0. Same as you with one shot.
Difference is when I spoke in the RAC, I called for 0 tags.
You, ACCORDING TO YOU, were ok with 24/80.
30%. Utah math, Wyoming math, common core math. 30%
Do you need me to paste YOUR words again?
You have no idea how to influence change and exactly why you had and will continue to have no success, you show up once to a rac meeting and call it advocacy.
For starters, there is nothing that JM77, Mulecreek, and I do by chance, its all calculated with a lot of thought given to how we approach issues.
We were dealing with a commission, legislature, and public that knew nothing of the one shot hunt. It takes time to educate people on it, what did you hear about the one shot hunt prior to a handful of people making it an issue? Nothing, that's what.
That's step one.
Step two was trying to split the 80 tags between the 2 hunts and that was a serious consideration for the legislature. Tough to pass, when...and I'm not kidding, Kale Case the legislator from Lander, was literally crying about how 40 tags would kill the one shot hunt. I'm dead serious, bawling like a baby.
Also, since you were never part of the discussion the womens hunt gained a lot of momentum when it was renamed "Shelly's bill" after a dead girl that liked to hunt pronghorn. IMO, a desperation move that was as disturbing as it was inappropriate for all kinds of reasons.
As to how we approached the commission, we decided to go after the 56 tags as they were the most (and still are) vulnerable since they aren't even part of the one shot hunt.
Guys like you can second guess decisions all day long, and that's fine, you make a great Monday morning quarterback I'm sure. I do the same thing from time to time, you do it ALL the time.
But, what you didn't see is the real success that came from us tackling this issue.
Craig Showalter was one of the big pushes behind the womens hunt legislation. He and his side kick Tony were beyond upset with people like me opposing their legislation. As a result, I got into a pretty heated argument where true colors were exposed.
The result of that exchange, where Craig told me that WY wildlife was to be exploited, cost the WCF that he's in charge of the WGBLC money he'd been receiving.
What Craig didn't know is that he's not the only person in town with influence, in particular with commission.
Have you looked into the Wyldlife Foundation started by Mike Schmidt and Pat Crank as well as the rest of the commission?
Wonder how it came to be that they are now administering the WGBLC funding?
Lets just say that our involvement in particular with Schmidt and Crank had a whole lot to do with that.
Many times the ancillary benefits of things like this are the pay-off. You also form relationships with people, both good and bad, and learn that there are many ways to skin a cat. You also learn that nothing in this game is a sprint, its a marathon that requires time and pressure.
A small handful of guys can have a lot of influence over these issues, and we absolutely have on all sorts of issues (including 90-10).
You aren't qualified to pass judgement on those in the arena, you're barely even in the stands as a spectator.