Meat Eater - Steve Rinella in Africa

[jshmt13]

Not true.

Ok

 

[BC Tal]

He shoots a buffalo with a rental rifle - blasphemy to many on here…

You should hear the podcast episode with the meateater crew talking about the .375 h&h likes it some artillery weapon haha.

I can kinda relate to them talking about .375 H&H being artillery... well, kinda. When I was younger, I fired a 20mm Lahti and that was essentially artillery. Most North American hunters don't venture far from the 30-06, 308, 6.5 CM, 300 WM circle so anything a little bigger, less common and associated with DG in Africa is prime for a little exaggeration I guess. I mean, when I first shot my 416 Rigby I remember thinking, "what the hell am I doing here?" But then again, that was a 416 Rigby... not 375 H&H

 

[Choupique]

relate to them talking about .375 H&H being artillery

I'm not a mass consumer of meateater stuff but I do listen to the podcast sometimes. One of their buddies hunts EVERYTHING with a .378 weatherby. Now that is a piece of field artillery.

 

[Mtn_Infantry]

I’m still not quite following you. I fail to see how I as a resident of Montana have advantageous access and use of federal resources. You are able to climb every mountain on federal ground, visit our national parks, camp at our federal campgrounds, just like I can go to a state like Alaska and do the same. You can’t conflate hunting as the only use of those federal resources.

Yes your tax dollars are used to help habitat on federal ground that benefits wildlife that you then have a harder time getting access to, but frankly in most western states, that wildlife would not exist without the local private ground providing critical habitat as well. It’s very easy to reconcile in my head, for example “residents of Wyoming provide critical habitat to elk. They have decided they want to limit nonresident hunters. If I want those same benefits, I could move there, otherwise I will exercise my right as an American citizen to camp and hike and birdwatch in the Wind River range all I want, without consuming the state resources of wildlife”

I hunt out west a lot and play the points game so I see both sides of the argument.

What @Philip Glass and @rookhawk are trying to say is the western state resident has disproportionate access and use of Federal Lands (in their home state) for hunting purposes. They’re also arguing that the number of tags given in each unit is based upon the games population and includes those on the Federal Lands, and that the Federal Lands impact the carrying capacity. Their argument is in units that are all, or a majority of Federal Land, there’s zero reason a resident of that state should get a higher percentage of tags to hunt there, than non residents.

Below are a couple examples

Wyoming Deer Region H - 600 Non Resident Licenses, and Unlimited Resident Licenses.
Region H is 75% Federal Lands impact - Some units within it exceed 90%.

95+% of the United States’ Big Horn Sheep Population resides in/on Federal Land managed by the US Forest Service. Wyoming had 224 total Bighorn Tags (Ram + Ewe/Lamb) and 30 of them were went to Non Residents (Includes Auction/Raffle Tags).

What would happen if there was a secondary drawing after issued a permit when residents had to draw an access permit to Hunt the Federal Lands in that unit (for hunting) and the percentage of Residents allowed to utilize that resource for hunting purposes was based on the percentage of federal tax dollars their entire state pays vs taxes paid by the other 49 states, or they were given 1 out of the 50 permits to access it, since there are 50 states or in the instance of Wyoming Region H, only 12 permits since there are 600 non-residents and all the other unlimited tag holders have to hunt the private land, or state owned land in that unit?

I’m just playing devils advocate.
I understand their arguments and there are times when I’m frustrated that as a non-resident we can only get a max of 10 or 15, or 16% of the tag quota in a specific unit when it’s a majority Federal land.

I don’t think there’s a perfect system. Personally I’d be happy at 20% of the Tag Quota in units with less than 50% Federal land and 30% in units with more than 50% Federal land.

 

[Hunt anything]

To follow up on what @Mtn_Infantry is saying. In the state of Alaska residents could buy an emperor goose tag over the counter and there was only 25 nonresident tags available in a drawing. Waterfowl are federally regulated and managed. I don’t know all of the politics about the regulation.
Of course this is a moot point now as all hunting of emperors has been closed except for indigenous peoples, who collect the eggs and my opinion will eventually lead to the endangered species list and possibly extinction.

 

[jshmt13]

I hunt out west a lot and play the points game so I see both sides of the argument.

What @Philip Glass and @rookhawk are trying to say is the western state resident has disproportionate access and use of Federal Lands (in their home state) for hunting purposes. They’re also arguing that the number of tags given in each unit is based upon the games population and includes those on the Federal Lands, and that the Federal Lands impact the carrying capacity. Their argument is in units that are all, or a majority of Federal Land, there’s zero reason a resident of that state should get a higher percentage of tags to hunt there, than non residents.

I understand and agree with some of that. Most of my responses to @rookhawk were specifically addressing the fact that he brought up that he has "zero access" to the federal resource as a non resident and that's just not true.

The majority of game animals are managed by the state and they are free to manage it as they see fit (I don't agree with how Montana manages their animals in a lot of ways, but as a resident, I get a say.)

At the end of the day hunting is only one use of the land, even if its an important one to us.

 

[Mtn_Infantry]

I understand and agree with some of that. Most of my responses to @rookhawk were specifically addressing the fact that he brought up that he has "zero access" to the federal resource as a non resident and that's just not true.

The majority of game animals are managed by the state and they are free to manage it as they see fit (I don't agree with how Montana manages their animals in a lot of ways, but as a resident, I get a say.)

At the end of the day hunting is only one use of the land, even if its an important one to us.

You are 100% correct, hunting is only one way we can utilize the land but IF one party or class has more access/use of it for one purpose or another isn’t that by default admitting one party has increased use/access over others?

You are correct that the animals are free to range, however you ignore the fact that many times there are fences, roads, houses or other man made objects that might restrict or eliminate the animals desire or want to range into a specific area or space. There are plenty of research studies from educational institutions showing this.

Ultimately almost all western states manage their game species as a financial resource and utilize non residents/applications as a major revenue generator.

 

[Philip Glass]

I hunt out west a lot and play the points game so I see both sides of the argument.

What @Philip Glass and @rookhawk are trying to say is the western state resident has disproportionate access and use of Federal Lands (in their home state) for hunting purposes. They’re also arguing that the number of tags given in each unit is based upon the games population and includes those on the Federal Lands, and that the Federal Lands impact the carrying capacity. Their argument is in units that are all, or a majority of Federal Land, there’s zero reason a resident of that state should get a higher percentage of tags to hunt there, than non residents.

Below are a couple examples

Wyoming Deer Region H - 600 Non Resident Licenses, and Unlimited Resident Licenses.
Region H is 75% Federal Lands impact - Some units within it exceed 90%.

95+% of the United States’ Big Horn Sheep Population resides in/on Federal Land managed by the US Forest Service. Wyoming had 224 total Bighorn Tags (Ram + Ewe/Lamb) and 30 of them were went to Non Residents (Includes Auction/Raffle Tags).

What would happen if there was a secondary drawing after issued a permit when residents had to draw an access permit to Hunt the Federal Lands in that unit (for hunting) and the percentage of Residents allowed to utilize that resource for hunting purposes was based on the percentage of federal tax dollars their entire state pays vs taxes paid by the other 49 states, or they were given 1 out of the 50 permits to access it, since there are 50 states or in the instance of Wyoming Region H, only 12 permits since there are 600 non-residents and all the other unlimited tag holders have to hunt the private land, or state owned land in that unit?

I’m just playing devils advocate.
I understand their arguments and there are times when I’m frustrated that as a non-resident we can only get a max of 10 or 15, or 16% of the tag quota in a specific unit when it’s a majority Federal land.

I don’t think there’s a perfect system. Personally I’d be happy at 20% of the Tag Quota in units with less than 50% Federal land and 30% in units with more than 50% Federal land.

Thanks for explaining this. It's the big horn deal that makes us the most upset. They are almost all on federal land, as you point out, yet residents get virtually all the tags.

 

[Garciamarquez1918]

I see both sides of the resident/state conversation. But worth noting that states with huge tracts of Federal land carry an additional indirect burden because Federal lands are not subject to property tax. So they have to fund state functions (roads, schools etc.) with a combination of relatively higher taxes on taxable property, sales tax and income tax. Or they have to do with lesser quality state services.

 

[J.Ogilvie]

Here is the next episode of his Tanzania hunt

 

[baxterb]

This latest episode was good.

 

[DieJager]

This was one of the best episodes of the show I've watched and I saw most of them. He is just such a good advocate for hunting and wildlife in general.

 

[Mountainshadows]

Just to stir the pot, I bring you two points of pseudo capitalism that do not gel with my definition:

but I have little patience for the nonsense of building points, buying hunting license I never use, all in the name of letting the "poor folk" have equal access. They chose to live where they make nothing, I chose to work 100 hour weeks in hellholes, my money should be valid to outbid them.

It's quite possible I'm one of those "poor folk" you are describing where I've made a choice to live in a certain location. The location I have chosen gives me an opportunity to hunt mule deer, whitetail deer, elk, and a chance to put in for a drawing to hunt antelope every year. I also have to apply to draw for moose, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep if I want to hunt them. The odds of me ever drawing a bighorn sheep tag, as a resident, if I applied and purchased bonus points every year for my whole life, are as good as winning a national lottery. I'm also restricted on what sex and how many of those animals I can hunt based on geographical location within the state. By state law.

In the state I live in I pay property tax which goes to fund everything to maintain a state (roads, bridges, emergency service etc.). My hunting license and tags every year pay for the "State" game biologists and the "State" game wardens to manage the wildlife that is found in my state whether that is on federal or private land.

If you travel here from out of state you do not pay for those roads and bridges and emergency services. They are there as you come into the state (and I'm talking state highways). We do not have a sales tax (something I thought I would never want, but now do) and every visitor to this state comes here with no cost and they can visit all the federal lands they want to (at no cost unless its some pittance of a camping fee).

You sir made a choice, as in your above statement, to live in a hellhole and work a 100 hours a week and if you want to hunt in a state that you are not a resident, it costs you more money regardless of if it's on federal land. Just like those "poor folk" that made a choice to live where they don't make nothing did.
I chose to live in a state that affords me numerous hunting opportunities to hunt and have some advantages to being a resident of the state I live in whether I hunt on federal or private lands.
There are numerous reasons people move to certain locales. Most of the time it is work related. I ended up here for work, which didn't work out at the time but I could never make myself leave.

We both pay federal taxes. I would like to go ride in an F-35 since my taxes paid for that. Do you thing I can get that ride? Or you? We both paid into having that F-35 asset for the country as we both pay the taxes for our federal lands, yet one is untouchable and the other isn't. You can come to this state all year long and access these federal lands (beware, they close some of the trails at certain times) at absolutely no cost to you from the state. When you come here to hunt you are paying the state for the privilege of hunting the animals that the state manages. I've chosen to live closer to that access and it has nothing to do with how rich or poor I am.

Saying your money should be able to buy above me because you are richer than I am, regardless of where you live, is quite the arrogant attitude and sparks of feudalism and of colonialism and a caste system in which our forefathers overthrew.
We live in a Republic where each state is entitled to its own management. That state management does not always agree with all of us in each and every state (please see the Politics thread).

I did not mean to make a what appears to be a personal attack against you. I just took some umbrage over the "poor folk" comment. I respect your ideas and follow along with your posts but felt I had to throw my 2 cents in.

I can clearly see where your argument is coming from as I used to live in other states and always wanted to go and hunt elk and never really being able to afford that kind of trip. Years ago Colorado was the only affordable elk hunting opportunity for an out of stater, and you could actually buy an over the counter tag (at $600 a pop and valid only on federal land as best as I remember). It is daunting to want to hunt the west if you don't live out here. It boils down to the state is the one that manages the game, not the feds. Even in cases of federally protected species, i.e. grizzlies and bald eagles, the state is the one that comes in and handles the disputes or violation thereof.

In the last few years we have had a surge in out of state hunters on public land (Forest Service, federal) during hunting season. Last year I hunted in the Little Belt Mountains opening weekend at a spot I've been through before. What in years past was a few people at the camp sites was every camp site was full and 60% were from out of state. It is so much harder to hunt "federal lands" here now because they are swamped with people. Not only from the influx of people moving into this state but also from out of state hunters.

The only time I remember federal lands being shut down from access from the government (states never have, nor can they shut federal lands down) was during Obama's government shutdown. I knew a couple that the wife had drawn a bighorn sheep tag in the Missouri Breaks (and if you want to draw that tag for Montana then that is the place to do it) and there was Forest Service personnel (federal) on the access roads that refused them entry.

We are all subjected to how things have been done/written (laws). In the western states, the states manage the game (I'm presuming every state is that way?) regardless if private or federal. Are we all happy with it? Hell, no!
I understand the frustration.

 

[rookhawk]

It's quite possible I'm one of those "poor folk" you are describing where I've made a choice to live in a certain location. The location I have chosen gives me an opportunity to hunt mule deer, whitetail deer, elk, and a chance to put in for a drawing to hunt antelope every year. I also have to apply to draw for moose, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep if I want to hunt them. The odds of me ever drawing a bighorn sheep tag, as a resident, if I applied and purchased bonus points every year for my whole life, are as good as winning a national lottery. I'm also restricted on what sex and how many of those animals I can hunt based on geographical location within the state. By state law.

In the state I live in I pay property tax which goes to fund everything to maintain a state (roads, bridges, emergency service etc.). My hunting license and tags every year pay for the "State" game biologists and the "State" game wardens to manage the wildlife that is found in my state whether that is on federal or private land.

If you travel here from out of state you do not pay for those roads and bridges and emergency services. They are there as you come into the state (and I'm talking state highways). We do not have a sales tax (something I thought I would never want, but now do) and every visitor to this state comes here with no cost and they can visit all the federal lands they want to (at no cost unless its some pittance of a camping fee).

You sir made a choice, as in your above statement, to live in a hellhole and work a 100 hours a week and if you want to hunt in a state that you are not a resident, it costs you more money regardless of if it's on federal land. Just like those "poor folk" that made a choice to live where they don't make nothing did.
I chose to live in a state that affords me numerous hunting opportunities to hunt and have some advantages to being a resident of the state I live in whether I hunt on federal or private lands.
There are numerous reasons people move to certain locales. Most of the time it is work related. I ended up here for work, which didn't work out at the time but I could never make myself leave.

We both pay federal taxes. I would like to go ride in an F-35 since my taxes paid for that. Do you thing I can get that ride? Or you? We both paid into having that F-35 asset for the country as we both pay the taxes for our federal lands, yet one is untouchable and the other isn't. You can come to this state all year long and access these federal lands (beware, they close some of the trails at certain times) at absolutely no cost to you from the state. When you come here to hunt you are paying the state for the privilege of hunting the animals that the state manages. I've chosen to live closer to that access and it has nothing to do with how rich or poor I am.

Saying your money should be able to buy above me because you are richer than I am, regardless of where you live, is quite the arrogant attitude and sparks of feudalism and of colonialism and a caste system in which our forefathers overthrew.
We live in a Republic where each state is entitled to its own management. That state management does not always agree with all of us in each and every state (please see the Politics thread).

I did not mean to make a what appears to be a personal attack against you. I just took some umbrage over the "poor folk" comment. I respect your ideas and follow along with your posts but felt I had to throw my 2 cents in.

I can clearly see where your argument is coming from as I used to live in other states and always wanted to go and hunt elk and never really being able to afford that kind of trip. Years ago Colorado was the only affordable elk hunting opportunity for an out of stater, and you could actually buy an over the counter tag (at $600 a pop and valid only on federal land as best as I remember). It is daunting to want to hunt the west if you don't live out here. It boils down to the state is the one that manages the game, not the feds. Even in cases of federally protected species, i.e. grizzlies and bald eagles, the state is the one that comes in and handles the disputes or violation thereof.

In the last few years we have had a surge in out of state hunters on public land (Forest Service, federal) during hunting season. Last year I hunted in the Little Belt Mountains opening weekend at a spot I've been through before. What in years past was a few people at the camp sites was every camp site was full and 60% were from out of state. It is so much harder to hunt "federal lands" here now because they are swamped with people. Not only from the influx of people moving into this state but also from out of state hunters.

The only time I remember federal lands being shut down from access from the government (states never have, nor can they shut federal lands down) was during Obama's government shutdown. I knew a couple that the wife had drawn a bighorn sheep tag in the Missouri Breaks (and if you want to draw that tag for Montana then that is the place to do it) and there was Forest Service personnel (federal) on the access roads that refused them entry.

We are all subjected to how things have been done/written (laws). In the western states, the states manage the game (I'm presuming every state is that way?) regardless if private or federal. Are we all happy with it? Hell, no!
I understand the frustration.

I think the “air quotes” around “poor folk” (sarcasm) coupled with my comment about Federal Lands inside States summarized my dislike of our system of taxation without equal access. I don’t like subsidizing other people’s special access in places like WY and MT. We beat that dead horse a bit already.