SPIDER ELK

[vister]

you think its fair he was the only one with a rifle while surrounded by archers. money buys that priviledge??

if it does, guess i'll always have it the tougher way.

[Gissert]

Would it be okay if he won a Gov's tag in a state wide drawing, but still got to use his choice of weapon in any season?

Or is it just a money thing?

[PEATMOSS]

Seems to me that this whole issue boils down to how one views our fish and wildlife resources. If one believes that these resources are to be managed equally for all citizens regardless of their status in society, then you are probably troubled by this like I am.

If you believe that those that pay more should get special treatment with regards to these resources, you probably don't think this is any big deal.

The question I would ask of those in the latter group is, if this is acceptable to you, where would you draw the line? For instance, why not a Lt Governers tag too? Should the bigshot that pays a grand more than a print is worth at the DU banquet be allowed one extra duck in his bag limit? How about a special premium deer season for those willing to pay $500? .....

Bottom line thought is that everyone that loves the great outdoor heritage we have in this country should take a real close look at what those traditions have become in Europe and ask yourselves if that is really where we want to go.

[Walleye Guy]

They have not created a set of new rules for a whole class of citizens. This is one tag for one animal.

I think we should just be happy we have the opportunities we have. I am sure that $200,000 will be put to good use for wildlife that the rest of the hunters will get to benefit from.

[candiru]

As long as it is one tag I am OK with it. The trouble is if 1 is good, why not 2? why not 200?

[Nate McVey]

He had a tag that allowed him to hunt with any legal weapon he chose....he chose a rifle, I may have chose a bow....who knows what I would have done. It's pretty easy for all of us to sit here and speculate from behind our computer screens, but the point is, our outdoors received a nice donation.

Those of you that are complaining about equal rights and money shouldn't buy animals, etc. have some valid points, but what do you think of the rich guy that wills his entire 500,000 acre ranch in MT to the RMEF so that it will never be developed? Will you ever get to hunt on that land, probably not. Will 100's of people benefit from the winter grounds this land provides, absolutely. Would all the judges posting here chastise him or praise him for the donation?

I'm going to CO to hunt elk this November, i'm doing it without a guide and with some close friends, do I think I am any better than the guy hunting next to me with a guide just because he can/wants to pay for it? No I don't, its just the way I choose to do it........but I don't fault him for what he CHOOSES to do..................

We all make our donations to the outdoors, some buy license plates, some join conservation clubs, some get their hands dirty and physically alter the environment.......not one of these people is better than the other, just different.....we are ALL in this together.