hunters.
The hunter purchases a chance to kill wild game. He does not purchase the animal itself or the right to a game animal. Even if the hunt is unsuccessful (in terms of taking home a trophy), the unsuccessful hunter and the successful hunter pay the same price. Each purchases one ticket. Some tickets win a dead animal, some win nothing. And some leave a wounded animal to wander off by itself and die later — unclaimed.
If the game animal is a grizzly, the price of entering the hunters' lottery will be high. And, in effect, the state can sell more tickets than can possibly win the grizzly lottery. Against this game of chance, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, proposes that if the jackpot fund drops below 600 grizzlies, the lottery will be halted and the hunting stopped.
The state has to retain funds for the grand prize, to assure the species will survive for future lotteries. We are led to believe that it is a simple scheme. But there is one very big problem:
No one knows how to count grizzlies. No one knows how many grizzlies there are. No one knows if the number of grizzlies has ever even been above 600. And no one knows how to figure out when the number drops below 600 — even IF it is above that number now.
No one has ever counted 600 grizzlies in Yellowstone. It is a calculated number based upon guesswork.
How much confidence would an investor have in a state lottery's solvency if the lottery accountant had no real idea of how much money was on hand to fund the jackpot? He has never counted it. He can't find it in order to count it. And he has no reliable means to determine when the fund has dropped below 600 grizzlies — IF the fund is even above 600 grizzlies now.
That is the accounting system that the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho propose for the grizzly lottery game. All that remains to be done is to appoint those states to be our banker in custody of our hard-won savings. Hell of a retirement plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 19:28:50 GMT -8
So, why don't the people that don't want to kill animals buy all the tickets? It's not a question of "killing animals." We all kill animals. It's a question of killing threatened and endangered species. And you can't buy all the tickets, because they just print more. And one person can only buy one ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by hikerjer on Mar 3, 2016 20:02:23 GMT -8
And you can bet a significant number of those tickets will be reserved for out of state residents who will pay really, really big bucks to shoot an animal as magnificent as a grizzly. Just imagine how good it will look as a rug on your den floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Mar 3, 2016 20:22:01 GMT -8
If grizzlies are placed on the hunting list...
All rare big game hunts, such as bighorns, mountain goats, and what would include grizzlies, works off a lottery system.
A price is set for the permit and all entries pay the fee. Names are then randomly drawn for a set number of permits. Losers get their money refunded.
If X number of bears are taken in a particular hunting zone, hunting then ceases in that zone. Sometimes more tags are sold to give more hunters a chance BUT once X number of bears are killed, the season immediately ends with "non-scorers" getting a refund.
I'll make a WAG that a grizzly tag will run $10,000+ for possibly 25 tags, maybe only 10.
|
|
johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050 
|
Post by johnnyray on Mar 4, 2016 6:20:55 GMT -8
Public lands being managed as game farms for the benefit of outfitters and well heeled hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 4, 2016 9:30:35 GMT -8
Public lands being managed as game farms for the benefit of outfitters and well heeled hunters. the kill total is referred to as a "harvest" for a reason eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Mar 5, 2016 4:32:47 GMT -8
Public lands being managed as game farms for the benefit of outfitters and well heeled hunters. Of course they are. It's why outfitters and other private businesses that operate on public lands scream so loudly that they'll go broke when rule and reg changes are suggested. They've been "told" for years that public lands are for private profit. It's also the reason bison are slaughtered because they "might" infect cattle while elk which DO infect cattle are allowed to roam freely and are even fed alongside the cattle they infect. |
|
|
|
Post by absarokanaut on Mar 5, 2016 4:41:43 GMT -8
I've got to concede that Travis's point on the counting controversy is troubling. Some folks think that grizzlies in the GYE are grossly under counted and I admittedly used to be far more firmly in that camp. Up until a couple of years ago I was seeing more and more grizzlies for a lot of years. Not so much last year. It is quite possible that the food source issues we've heard so much about are finally materializing.
I went to a G&F meeting on this a few years ago and was assured at that time the drive to delist did not include a plan to hunt them right off the bat. I was also lead to believe that if hunting were eventually adapted that it would likely be very well coordinated, perhaps even like in Wisconsin where G&F personnel have apparently guided bear hunters to "problem" bears. I was also assured any hunting would be limited to perhaps a handful of annual permits. Recent developments/declarations certainly give me pause.
I was pretty sure they should be delisted just a couple years ago. I really can't say if I'm for or against delisting today. I'll be interested to see what further assurances G&F will give and how the counting controversy can be addressed. One thing we all know is that just as it is with wolves the State has no interest in the grizzly being relisted. Given original estimates/predictions wolf numbers haven't come close to crashing. Grizzlies are a different animal with multiple food sources at risk. I know the grizzly is in far better shape than it was 35 years ago. From what I see they've certainly recovered, the real question is is the counting remotely accurate and is there good reason to believe in sustainable longevity?
|
|
