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.