Updated for 2019 – 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
French animal rights activist goes too far with mosquitos -
posted 20 hours 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 1 week ago
Thanks for the article Mrs. Schmitt. I appreciate your journalism.
Supreme Court decision in favor of Native American elk hunter worries Wyoming -
posted 1 month 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.
Thanks for sharing your experience, I agree that such proposal has lower odds—all systems resist change. My collaboration suggestion would be a small action which would potentially threaten generational grievances and isolationist views which are part of existing feedback loops that perpetuate legally-based wastes of time. My suggested collaboration necessitates intelligent processing, emotional intelligence, clear incentives, and actionable measurements which guide the plan and management process. All beneficial change begins with a acknowledgement of a problem and a focus on mutually shared values. I doubt either party has exchanged management plan objectives and herd data; but, by doing so would actualize the beginning of an un-costly beneficial change. Such action would would be a small start to "collaboration". The incentive to avoid legal fees is a great tool toward seeking a resolution. But, such pursuit necessitates higher intelligence grounded in an understanding of empowerment and determined focus on mutually-shared-expansive value.