Post by: wheels on May 13, 2019, 08:40:07 PM
Post by: Stein on May 14, 2019, 06:50:57 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: polishstunner on May 14, 2019, 07:07:19 AM
Post by: grundy53 on May 14, 2019, 08:19:18 AM
I would like to understand how climate change has been a significant reason for their decline.Agreed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: dwils233 on May 14, 2019, 09:39:07 AM
I would like to understand how climate change has been a significant reason for their decline.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I were to make a guess about that, it would be that more extreme weather, particularly harder winters, have a huge impact on their mortality rates. I remember hearing that antelope winter kills can cause huge population fluxes even in healthy herd populations. Longer, harder winters (or just less consistent winters) could be problematic especially for a smaller herd.
I'm not weighing in on a climate change debate, just saying that wonky winter weather seems to be more frequent at least in the past few decades and winter can whack them hard as a species.
Post by: Stein on May 14, 2019, 09:53:26 AM
Habitat is a huge thing and antelope don't like roads or people, but the thought that they can't survive a WA winter is something I can't wrap my head around.
Post by: dwils233 on May 14, 2019, 10:55:04 AM
They survive weeks of subzero temps in WY and MT, -20 or more. For some reason, when they cross the border into WA they must become more fragile?
Habitat is a huge thing and antelope don't like roads or people, but the thought that they can't survive a WA winter is something I can't wrap my head around.
My point was that, yes they survive winter as a herd, but there the wide population fluctuations can be absorbed by how large the population is. if you have 30k and 5k die, the herd can rebound ok. if you have 30 and 5 die, well then you are in trouble for starting up a new population without crossover and supplement from another herd. two bad winters in a row, vehicle collisions, etc and that herd is no longer self sustaining
Similar to the collapse of the carrier pigeon. It does great and can handle large mortality when there are millions of them, but once those numbers get small it can just collapse in on itself. Same thing happened with bison, thousands used to drown at a single time each spring but they could absorb it as long as populations were high enough. Of course, I'm not a biologist so I could be wrong
Post by: elkchaser54 on May 17, 2019, 04:18:04 AM
Post by: Stein on May 17, 2019, 07:34:27 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 12:20:59 PM
Let's give some credit where it is due and GIVE A HUGE THANKS to SCI's Washington chapters and their network of hard-working volunteers who have spent a TON of time, money and energy spearheading the hands-on re-introduction of pronghorns back into Washington (with the help of the Yakama and Colville tribes to bypass WDFW's nonsensical bureaucratic red tape).
If it weren't for SCI, there would still be no pronghorns in Washington. For that matter, if it weren't for SCI, I'd go so far as to say there wouldn't be any hunting in Washington. NRA for your gun rights. SCI for your hunting rights. It's just that simple people.
We hunters and landowners that want this re-introduction effort to succeed - so we can once again have a thriving and huntable population, need to pack these hearing rooms AND take the online survey.
Link to survey: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/pronghorn-antelope-management/survey?fbclid=IwAR3vtgT0b6o2hUdtRfoiUXk5SFoWf7M4YdG86d88KDpxy32bQ07_ZQzX6AY
Here's a short video I made of the most recent translocation project:
Post by: BDildine on May 23, 2019, 12:32:52 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 12:37:08 PM
Uhmm...groups???You use the tribes to circumvent the red tape but your organization wants to end tribal hunting? (Per recent press release)
Let's give some credit where it is due and GIVE A HUGE THANKS to SCI's Washington chapters and their network of hard-working volunteers who have spent a TON of time, money and energy spearheading the hands-on re-introduction of pronghorns back into Washington (with the help of the Yakama and Colville tribes to bypass WDFW's nonsensical bureaucratic red tape).
If it weren't for SCI, there would still be no pronghorns in Washington. For that matter, if it weren't for SCI, I'd go so far as to say there wouldn't be any hunting in Washington. NRA for your gun rights. SCI for your hunting rights. It's just that simple people.
We hunters and landowners that want this re-introduction effort to succeed - so we can once again have a thriving and huntable population, need to pack these hearing rooms AND take the online survey.
Link to survey: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/pronghorn-antelope-management/survey?fbclid=IwAR3vtgT0b6o2hUdtRfoiUXk5SFoWf7M4YdG86d88KDpxy32bQ07_ZQzX6AY
Here's a short video I made of the most recent translocation project:
Post by: Ridgerunner on May 23, 2019, 01:21:56 PM
Both species were here before and are now being reintroduced.
Post by: Stein on May 23, 2019, 01:25:01 PM
I took the survey, told them they need to spend as much time and resources getting them back in the ecosystem as they do the wolves. Shouldn't be handled any differently imo.
Both species were here before and are now being reintroduced.
Good idea, but it won't happen because nobody will sue them like they do for wolves and bears.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 01:38:26 PM
You use the tribes to circumvent the red tape but your organization wants to end tribal hunting? (Per recent press release)
I'm not sure how you came to that (mistaken) conclusion. We don't want to end tribal hunting. Please reference the press release again.
https://www.safariclub.org/blog/supreme-court-ruling-threatens-wildlife-and-hunting
SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers’ ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
As the leading organization working to protect hunters and hunting, we simply want to assure a sustainable, science-based approach to the management of our wild places and wild things that inhabit them...that is both fair and equitable.
Allowing someone like this idiot - that should know better since he was a game warden, to blow away a bunch of bull elk under the auspices of "treaty rights!" is neither fair, nor equitable and certainly not a sustainable, science-based approach to managing our finite game populations.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 01:44:12 PM
This is where I draw that inference. There is little confusion. The state management comment leaves little ambiguity. It's a disrespectful position to take, period.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 01:45:02 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 01:53:21 PM
You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.
Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.
By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management. That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.
Carry on covering for him though. ;)
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 02:03:01 PM
Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.
Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.
By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management. That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.
Carry on covering for him though. ;)
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 02:32:12 PM
Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.
Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.
By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management. That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.
Carry on covering for him though. ;)
Yes. You are deflecting. What Herrera did was wrong.
Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management. His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.
Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.
As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial. It's been a fantastic working relationship. Everyone get's what they want. More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. :tup:
As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 02:46:29 PM
Your organization statement goes far beyond Herrera's specific incident.Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.
Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.
By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management. That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.
Carry on covering for him though. ;)
Yes. You are deflecting. What Herrera did was wrong.
Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management. His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.
Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.
As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial. It's been a fantastic working relationship. Everyone get's what they want. More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. :tup:
As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 02:49:16 PM
Uhmm...groups???Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
Let's give some credit where it is due and GIVE A HUGE THANKS to SCI's Washington chapters and their network of hard-working volunteers who have spent a TON of time, money and energy spearheading the hands-on re-introduction of pronghorns back into Washington (with the help of the Yakama and Colville tribes to bypass WDFW's nonsensical bureaucratic red tape).
If it weren't for SCI, there would still be no pronghorns in Washington. For that matter, if it weren't for SCI, I'd go so far as to say there wouldn't be any hunting in Washington. NRA for your gun rights. SCI for your hunting rights. It's just that simple people.
We hunters and landowners that want this re-introduction effort to succeed - so we can once again have a thriving and huntable population, need to pack these hearing rooms AND take the online survey.
Link to survey: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/pronghorn-antelope-management/survey?fbclid=IwAR3vtgT0b6o2hUdtRfoiUXk5SFoWf7M4YdG86d88KDpxy32bQ07_ZQzX6AY
Here's a short video I made of the most recent translocation project:
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 03:00:04 PM
Your organization statement goes far beyond Herrera's specific incident.Deflecting? Your organization made a statement. If you like the state's management so much why are you trying to puppet people to "get the word out of your pending lawsuit"? Also back to this topic, why are you USING tribes to circumvent the state and their science based management?You and I both know it's not the case but the precedent, nice deflection attempt.
Pretty sure I'm not the one deflecting here TBar.
By any reasonable measure, Herrera was/is just another *censored* poacher that doesn't give two rips about sustainable, science-based game management. That's hurts all of us as hunters, regardless of ancestry.
Carry on covering for him though. ;)
Yes. You are deflecting. What Herrera did was wrong.
Poaching is not fair or equitable, nor grounded in any science-based approach to sustainable wildlife management. His leaning on a treaty to try and get away with his poaching activity absolutely sets a precedence for abhorrent mismanagement practices of wildlife in the other 19 treaty instances with similar language.
Disrespectful? In my opinion there's absolutely nothing disrespectful about an organization like SCI that's working hard for appropriate wildlife management that benefits all hunters - and that includes tribal members.
As far as your "using" reference. No one is using anyone for the reintroduction of antelope in Washington. SCI is not "using" the tribes as you none-too-subtly are implying with your questions. Not in the slightest. Our interest in working together to reintroduce pronghorn to Washington was absolutely mutually beneficial. It's been a fantastic working relationship. Everyone get's what they want. More pronghorn in Washington without decades of WDFW bureaucratic red-tape. It's a win for everyone. :tup:
As an aside, I believe the tribes now employ some of the best biologists in the state, particularly when it comes to predator/prey issues.
Nonsense. Herrera is using a cheap legal trick to cover his heinous poaching behavior. If successful it will lead to a waterfall precedence that will only make managing wildlife - and the hunting thereof, more difficult.
Precedence
prec·e·dence
[ˈpresədəns, prēˈsēdns]
NOUN
the condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank.
"his desire for power soon took precedence over any other consideration"
synonyms:
take priority over · be considered more important/urgent than · outweigh · supersede · prevail over · come before
the order to be ceremonially observed by people of different rank, according to an acknowledged or legally determined system.
"quarrels over precedence among the Bonaparte family marred the coronation"
synonyms:
priority · preeminence · rank · seniority · superiority · primacy · first place · pride of place · eminence · supremacy · ascendancy · preference · weightage
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 03:12:47 PM
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 03:37:41 PM
You are still the rep., the organization that you rep. took a position. That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent. It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform. You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 10:14:18 PM
You are still the rep., the organization that you rep. took a position. That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent. It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform. You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.
Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?
Post by: PlateauNDN on May 23, 2019, 10:23:28 PM
I'm not sticking up for the bad apple, I'm sticking up for the right that was reserved and the State(s) that wish/want & continue to try to tear the Treaties up and not abide by deals made between Nations not States.
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 10:45:48 PM
Your rhetoric sounds good but the statement by your organization pulls no punches in its stance. There is a difference in honoring an agreement and moving forward to perpetuate a finite resource under comanagement and the statement made by SCI.You are still the rep., the organization that you rep. took a position. That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent. It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform. You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.
Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 10:49:50 PM
Maybe you could speak out in response to the SCI statement and propose moving forward with "an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?"You are still the rep., the organization that you rep. took a position. That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent. It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform. You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.
Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?
That's not what the press release says.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 10:55:52 PM
My concern is the precedent this case would have set in regards to the Treaties themselves. I don't Mr Herrera but his case involved 1 Treaty that would've set precedent and quite possibly affected many Treaties in many States.
I'm not sticking up for the bad apple, I'm sticking up for the right that was reserved and the State(s) that wish/want & continue to try to tear the Treaties up and not abide by deals made between Nations not States.
I can't, won't and don't profess to not know all the legal tangent minutiae tossed around in this case. But I do know right from wrong. Allowing some bad apple poachers like Herrera to use sometimes obtuse treaty language as a crutch for their selfish behavior is misguided and wrong. I wouldn't want any such gerrymandered legal precedent to stand and potentially be abused at the expense of all our finite resources, regardless of one's bloodlines. Having worked closely with SCI's head litigator on a variety of issues, I know her to be a very fair and forthright person that also keenly understands right from wrong and whose sole objective is to protect and preserve the rights of ALL hunters, regardless of their heritage or ancestry, such that we all can partake in the maximum sustainable harvest of fish and game for many generations to come.
It's up to us to work together to find common ground that's ultimately beneficial for the long haul.
That's my take on it anyway.
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 11:04:09 PM
Your rhetoric sounds good but the statement by your organization pulls no punches in its stance. There is a difference in honoring an agreement and moving forward to perpetuate a finite resource under comanagement and the statement made by SCI.You are still the rep., the organization that you rep. took a position. That position could and should be a wedge in any working relationships that may have been formed. The position is not premised solely on science based management, but on precedent. It is not on a specific incident but the empowerment of the comanagement platform. You may have been in a unique position to build bridges but that position to unify has been damaged.
Even your statement is classless and disrespectful to the tribal partners you are working with. A HUGE THANK YOU........ (with help from). You are an excellent bridge builder(insert sarcasm here)!
The bridge is already built and we have a great working relationship in this regard. I'm unclear as to why you're trying to cast a negative blanket on these accomplishments.
And for what it's worth, I'm an unpaid volunteer - and a rank amateur video maker at best, and put that audience specific video together specifically for an SCI fundraising event to A) let the SCI members and their guests understand where their money is being put to work, and B) to encourage more people to open their wallets so that we can use those monies for future translocation efforts, tracking collars, aerial and ground counts, etc.
The position doesn't and shouldn't drive a wedge in any working relationship(s) that ultimately want(s) what's best for our fauna, flora, hunters and hunting. The only person trying to push a wedge seems to be you. That's unfortunate and doesn't need to happen.
Bear with me while I try to understand where you're coming from...What exactly is your beef with a co-management platform of federal/state/tribal interests? Any given population base is finite and is prone to management complexities beyond which any singular entity can or should claim sole responsibility and management of. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an approach that emphasizes the maximum sustainable harvest opportunities of game animals on a fair and equitable basis?
We are vehemently anti-poaching. Poaching isn't sustainable. It's not right. We don't agree with harvesting beyond a sustainable, science-based yield. That's our stance. I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization with any of this, but as a board member, I'm not in favor of any legal precedent that would make it easier for poachers to ruin it for the rest of us.
And so I ask again...what is your beef with co-management?
Post by: Tbar on May 23, 2019, 11:07:09 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 23, 2019, 11:28:36 PM
I am an advocate of comanagement. The sci statement only speaks of state management. Do you know the author of the press release? Look at the title of the release.
At the moment I don't know who wrote the press release, but I'm happy to ask.
I re-read the statement trying to keep your question(s) in mind and didn't necessarily come away with the notion that they were speaking of and arguing for purely state management. Reason being is that when it comes down to it, while there is a USFWS, they don't particularly (and can't)delve into the specifics of state-level species population management. It's a co-management issue. Federal/State/Tribal. Animals wander wherever the heck they want. The federal government exists. State's exist. Tribes and treaties exist. It's a trifecta of management participation. Silo management is *censored* and doesn't work.
The larger issue is ...again, the precedence such a cover-up case unwittingly/unintentionally creates. I'm sure we can all agree we'd like to try and keep bad-apple poachers like Herrera from using some obtuse treaty language as a crutch to screw all of us out of a fair, equitable and sustainable share of nature's bounty.
Post by: 724wd on May 24, 2019, 08:42:05 AM
Thank you SCI, Yakama Tribe, and Colville Tribe for bringing pronghorn back to WA!
Post by: Bushcraft on May 24, 2019, 08:53:37 AM
So... how about them pronghorn? :dunno: :chuckle:
Thank you SCI, Yakama Tribe, and Colville Tribe for bringing pronghorn back to WA!
:yeah: :chuckle: :tup:
Amen brother!
Post by: wheels on May 24, 2019, 12:10:50 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on May 24, 2019, 11:12:05 PM
unlees there was a really good fawn crop or getting a lot more doesnt talking management seems like putting cart way before the horse
The state is legally charged with the responsibility of managing all animals, even those with minimal numbers. I hope the meetings help create more public awareness of, and generate additional interest in, having a lot more pronghorn scooting around the state. They are pretty darn cool critters and it would be awesome to have them thriving again in WA with lots of opportunities for sustainable harvest.
Post by: wheels on May 24, 2019, 11:58:42 PM