The most accurate draw odds ever
Have a chance to win hunts and gear every month — over $100,000 per year
Access strategy & tips to help you apply & spend more time in the field
Statistics and historical data to find top producing trophy units
Detailed overview of how to apply and hunt in each state
Your quick dashboard for important dates, benefits, and the latest giveaways
Montana landowner wins road access lawsuit -
posted 6 months ago
I echo @JoshS, "Oh really, Judge Gilbert? The road has become overgrown behind a gate that's been locked for 12 years, brilliant detective work."
This suit smells like fish. Looks like this outfitter wants their golden bow as well as their spectacular location adjacent to our shared public resource. I find it interesting that the judge discredits the historically relevant mapped roads. Seems like the necessary appeal needs better representation. If in fact it is a publicly accessed road; a just appeal will redeem this judges lack of good reasoning. I don't blame the landowner for trying to secure their borders, but believe there should be a better resolution to achieving a balance of shared value and landowner objectives. Looking at their guiding fees, I find them more reasonably priced. Perhaps their "best kept secret" business model will develop a better approach to supporting our hunting community. They are a listed outfitter on GH: https://www.gohunt.com/outfitter/armells-creek-outfitters-0
French animal rights activist goes too far with mosquitos -
posted 6 months ago
@John V, makes a great suggestion! Wouldn't that be the ultimate gift for those wild hungry creatures just trying to survive? This "anti-speciest" worldview is based upon a iteration of moral relativism; and, @JohnVs scenario presents a moral dilemma of highest order—supposing they adhere to adhering to congruent moral standards expressed as a human "sacrifice". The anti-speciest views although laughable for those grounded in objective moral reasoning, their ideas are politically concerning. Their moral construct is another example of separatism which makes no contribution to shared-human values grounded in health and wellness. And, as @SethD has experienced, these anti-hunting philosophies are very dangerous to humans doing completely permissible human things(hunting). Hunting in fact is a human right.
Idaho study finds mountain lions kill more elk than wolves -
posted 6 months ago
Thanks for the article Mrs. Schmitt. I appreciate your journalism.
Supreme Court decision in favor of Native American elk hunter worries Wyoming -
posted 7 months ago
I understand that states have lawyers and those lawyers get paid, even if that means a payroll. I agree that the greater incentive for the State is to protect the "public" resource especially if management feels that resource is being depleted at an undesirable rate relative to their financial and population size objectives. I don't have all the details, but if both party objectives align, then the issue of "influence and "control" does not have to create a ridiculous legal pursuit which disregards the historical and current Trust Agreement. Of course the State wants that ensure the resource meets their financial objectives. My objection is that such resolution comes at the cost of disrespecting the rights of the Crow Tribe. My suggestions can satisfy both party goals. Resolution shouldn't come at the foundational Trust which the U.S. Government committed to the Crow Tribe. The argument that the elk are on Wyoming territory obfiscates the cultural and historical context from which the Treaty accounted and made compensatory measures for—this reason supports the foundational necessity of respecting the Trust agreement. Just from what details we've been read, the value for "sustainable" populations for years to come is a mutually-shared value; so a first approach could very well save considerable money and work toward a possible solution that would not only honor the Treaty, but could also potentially create new patterns of interaction between Native Tribes and our U.S. Government. We realize this case is being used as a broad brush to provide States with more specific boundaries, but it's going to be made at the cost of abuse to the Treaty Rights and I'm adamant that such a abuse is not necessary. If we're getting into the issue of securing States rights as precedent over Federal influence; then they should pick a fight elsewhere.