[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Put the joystick down and go shoot your bow #13169

Looking forward to reading this article. Van Zwoll’s historical pieces are always interesting.

Personally, I think we should bring back the weekly, mandatory archery practice day for all citizenry. 😉

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Nonresidents and Wilderness #13165

Steve Graf wrote:

It’s not that I can’t afford to pay the license fee, it’s the principal of it. A local gets to buy an elk license for $35.00 and an out of stater pays $600 for the same thing. It’s wrong.

Steve,

I can see how the discrepancy between resident and non-resident license/tag fees might feel unfair (I usually hunt in at least 2 or 3 states every year), especially for highly popular species like elk, but the reality is that especially in ‘destination’ hunting states, the additional revenue from non-resident fees are an essential (and significant) source of income for state fish & game agencies. In Idaho, for example, IDFG conservation officers are pretty mcuh entirely funded by license fees.

Funding for fish and game agencies is tricky – personally, I want them to have as much autonomy from the political process as possible, which means independent sources of funding that politicians can’t play their usual games with. Direct funding from licenses is one way to (somewhat) achieve that.

On the other hand, some states have slanted things so much toward their high-revenue, non-resident tags, that residents are seeing reduced opportunities available within their own state, and I don’t think that’s a good way to go, either.

It’s really complicated…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Nonresidents and Wilderness #12808

I can actually understand a species-specific mgmt. plan, as Alaska had done it, more than a land designation-specific requirement, as has taken place in Wyoming.

In the case of grizzly, Dall sheep and goats in AK, I think that they all represent pursuits in which the uninitiated non-resident could get into serious trouble very easily, as a result of either the terrain they inhabit, or the nature of the species itself.

Also, I think that there is a much more substantial case to be made for species-specific requirements (as opposed to federal land designation requirements by a state agency that doesn’t manage those lands), since the state is responsible for wildlife mgmt, in cases where those species are not federally protected.

But in the case of Wyoming’s “Wilderness-specific” requirement, neither of those factors are at play. If Wyoming stated that grizzly hunts within the state (assuming the species was de-listed in the lower forty-eight) required a guide, for example, I wouldn’t see an issue with that. But what has happened in Wyoming is the result of a powerful outfitter lobby. And I suspect, a little bit of a “tit for tat” with the feds designating Wilderness that precludes motorized travel in some highly prized hunting areas in which commercial outfitters would love to have motorized access.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Hunting Practice? #12567

Ok you jokers, let’s get this back on track. Two resources that I think are great for practicing hunting-related skills are:

One of the best books I’ve seen on the subject, and it has certainly enhanced the way that I read and try to interpret animal sign all the time when I’m out in the woods.

and:

Also (obviously) lots of good info on tracking and reading sign from one of the best, but what I really like in this book is that he goes beyond this to talk about broader observation skills which I think are of benefit to the hunter, and he devotes a fair bit of space in the book to discussing techniques for moving quietly, including different techniques for walking, foot placement, etc. I gained a lot from this one, which I use all the time in trying to move through the woods as quietly as possible – another skill that can be practiced anytime.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Nonresidents and Wilderness #12525

dfudala wrote: I am very curious as to why hunters are singled out in this respect? I’m sure reasons have been given but, what are they?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Nonresidents and Wilderness #12479

eidsvolling –

I think you and I were posting at the same time. Given your background, I appreciate your input on this, and agree.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Nonresidents and Wilderness #12476

It’s true – in Wyoming, nonresidents are required to have a guide when hunting in Wilderness (not true in MT, ID, UT, or anywhere else in the West that I know of). Keep in mind that this only applies to designated, capital “W” Wilderness within the state, not “wilderness” in general (which still leaves lots of backcountry that the nonresident can hunt in without having to follow this requirement).

And I agree. Since I look into WY from my back porch, incl. designated Wilderness, I have a had this conversation with a number of friends over the years. Yes, I do think it’s undemocratic, because Wilderness is a federal designation, that applies on federal lands, not a state-level designation. As such, it is land that belongs to all of us as US citizens and should be accessible to all of us equally (after having paid significantly more money for nonresident license/tags…). Therefore, for the state to enact a discriminatory requirement on land that is not actually owned by the state strikes me as suspect, and I’ve been just waiting (as have a number of people I know) for someone to seriously challenge it in court. I truly don’t think it would (or should) stand up to scrutiny.

And I think you make a really good point about how no other travelers in Wilderness within WY have to comply with such requirements. If it were a matter of there being a high number of hunters getting lost, in trouble, etc, then why does the regulation only apply to Wilderness areas? Certainly, there are LOTS of other wild places within the state where the very same could happen, and that have no such requirement.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: New Buffalo Bow #12195

tailfeather wrote:

So are we going to see you with a new bow soon? He’s still running that sale until next Monday…….8)

I just sold a bow and am also selling a pair of nice recurve limbs that I don’t use anymore, and it’s all going into a new Buffalo. I’ve been watching what Jim is putting up on the site, but none have been exactly what I’m looking for, so Jim is cooking me up something special right now. Since I alreeady have a 56″ T-child, I’m going to go a little longer on the Buffalo, probably 62″ or 64,” and around #53 lbs, 2-piece. Can’t wait, and this thread isn’t helping!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Southwest DIY Javelina Hunts? #12088

Some good javelina info here:

Bowhunting Javelina is the Perfect Wintertime Hunt

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Southwest DIY Javelina Hunts? #12073

Good info – thanks, Sean. A 30% success rate for an ‘archery only’ season is pretty darn good, in my experience – I’ll take those odds!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: New Buffalo Bow #12068

Great info, Tailfeather – thanks. I felt the same way regarding the grip when I first got my Thunderchild, but have since come to really love it. Especially on such a short bow, I find that the large, hand-filling grip really helps ‘control’ the bow and keep it from feeling squirrely, if that makes sense.

I’ve gone back and forth with a bow quiver on my T-child. In general, I really like not having quivers on my bows these days, but I probably shoot it a little more consistently with the added weight of the bow quiver.

Is yours a one or two piece?

Etter1 wrote:

So, every shot is like awakening from your first dream of a loving woman?

Ok, now I really want one… 8)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: New Buffalo Bow #11336

So now that you’ve had that beauty for a week or so, what do you like, and have you shot anything else you’d compare it to? Have you shot Jim’s Thunderchild? I love my T-child, but I’m really curious about the Buffalo – from everything I’ve heard, it’s not just a longer T-child, it’s got a different feel to it.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: feathers #11039

God forbid it ever comes down to this…

colmike wrote:

2. 1 blonde + 1 redhead + 1 brunette = infinite trouble and 4 of either color or size = infinite possibilities or infinite trouble–based on the observers orientation.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Bows; lengths, curves and handles… #8941

Man, that sounds like a great show. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that they’re coming to Teton Valley again next summer.

A few more curves to throw your way:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Bows; lengths, curves and handles… #8858

Nice looking Elkheart, Brennan! I can’t quite tell what the limb wod is, but it looks beautiful.

[Author]

Posts