Lander "one shot" hunt issues...

One of the legislative interim topics that is going to be getting some press is the issue of "complimentary and set-aside" licenses. This all came about due to a bill that would have set aside 80 licenses for a womens only pronghorn hunt in NE Wyoming.

While I had heard of the "one shot" antelope hunt, I didn't know many of the details...to say the devil is in those details is an understatement.

An article came out yesterday regarding the issue:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_e3fcf4a2-eb6c-5062-a3f3-266929c88b26.html

Generally, eight teams of three shoot in the contest, and the other 56 licenses are given to past shooters who come to the event.

Some of the licenses, such as the resident and nonresident ones in area 65, have extremely low drawing odds for the general public. The chance of a nonresident hunter drawing a tag in area 65, for example, is between 2 and 4 percent. It’s because of the low odds that the Legislature voted to set aside licenses in 1979.

There is a literal laundry list of things that are wrong with this one shot hunt, but the ones that I find the most troubling are the set aside tags being given to 56 "past shooters" that are valid for some of the hardest to draw antelope units in the State. The other is the fact that a State asset is being given to a private club, and then the club discriminates against women hunters by not allowing them to participate. Its one thing if the hunters who participate were drawing these tags by applying in the draw, but they're being GIVEN these tags by the State.

There is a lot of other issues, but for now, I would like to ask for opinions and see what the hunttalk crowd thinks of it per the article.

Fire away...and I've heard rumor that this may be talked about in depth on an upcoming podcast.

Where to start. Giving tags to past participants, no women allowed, not the Equality State I believe in. It's time this hunt either opened up to anyone or be done away with. Why in the world are past participants given tags. I'm hoping someone, to whom legislators listen to, will get on it and get some changes made.

The first I heard about it was on a podcast with Gov. Mead. I think when he was a guest on Steven Rinella's podcast.

It sounded like a pretty neat event, some really impressive folks attending. Ex military folks, maybe even some current military folks, the governor was pretty pro hunting in the podcast and that's the way it came across. It didn't sound like your average joe hunter ever had a chance at participating though.

Sounds like the funds raised go to a decent cause from what I remember but not much detail on it, especially on how much actually goes to the cause vs. going into other peoples pockets along the way.

It has been going on for a LONG time and things with that kind of tradition are pretty neat. From that perspective I would hate to see it broken up.

There are women who are members of the masters golf club now, but none of them are playing in the tournament. Then again, only the very best men get to play in the tournament. Maybe there should be qualification standards for getting to participate in the one shot event and it wouldn't matter whether you were male or female if you could meet the standards.

If it really is about raising money for a cause just make it an auction type thing and the person that brings the biggest pocketbook gets in regardless of sex.

The 56 tags going to past participants does seem a bit excessive though for sure. Not sure how anyone can argue for that.

I personally do not have much of an issue with the Men Only aspect of the hunt. Seems outdated and silly but not neccasarily a deal breaker for me. I also would not loose too much sleep over the 24 tags going to the hunt contestants. I have a major problem with the other 56 tags being given to past shooters and valid for units outside the contest area. Seems completely un-justified.

I was invited to attend this hunt 5 years ago. Simply because they were looking for more corporate sponsors. I declined.

I imagine there was a day and time when this event had a place. I think that time has come and gone. I can see how someone would be upset by the discrimination aspect even if I am not. The whole thing is a can of worms that should go the way of the Dodo.

wytex,

That's just it, where to start? That's a discussion that I bet I've had a few dozen times with many people when I tell them about it.

I think Christine did a good job by running the article, its a good first step to get the issue out there. During the research that JM77 and I did...there were things that we actually couldn't believe were going on. The deeper you dig, the more you shake your head in total disbelief.

I'm sure Jeff will post up some pictures of what happens to the "losers" of the contest...

a picture is worth 1000 words.

They may want someone to read over their website. This section isn't going to win them any points with the women's libbers.

The women who accompany the team shooters to Lander are also kept busy during the day. The Hunt Club’s Board of Director’s wives, and/or members of the Hunt Club, treat the ladies to lunches and brunches and escort them on scenic and historical tours in the Lander area.

Click to expand...

Only thing missing from that is doing some cleaning and maybe a shopping excursion.

BuzzH said:

One of the legislative interim topics that is going to be getting some press is the issue of "complimentary and set-aside" licenses. This all came about due to a bill that would have set aside 80 licenses for a womens only pronghorn hunt in NE Wyoming.

While I had heard of the "one shot" antelope hunt, I didn't know many of the details...to say the devil is in those details is an understatement.

An article came out yesterday regarding the issue:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_e3fcf4a2-eb6c-5062-a3f3-266929c88b26.html

Generally, eight teams of three shoot in the contest, and the other 56 licenses are given to past shooters who come to the event.

Some of the licenses, such as the resident and nonresident ones in area 65, have extremely low drawing odds for the general public. The chance of a nonresident hunter drawing a tag in area 65, for example, is between 2 and 4 percent. It’s because of the low odds that the Legislature voted to set aside licenses in 1979.

There is a literal laundry list of things that are wrong with this one shot hunt, but the ones that I find the most troubling are the set aside tags being given to 56 "past shooters" that are valid for some of the hardest to draw antelope units in the State. The other is the fact that a State asset is being given to a private club, and then the club discriminates against women hunters by not allowing them to participate. Its one thing if the hunters who participate were drawing these tags by applying in the draw, but they're being GIVEN these tags by the State.

There is a lot of other issues, but for now, I would like to ask for opinions and see what the hunttalk crowd thinks of it per the article.

Fire away...and I've heard rumor that this may be talked about in depth on an upcoming podcast.

Click to expand...

Rumor is that the podcast you refer to will be released on Sunday April 30th.

npaden said:

They may want someone to read over their website. This section isn't going to win them any points with the women's libbers.



Only thing missing from that is doing some cleaning and maybe a shopping excursion.

Click to expand...

Funny you mention that...because they do take the women on a shopping excursion around Lander. One of the WYBHA board members, mentioned in the article, used to work in one of the stores the wives were taken to on the shopping excursion...trust me, it gets better and better the more you dig.

Greenhorn said:

a picture is worth 1000 words.

Click to expand...

I agree...couldn't wait for Jeff, but he found a picture of the "losers" of the hunt. The losers are dressed up as "Indian maidens" and then take part in some sort of "dance".

Isnt that special:

sounds very "elitist" to me...

One of the "activities" the women are allowed to do between shopping excursions:

Jason Hunter, Lander wildlife supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, said the tags are extras, and if the hunt didn’t receive them, they wouldn’t necessarily go into the pool of available licenses.

And without the tags, Asbell said, the hunt couldn’t happen.

“That would be the end of all three organizations, including Water for Wildlife,” he said.

Click to expand...

So these organizations only exist at the behest of antelope tags gifted to them? Sounds like they are not really worth the time/money/or tags.

Also how would the tags be "extra" if the unit has really low draw odds. It wasn't clear are the tags that are gifted for this event in the 2-4% draw success range? If the area can sustain 80 "extra" given to this group, then it could sustain those "extra" going to the general public.

The only thing more lame than a hunting competition is a fishing tournament.

Reminds me of my early years in the business world where we would head to the strip club to celebrate promotions, transfers, engagements, births and divorces. Weren't that many women in our sales offices and hey, you know, they were welcome if they really wanted to go along to the club.

We were a Fortune 500 company and a woman in our office filed a complaint saying these were official meetings, business topics were discussed and attendees fast-tracked for promotions. She was right about all of that and upper management knew the quicker company policy ended these sexist activities then the better.

I do not like clubs or groups that focus on having only members that are one sex. Cuts both ways.

If a group keeps out women then ask for a recent membership picture and count the people of color. Probably will only need a few fingers. You know, they would be welcome and, shucks, some of my friends are those people and all...but they just don't seem to like being in our group. Easy to not notice when Jethro in leadership mutters under his breath about "over my dead body" but that is how sexism and racism stays alive.

When you limit access, you limit upward mobility. Used to be a person of color would not be allowed to be the QB on a football team. That in turn limits the number of QB coaches of color then that limits Offensive Coordinators of color and that is the source of about half of NFL head coaches. It all started back when the QB position was being filled. Bear Bryant, a great coach at Alabama, famously said he would not be the first coach in the SEC to have the first black player nor would the be the third coach as he lacked the will to fight the battle he knew should be fought. Dean Smith, a great coach at North Carolina, sent his entire team back on the bus when a café said they would let the white players eat inside and then send out food to the bus for the players of color. Dean Smith fought the battle and eventually all his players were seated together either on the bus or inside the café. Smith knew to have a team you need to treat everyone on the team as a member of the same team.

A moronic club that effectively restricts activities to men only does not deserve to get free stuff from the state. They also do not deserve a pass on being Old School cool. These are the examples people point to when your University fails to attract out-of-state leaders, teachers, students and athletes. These are the examples people point to when you fail to attract in a New Economy start-up.

Let them go out and buy some Commissioner Tags. The State is already paying for this behavior is so many ways.

BuzzH said:

I agree...couldn't wait for Jeff, but he found a picture of the "losers" of the hunt. The losers are dressed up as "Indian maidens" and then take part in some sort of "dance".

Isnt that special:

Click to expand...

The Indian Maiden on the far left is former Wyoming Senator Al Simpson....I wholeheartedly agree, he is a LOSER.

Alan Simpson is a great man.

So is the guy on the right, former Governor Sullivan.

Still, the practices of the past don't really reflect the realities of 2017.

Ben Lamb said:

Alan Simpson is a great man.

So is the guy on the right, former Governor Sullivan.

Still, the practices of the past don't really reflect the realities of 2017.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Ben, they are still dressing up like this every year.

It has been going on for a LONG time and things with that kind of tradition are pretty neat. From that perspective I would hate to see it broken up.


Women didn't get to vote for a long time either....

You'll tear a hamstring engaging in the mental gymnastics it takes to justify this "tradition".

It's BS. Bambistew nailed it.