Results 1 to 10 of 58
02-09-2011, 11:47 AM #1
More Bull Elk Tags for Landowners??
I wasn't at the meeting last week, but I've heard from some folks that were that Doug Hensley proposed increasing the number of bull elk Landowner Cooperator permits being issued to the landowners. I was told that Hensley openly proposed decreasing the land necessary to get a landowner coop. permit from 5000 acres to 1000 acres.
If true, this would increase the number of landowner cooperator permits five-fold. If KDFWR currently issues 40 Landowner Cooperator bull elk tags to the various coal and timber companies that allow public access onto their land, that number would spike to 200 bull elk tags being controlled by the landowners. I actually don't know how many landowner cooperator permits are issued, but 40 seems like a fair estimate.
On the other hand and to put this into perspective, the public lottery allows for 800 elk tags. Of those 800 tags, only 200 are issued for bull elk tags and the remaining 600 are for cow elk. I can't speak for all the sportsmen, but it stands to reason that 99.99% of sportsmen would rather draw a bull elk tag. In addition, the current set-up typically sends 10% of the lottery bull elk tags to non-resident hunters.
At bottom, the resident sportsmen of this state are applying for 1 or 180 bull elk tags by participating in the lottery.
It seems to me fundamentally wrong that KDFWR jumped through all these hoops to get elk here and trumpeted the benefits of this for the sportsmen of the state when now, the big coal companies are getting the lion's share of the bull elk tags. How can anyone, even Hensley, justify using the sportsman's dollars to bring elk here and then giving big shot coal/timber guys the windfall of a bunch of bull elk tags (200 bull elk tags), while the remaining 400,000 sportsman in the state are left the scraps of 180 bull elk tags.
IMO, a good argument can be made that Hensley is intentionally steering the elk program to his big money coal/timber buddies, and he's screwing over the sportsmen.
Am I missing something here? Am I wrong in my thinking? What do you guys think?
02-09-2011, 12:20 PM #2
Wow!!! This is not right. Why not give 200 more bull tags to the sportsmen of this state. They say the numbers are not there, now they are saying we give 200 more tags to these guys. Maybe this is why they reduced the number from 1000 tags to 800 so they could give the 200 tags to the coal/timber companies. I do appreciate that these companies open up their property and let the public hunt.
02-09-2011, 12:39 PM #312 Pointer
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- VP OF ADMIN Development
I would be curious to know what his reasoning is?
I can tell you that coal and timber companys MAIN reasoning for participating is for tax purposes, not the bull elk tag they receive. I would think you could increase acres without offering additional tags. Do we need that many more additional acres?
02-09-2011, 12:45 PM #4
before getting all worked up, i think i would wait for the proposals (if there are any) to be published.
02-09-2011, 12:45 PM #5
Does anybody really believe that KDFWR didn't know this going into the original stocking program when they were making arrangements to populate private land with game?
Think about it. Suppose Texas decided to stock the King Ranch with 10,000 Kudu and entered a 5 year agreement to give the ranch owners a number of tags annually so long as they let the public hunt their land.
Is anybody really that short-sighted to believe that owners wouldn't leverage their ownership if Texas wanted the public to continue to hunt after the 5 year period was up?
Of course, KDFWR knew this day was coming. Hensley knew it all along too. Now, Hensley can lobby for more tags for the private coal/timber company landowners under the guise that "KDFWR has to do it to insure that the public sportsman has a place to hunt." It's a shell game. Hensley's got the elk program exactly where he wants it, and now, he's going to make sure that he and his buddies have bull elk tags far into the future.
02-09-2011, 12:46 PM #6
When is this Hensley fella up for "re-election", or better yet is what is the process to remove a man in his position from office?
I think that people like him are use to operating in this manner without real consequences. However, the Elk program has a broader audience than what they are used to dealing with in a local political setting. If all of this info is true he will not last long.
Last edited by carnivore; 02-09-2011 at 12:51 PM.I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
02-09-2011, 12:56 PM #7
Originally, the landowner cooperator's permits were reserved for 10,000 acres. Hensley went in and unilaterally changed it to 5,000 acres right before the vote. Now, some 10 yrs later, he wants to change it to 1,000 acres.
How could any commissioner stand there and make the argument that they've got to do "something" as though this issue wasn't completely forseeable? Either Hensley's an idiot or he's intentionally throwing the public sportsmen under the bus. It's as simple as that.
Anybody that couldn't see this one coming from the get-go is a blind fool.
Watch what happens. At the next meeting, the final proposal will be a compromise for 2500 acres, and we'll hear Gassett claim that they can't lower it to 1000 acres because of his concerns about the sportsmen of the state. It'll be similar to the elk to Mizzou deal where KDFWR claims that it's just "paying it forward".
02-09-2011, 12:59 PM #8'But I would rather have it bent and dull and know I had to put it on the grindstone again and hammer it into shape and put a whetstone to it, and know that I had something to write about, than to have it bright and shining and nothing to say, or smooth and well-oiled in the closet, but unused.
You know, if you put spaghetti sauce on your ramen noodles, it tastes just like broken dreams and disappointment.
My college son
02-09-2011, 01:44 PM #9
And to think I just spent lunch with another member discussing the current downward spiral of the Elk situation. Then come back to find out even more back scratching is going on. But again, I'm not surprised with everything else that has went on. I can't wait to see the logic behind this proposed move. I bet it will be a doozey.
02-09-2011, 01:59 PM #10
Good argument so long as you're stupid enough to believe that the sportsman's sportsmen running KDFWR didn't understand from the beginning that once the elk were physically on the coal company's property, they held all the cards.
As an aside, I wonder what the Vegas line is on this proposition: Does the Appalachian Wildlife Foundation have a contract with the Department where KDFWR is paying AWF to improve the elk habitat on private coal company land?
I'm a pessimistic sort, but in the wake of the recent outcry over the issuance of elk tags to insider groups at KDFWR, I'll also throw out the likelihood that the AWF will be performing "habitat improvement" on private coal company land in the near future, and THOSE projects will be paid for by the windfall it gets from auctioning/selling off its 3 commissioner's bull elk tags.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By MatthewEitutis in forum Elk HuntingReplies: 2Last Post: 10-27-2012, 03:15 PM
By Mike Dwyer in forum General HuntingReplies: 24Last Post: 08-01-2011, 01:08 PM
By BGTURKEYHUNTER in forum General HuntingReplies: 7Last Post: 12-22-2009, 08:22 PM
By Blainebird in forum Turkey HuntingReplies: 7Last Post: 03-29-2009, 08:11 AM
By Multidigits in forum Elk HuntingReplies: 24Last Post: 10-02-2007, 04:33 AM