Lander "one shot" hunt issues...

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think it's pretty obvious that the event needs to be modernized, make it much more transparent and invite anyone that cares to participate. I do have quite a bit of experience implementing habitat projects (usually on the end of a shovel) that utilize Water for Wildlife funds, all in Wyoming, all on accessible public lands.

http://www.waterforwildlife.org/projects/wyoming/

http://www.waterforwildlife.org/projects/

We are going to head up to the Seminoe Mtn/Indian Pass guzzler in a couple weeks to repair the apron which was damaged by Wyoming winter winds.

I also know a couple of people that have participated in the one-shot hunt, and they are neither rich, snobby, nor assholes as has been implied. One of these individuals has done more for Wyoming's wildlife than anyone I can think of, again usually with a shovel or a drip torch. He did get to meet a regional sports figure at the one-shot who turned out to be a heck of a nice guy, and he and his family ate the antelope he killed.

From my admittedly narrow perspective, one-shot proceeds, through the Water for Wildlife program, do great things for Wyoming's wildlife, and resident and non-resident hunters. Just a slightly different take on it...

El Guapo said:

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think it's pretty obvious that the event needs to be modernized, make it much more transparent and invite anyone that cares to participate. I do have quite a bit of experience implementing habitat projects (usually on the end of a shovel) that utilize Water for Wildlife funds, all in Wyoming, all on accessible public lands.

http://www.waterforwildlife.org/projects/wyoming/

http://www.waterforwildlife.org/projects/

We are going to head up to the Seminoe Mtn/Indian Pass guzzler in a couple weeks to repair the apron which was damaged by Wyoming winter winds.

I also know a couple of people that have participated in the one-shot hunt, and they are neither rich, snobby, nor assholes as has been implied. One of these individuals has done more for Wyoming's wildlife than anyone I can think of, again usually with a shovel or a drip torch. He did get to meet a regional sports figure at the one-shot who turned out to be a heck of a nice guy, and he and his family ate the antelope he killed.

From my admittedly narrow perspective, one-shot proceeds, through the Water for Wildlife program, do great things for Wyoming's wildlife, and resident and non-resident hunters. Just a slightly different take on it...

Click to expand...

A fair perspective on your part. However, I don't think anyone on here has generalized that everyone who has participated in the One Shot has to be rich, snobby or an asshole. Two friends of mine(I would guess one is the same person who you mentioned) have participated and while I have quizzed only one about it, all I could get from their perspective was the term "hokey" in respect to some of the events. Other than that, they wouldn't expand the conversation.

There are many good wildlife related foundations that put money "on the ground" for wildlife, the One Shot being the only to have 56 antelope licenses to do with as they please. I will stand by the notion of equal access to wildlife full well knowing we don't live in a perfect world. It would also help to know ALL the Water for Wildlife projects stayed in Wyoming rather than only about 40%(that figure being the highest compared with some numbers I've seen at a third or so). And why on earth did some of this money find it's way to South Africa?

The "rich and snobby" comment was in reference to this: "I wouldn't buy the idea that these snobbish rich folk take the meat home to wherever the heck they call home." You're right, the asshole part was only implied

It does seem pretty hokey to me too, but then again so does alot of the ritual involved in many of the "club" or fraternal type organizations. I was surprised to learn that the event didn't include women and thought that was pretty stupid as well. I'm not sure how or why funds would end up in South Africa, but I've been left scratching my head before at some of the trades and back and forth that happen with various wildlife organizations raising funds and horse-trading to leverage dollars and donations. There is no reference to it that I can find. Increased transparency would probably be beneficial if it's legitimate. I agree with the sentiment that possibly additional states benefitting from the funds should contribute.

I simply thought it might be educational to point out that the organization does in fact, result in benefits to Wyoming's wildlife and the public.

does anyone know of any other state that still does this? I'm sure Wyoming is not the only one. I dont see a problem with people entering this "club" after entering and drawing tags,same as every one else, but being "given" tags for their particapation and their donation, I think this should be illegal. Have we not seen the shift towards "pay-to-play"? I really think this is one of the things that is fueling the move to sell public lands. In my own home state every decent piece of pheasant/whitetail ground is practically been swallowed up by lease to hunt groups and the price to "play" on it are so high the average working guy cant afford it.
I can see that the apropriation of these tags is the problem, as the ladies could start their own club or for that matter any group could if the participants all had to draw like everyone else. The way it is set up sounds like a lawsuit in the making. JMHO, I DONT like pay-to-play, I DONT like auction tags, I DONT like excluding anyone based on sex,color, religion, handicap, ect. One other thing I dont like non-residents always getting the shaft and having to pay all the extras. If everyones fees go up, I'm ok with that, its equal.

Am I understanding this correct? A bill that initially set aside 80 tags for women to hunt is now being used to provide 80 men with these tags? If that is the case this makes me wish I had made it up to Greybull today to give some public opinion.

wyoelkfan15 said:

Am I understanding this correct? A bill that initially set aside 80 tags for women to hunt is now being used to provide 80 men with these tags? If that is the case this makes me wish I had made it up to Greybull today to give some public opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is correct. They discuss it on Randy's latest podcast. I believe the men (one shot) have been getting the tags from the state since 1979. It was recently proposed that the women's group also receive 80 tags but I don't think it passed.

I just listened to the podcast and was pretty irritated that a private club gets preferential treatment when it comes to tag allocations especially considering the fact that monies raised aren't earmarked for Wyoming projects and the "max" 80 tags are just presumed to be provided year after year in spite of there being fewer contestants than that. Add in the exclusion of females and the bigoted rituals observed and you've got insult added to injury. That is all only a problem because of the nature of the tags.

If on the other hand the tag allocation were removed as an issue and this was a private club whose members were doing all that they're doing having won tags in the draw like me I have no problem.

Quite frankly I think the non-PC nature of this is a distraction from that core issue. I'm sick of our culture's obsession with "offense" and I know I'm not the only one. Outsiders telling a private club they can't expect to have cuts in the line of those of us waiting for a public resource HAS to be the message here. That's the principle at stake.

I love this country; I love the opportunities we're afforded as citizens here. I love our public lands and I love our model of managing the game on them. I also love that if a bunch of private citizens want to behave poorly in their club they can do that and don't consider it my business to tell them otherwise.

After listening to the podcast I shared what I learned with my wife. Not amused would cover it pretty well I think.

This thing is so full of fail it's hard to pin down which part of it is the most annoying. For me it is that high value tags are being given to a group of people. I don't really care which group of people, but it isn't fair that everyone else has to build points and apply yet these folks hand them out like party favors. Lame.

Wow, I know I'm new, but.... "the devil is in those details"? I am all for women having the right to have an additional 80 tags! My wife and I can't wait to get up to Wyoming to shoot a federally owned by me... public land antelope. Even though I am from the most bashed state of Texas. I know of a man and have seen the antelopes that won that contest, he contributes millions to animal conservation. I guess where I was lost in the podcast was when the statement came up" Texas can do what they want to earn money but this contest was held here" in lose words. Some of those guys are an elite group, financially. Some of them do more for the cause than I will be able to do. I feel like there are other trees to bark up.

I will state this again I would gladly send a helpful check for a women's only 80 tag group for them to live and enjoy a great hunt. I have no issue not being invited. I had a great time shopping in Gardiner MT the last time my wife was fishing.

Sowhntr---What don't you get about the fact that NOBODY should be entitled to anything that ALL others aren't regardless of their monetary worth?!!!

...wrong thread

Did anything ever change with this Lander "one shot" club? Does the Wyoming Game and Fish Department still give the club 80 pronghorn tags every year? I went to the club's website and I see they have a hunt already scheduled for 2019. So apparently they're still getting enough tags to do their contest (24 tags) but what about the additional 56 tags they get for past participants?