Antis Draw WY Grizzly Permits
General Topic
See the link. We've discussed this on a few other parts of the board but for those of you who don't dig into the some of the big game topics, this is a big deal, as it gives other antis the playbook on how to draw permits and "save" animals.
It's simple logic, really. Apply in the lottery and tell your anti friends to do the same, draw a tag, post all about it and get the love on social media, and finally--set-up a GoFundMe page and get reimbursed by others for your success in the draw. Nothing out-of-pocket in the end.
This is a big deal, as more of this will come as their success is touted over social media. What do we do? Require a hunters safety card to apply for the major draws? Have mandatory identification classes that must be attended in-person? The more work it takes to get the permit (hoops that we will gladly jump through as hunters), the less antis will apply. You'd think a $6,000 permit would be a deterrent but with GoFundMe and other avenues to reach the masses to enable you to protect your cause, this isn't enough.
What's a good approach going forward? An affidavit saying that you will hunt? A signed contract with an outfitter?
You'd figure a few greenies would apply but when 2/22 are vocally claiming victory, it's hard to ignore these incidences. Their hearts are in the right place but their heads are not.
What say you?
Do like Colorado. Show proof of completed hunter safety before you’re eligible to apply.
"Their hearts are in the right place but their heads are not."
To the guy that questioned this to me in a PM. I love the animals I hunt just as much as they do.
No big deal. Harvest quotas should be set on biology. If antis draw all the tags and no bears are removed, the tag allotment should increase dramatically until harvest objectives are reached.
I bet 2 out of 22 means there were many more Anti's that applied
I agree with Glunt.
And to all those who complain that ARAs don't shoulder their fair financial burden for wildlife management, this is a step in the right direction.
As Glunt mentioned above it's no big deal if anti's draw tags. They are more or less contributing their $ to the WG&F. If quotas aren't reached they will just add on to them in future years. From what I understand, the season is open until bear harvest objectives are met. If the anti's aren't hunting there are other hunters waiting in line to harvest grizz until harvest objectives are reached. With the high number of grizz problems and grizz available there should be no problem for hunters that actually are in the field hunting to harvest bears to meet the objective.
If the WG&F really wants to get technical they could require a check in prior to hunting. If a hunter doesn't show up to hunt within a certain period of time than another hunter that has drawn a tag replaces him in line. If they want to be even more technical they could require the hunter to conduct a weapon shooting proficiency test prior to hunting when they check in. We actually have an elk hunt here in Colo that requires this and it has been successful.
OTC with harvest quotas and proof of kill to check station and it is all good.
How about if the Wildlife dept. finds out a non hunting party gets drawn, they accept their donation and place another tag up for reassignment?
Congrats to the two photographers. Hopefully they'll buy the license, providing the dept with some revenue. Drawing the licenses should also put to rest the notion that the draw would be "fixed" to prevent their participation.
As long as WY continues the hunt until the quota is met this is fine. About time the antis started funding conservation.
No 2 is also part of the photo group.
I get to drive by this every day and love it. Wish they were every where in this great state.
If we get to number 1701 on the waiting list I can assure you that guy isn't an anti
there are two sides to this animal rights thing. if one side is has a better strategy, more support, more funding, better PR, makes their case better to the masses and the decision makers, and is more aligned and committed as a group that side will prevail over the other.
If this is true, Montana and maybe sooner other states needs to make people sign an affidavit that they are actually hunters and plan to hunt. Not sure of how bullet proof that would be getting a prosecution though, but there might be some precedence for it.
A carefully worded gofundme page directed toward the antis could get a grizzly hunt paid for. Just say "If I get enough donations, I will not shoot". If questioned after, just say your internal monetary limit was $500,000.
Or do the antis pay a regular hunter thousands to shoot a sow to end the hunt immediately and they save many other bears in the process? Do they have one of their own shoot the sow in the name of saving others? They can justify killing unborn babies, so don’t tell me this is too much of a stretch.
Hunter's safety classes won't matter. Small price to pay to save a teddy bear. Being present at time of the draw at midnight on Christmas eve won't matter - another small price to pay for saving a teddy bear.
What will make a difference, especially now that it's public knowledge, is to charge the anti's that draw/drew with fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and embezzlement of public resources with a mandatory sentence of 20 years without probation. That would be a big price and practically non-affordable just to save a teddy bear...
Some of you guys are funny. you are trying to take rights/privileges away from someone just because you disagree with them. Kind of ironic that is what they are trying to do to us and you won't stand for that.
exactly. let the best prepared group win. We have the benefit of facts and science, but it won't matter if we don't act as one. we'll see what happens here and with all other such initiatives. being right and being effective are two totally different things.
As I recall most (if not all) hunting licenses provide you with the privilege to hunt, if you choose. No requirement that you have to hunt. I used to know some old timers couldn't hunt but bought a deer lisc. just to support the conservation effort. Of course there are still those who buy a lisc. for someone else (e.g. a non-hunter) to be used in cross tagging, etc. put that is poaching reserved for a different thread.
Antis are generally up to know good, just another one of their feeble attempts to protect the animals they love. Yep I love the animals I hunt just as much as any non-hunter, probably more than any anti.
If they are just going to carry a camera and not a hunting weapon will they still be required to hire an outfitter to enter Wilderness?
Pretty simple . Run it like cat hunting in Colorado to some degree. Give out more tags than quota, make them check the quota daily, if the quota has been reached they can either elect To be drawn for the next year or get a refund.
Standswittaknife...that's a great suggestion! They do something similar in the unlimited bighorn sheep units in Montana. There are actually unlimited bighorn sheep tags issued in several Montana sheep units. Hunters are required to check in. Once quotas are reached the season is closed. I like the idea of offering more tags than the quota and the season is closed once quotas are reached. More hunters are offered the opportunity to hunt grizz, the WG&F makes more $ off tags, and there is a greater chance that quotas will be reached...even if anti's draw several of these tags!
There are a number of ways to get around the anti's drawing grizz tags and not hunting. All involve anti's contributing $ to the WG&F and quotas still be reached by hunters. It's pretty much a win-win for everyone but the anti's! Grizz continue to have no fear of humans and the number of conflicts between humans/livestock continues to escillate without hunters!
Correct. A hunting license does not mean you have to hunt. It is not against the law to put in for a hunt and then purposfully not go because you do not agree with the management practice.
So, those who do not agree should just follow those around who do and sabotage their hunt by chasing off the animal. Oh wait, that is interfering with someone else's right to hunt (and illegal), sooo much different than doing the same by taking away an opportunity by pulling the tag away from them...
HDE, your examples are polar opposites. One is legal, one is not. Therein lies the difference.
This is a weird one because I've known dudes who hunt that know they'll have no time off to hunt, but still put in then not go on the hunt. Or they'll hunt one day of a 14 day archery hunt.
I see that taking opportunity away, but that's their prerogative. At least the money goes back into the conservation rather than a ceo in an animal rights organization.
I do foresee tag numbers going up if harvest quotas aren't met.
Now if the GoFundMe surpasses the exact tag cost is there circumstances that would make it illegal? Such as making money off hunting without a outfitter license, or anything like that?
Edit: lol hes going to go out with his camera. Are they escorted by rangers on this one? That'd be a shame if a grizzly bear acted grisly towards him.
On my first couple of elk hunts all I got were photos but that wasn't intentional. I wasn't anti-hunting. I just wasn't very good at it. Thankfully for my freezer I've improved with experience.
I don't see the anti's drawing a tag or two as a big problem. No different than an unlucky bear hunter drawing a tag and striking out. Less bears killed, the higher the quota the following year. The only way their strategy works is if they draw all the tags every year. Just be thankful the tags aren't auctioned.
You should not be able to draw, anywhere, unless you hold a valid and current hunting license,,,,, at least that is what I think
wyobullshooter - go back and CAREFULLY reread my post and maybe, hopefully, you'll see the sarcasm in it...
To think it's "ok" to take a permit and purposfully NOT use it for it's intended purpose is, quite frankly, pretty chicken...
Absent any outside (e.g. judicial) influence to the quota or draw processes, this problem fixes itself within a few years. Think about it. No need for more laws/regulations, especially ones that could be twisted and used against hunters.
Thinking about the gofundme deal....I'd assume that federal/state/local income taxes might apply to any fundraiser money given to these license winners? Hard to see how money given for buying a hunting license would be tax exempt. For a non-resident, with the 6k license fee in play, if it was subject to taxes, one of these funded antis could be liable for a couple thousand or more in taxes.
Go fund me is considered small gifts and if they are below 14k each will not be reported.
$40,151 so far.
Hopefully if the quota isn’t filled this year Wyoming will adjust tag numbers accordingly.
The only thing the first camera lady (#2) will do is use the full 10 days, a hunter will put a complete halt to the hunt. And many are speculating that will come well before camera guy #2 gets out (8 on the list).
Let them buy and burn tags. Wyoming F&G can make more. They can feel like they're making a difference, finally start ponying up money for conservation, and we'll end up killing the same amount of bears. Win-win.
That is, if this ends up being a sustained effort... These types of fruits tend to be on to whatever's the hot topic of the day. Whatever has "gone viral" is what they're passionate about today and then they're on to something else.
It's all for nothing anyways... that liberal judge is going to shut the season down right before it starts and it'll take a year to fight it in court.
Adult, male bears kill young bears. Thinning a few old boars will actually increase the population. Require applicants to have harvested a Wyoming big game animal in the past. That would help.
We had a similar situation with the first Illinois bobcat draw the first year. Antis encouraged people to apply for the 500 permits issued. Some surely got permits but the impact was insignificant.
"Go fund me is considered small gifts and if they are below 14k each will not be reported." It's been decades since I took tax accounting, but IIRC the $14k limit is for donors (for gift tax purposes), not recipients. I'm sure Uncle Sam will try to get his piece of the action whether the recipient gets one dollar from 10,000 donors or $10,000 from a single donor. I could be wrong, so if someone with more info wants to correct me, feel free. There must be a line between "gift" and "income" that the IRS looks at closely.
BTM is correct, any gifts received are 100% taxable. There is no exemption for federal income tax. However, if they don't claim it and list it on their 1040 and don't get audited, they get away with it.
I say let them! They will eventually get tired of it because it will no effect. If population goals aren't met, more tags will come, in the mean time they are making a multi-thousand dollar donation to the F&G
You can't really tie it to having to hunt, or having a license, the tag itself is the license. Any hurdles you throw up, will be there for hunters as well. Let them do it, then check that they have a guide etc if in the wilderness zone, follow up on tag reporting rules etc.
This tactic is nothing new..."they're" been doing it for decades. I was a bowhunting ed instructor for some time in Wisconsin, and we were made aware of this then. PETA and their ilk are well funded, and have a number of law professors with a couple California universities providing services at no cost (big surprise!).
They've also signed up for hunter ed classes and try to disrupt them. I was told to never confront such an incident...that's what they want, confrontation and publicity...but to warn them that this is a state based public class, and students are required to adhere to rules. If they persist, call the cops...period.
Although I agree with the hunter sentiment, is this really any different than a doe tag holder not shooting a doe because they think does should not be killed in their area,... or, letting their buck tag go unfilled because they did not see an animal worthy of harvest? In other words, lots of hunters elect to not fill their tags either. In some ways, the anti's buying tags supports Pittman Roberston.
As others have stated above, game officials should simply increase the available tags to make up for low harvest quotas when compared to objectives. It should really be no big deal.
I am glad they put in. Let them contribute to conservation once in their lives.
Also....if I am WY, when grizzly season is over, I do a shoulder season and give tags out for all that were not filled. I would limit this to residents only (less opportunity to get whackos) and they must have held a hunting license for the last 3 years. Everyone that is interested pays another application fee and then you do a draw and issue the leftovers to the 3 lucky hunters.
In reality though.....if >90% of the tags are filled, who cares? That is 20 bears closer to population objective.
I was kinda hoping that BB would have posted a few Grizzz pics from his Photo journeys.
Good luck, Robb
I don't think we as hunters want anti-hunters contributing to conservation when they do that then they have a valid voice in that conservation
right now, they put no money into fish and wildlife, I'd rather it stay that way
That's a good point stealthycat, but they're never going to raise the kind of funds we do. First off, they only care about their pet icons: Grizz, wolves... you'll never see antis dropping $1200 on a Nevada elk tag or $600 on an Iowa white tail tag.
And in the end, populations still need to be managed even if they "save" a few animals from us.
I have two ideas, one better than the other, here they are and not in order of best. One idea is to have the applicant show up and gut a goat or hog and the second would be a shooting test, accuracy. How many anti hunters can shoot a bow or rifle? That would cut down on a lot of antis applying. You pick which idea would be best, I'm not judging. Lol
Hey, harvest objectives still have to be met. Maybe this will in fact raise tag allotments in future years since such a high percentage of tags are obviously not going to be used. Just a thought.
Yeah, in the long game, biologists manage the wildlife, and harvest goals will be met. This is a poor strategy for the anti-hunting crowd. I'm fine with that.
It was a nice try by the antis. This isn't hard to combat. More tags solves the problem. They get a win this year, which I don't think there will actually even be a hunt anyways. Those lawyers are nasty, will find a way to stop it. Next year WYO will know what to expect and have to give more tags to combat the fact they are doing that. It will backfire on them. Same ol, same ol. Bunch of games and wasted time and money.
My question is - if the photography with a valid grizzly tag goes into a 'wilderness area', are they required to hire a guide? I'm assuming they wouldn't have a weapon which might make the case, but where do is line drawn between photographing and hunting when you have a valid tag for the area?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the tag will never leave the house of said anti hunter. They don’t exactly need the tag to take pictures of grizzlies.
No matter what a person thinks of the Wyoming wilderness law. It doesn’t require people to have a guide while going into the wilderness for other reasons then hunting.
Non issue. G&F will increase tag numbers to account for lower than expected harvest rates. Show me some of that anti money.
They could get really sneaky and try to claim they harvested, but pretty tough when you have to produce a carcass. They could cheat some with self-reported harvest stats on other animals.
I know it can't be enforced for various reasons. Really it was more of a knock on the law itself - but that's an issue for another day.
I like the idea of moving to a 'draw until quota is met' system to bypass these efforts and still meet population objectives.
