Trumps Harvest Two Kentucky Public Land Bulls
- Thread starter BluegrassBilly
- Start date
Stretcher_Jockey
Active member
I’m pretty sure it was through RMEF some sort of way.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Agree 100%!
Just because something has existed forever, doesn't make it right.
Wildlife is a public trust, owned by no one and managed for all. Giving one class of people more right to that than anyone else is contrary to the North American model and our American wildlife ethic.
Beanland_fan
Active member
Yep.
Right now, my only conclusion is that once again, the wealthy & privileged get to cut in line ahead of working stiffs like us.
ive been applying for a KY elk tag for 6 years now. How about you?
LuketheDog
Well-known member
It's the land of the free, feel free to buy all the raffle tags you want...
Last edited:
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Yep, I'd rather they be hunters than anti-hunters...or are Chelsea Clinton and her ilk more preferred around here? Hard to tell sometimes...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Funny how the "land of the free" is used as a punchline...when its convenient and easy.
BTW, these weren't raffle tags.
I agree with Ben, this situation needs to come to an end with transferable landowner tags, commission tags, governors tags, and all other tag set asides. You either believe in the North American Model or you don't...that simple.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'd be careful you don't break your leg jumping to conclusions like that...good grief.
AvidIndoorsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 18,411
I love how if you are skeptical of the actions of individuals on one team, then you are immediately labelled as fans of the other.
I really like meateater and fresh tracks of either show did something ethically dubious, I would still call them out... doesn't mean I'm going to out and join PETA. We need to hold members of our own tribe accountable for their actions. Yes sometimes this means someone from the other team wins but I would rather have a good candidate from another team win then a terrible one from ours.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
It's a dogwhistle subject either way...mention disdain for someone's preferred tapered end of the political turd and you're labeled a trumpster or clintonista.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
...
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
That’s a pretty bold assumption. Some people are able to separate the players from the game. Others, not so much. After all, it’s gotta be a blue and red issue......
LuketheDog
Well-known member
My legs are fine, if it were two random Joes there'd be no issue here...it sounds like the bulls were harvested on public land, and in a place where elk reintroduction has been a success, and he had his young son there with him, some of the pillars of what this site is about, no? You'd think this crowd would be all over those facts...instead, the blinders are on, smh
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Show me where my post had anything to do with the specific players. I don't agree with commission tags, governors tags, or transferable landowner tags...the purchaser(s) don't mean chit to me...regular joe, Trump Jr. or otherwise. I've never ran down anyone that purchases those tags, those are the rules that have been adopted and some choose to take advantage of it.
My issue is strictly with the defiance of the NAM created with these types of tags. Take a look at many of my past posts on the subject.
Speaking of blinders...you may want to look around yours once in a while.
Last edited:
BluegrassBilly
Active member
As I started the thread, good for Trump, Jr., and his son. I don't wish him any ill will for being a hunter and playing the system to his means. It is good to have hunters in and around the highest levels of government, but only if they do something beneficial with their proximity to power.
Simply put, I would hope that someone with the opportunity to take four public land bulls in three years - in a state where the odds range from 1/40 (resident cow archery) to 1/827 (NR bull archery (yes, this tag had lower odds than NR bull rifle at 1/801, but I digress)), followed by a 3-year sit in the penalty box just for drawing - would be a stronger advocate for public lands. That's all.
Simply put, I would hope that someone with the opportunity to take four public land bulls in three years - in a state where the odds range from 1/40 (resident cow archery) to 1/827 (NR bull archery (yes, this tag had lower odds than NR bull rifle at 1/801, but I digress)), followed by a 3-year sit in the penalty box just for drawing - would be a stronger advocate for public lands. That's all.
Well said.
onpoint
Well-known member
Agreed, with Ben, BluegrassBilly.
My original and sincere "who cares", stemmed from the fact that Don Jr. was just in my home town touting the virtues of a MT GOP senatorial candidate who is no ally of those of us concerned about the fate of public lands. One who in fact publicly misrepresents his well known stance.
Thanks for the clarity - sorry if I misunderstood.
My original and sincere "who cares", stemmed from the fact that Don Jr. was just in my home town touting the virtues of a MT GOP senatorial candidate who is no ally of those of us concerned about the fate of public lands. One who in fact publicly misrepresents his well known stance.
Thanks for the clarity - sorry if I misunderstood.
Last edited:
Zach
Well-known member
This question is in earnest(and open to the entire floor), but does the North American Model dictate how tags/licenses are allocated?
I've glanced over it and not read in depth to this subject.
It's kind of like the old "it depends on what your meaning of the word is, is."
There is not exclusion for the wealthy to purchase their way to the front of the line,but the 7 sisters of the NAM are egalitarian in nature, and when viewed through the lens of the public trust, it could very easily be construed as a call to ensure that even the poorest among us have the opportunity to hunt and fish. The NAM doesn't say that the poor should get only antlerless tags while the more desirable large males should be available for the wealthy, but it also doesn't say that that everyone should have equal opportunity at big bucks and bulls.
It does say that the states should set up systems that are fair for all who participate, regardless of station or class (my interpretation).
Some states take varied approaches to the model, while others mostly disregard it (Texas, for example). There's a lot of room for interpretation and there should be. No one state system will work across the other 49, so allowing leeway for each individual state to set seasons, allocation, etc is necessary.
In this instance however, one could easily argue that station and wealth create a distinct imbalance in allocation of a resource that is in high demand by the citizens of a state. Giving those tags out to one person over so short a period of time smacks of favoritism, and the landed gentry treating public wildlife as their own possession.
Down with Prince John! Up with Robin Hood!
