Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

[manitou1]

No. Wyoming has Areas, not GMUs.

Now that you’re a resident, you need to know that.

 

[tdhanses]

The goal posts could always be moved to 100-0....

1-800-CRYARVR

Dont see why you aren’t pushing for 100-0.

 

[tdhanses]

Why should Wyoming residents be discriminated against just because of our population when it comes to license allocations?

How many tags does one person need? Depends on the person I suppose, but 6-15 a year doesn't seem unreasonable for a State like Wyoming.

How much opportunity is "too much"? Is there ever too much? I like to hunt 30-60+ days a year.

Should we limit NR's to no tags if they live in a State that allows 10-12-20-unlimited tags for whitetails to their residents? I mean why should they be allowed to come to WY at all if they have all that opportunity in the State they're residents in?

You're asking questions that can't be answered.

But, to answer honestly, if I'm going to put up with the climate here, lower wages, etc. it has to be worth my time. IMO/E, we have just barely enough opportunity to keep me living here.

So to sum up your position you hate WY and despise it but stay for the hunting, sad.

 

[BuzzH]

So to sum up your position you hate WY and despise it but stay for the hunting, sad.

To sum it up, Wyoming isn't for everyone and most cant hack living here...why they only come here to hunt as NR's while on vacation.

I'm willing to sacrifice a lot for hunting opportunities...most aren't that committed, that's what I find really sad.

Actually, glad its a tough place to call home...if it were easy, everyone would be living here.

 

[BuzzH]

Dont see why you aren’t pushing for 100-0.

I'm the generous type...90-10 seems to be right fair for the rest of the States, no good argument why Wyoming shouldn't be the same.

 

[cnelk]

View attachment 304339

Always best to go straight to the Regs

 

[LostArra]

If the reduction is so slight, why are you in such an uproar about it? Serious question.

If you look at numbers you will see that the reductions (non-res) are large, the increases (res) are small.
The arguments made on message boards and possibly at task force meetings look better using descriptors than actual numbers.

Example:
a LE hunt area (not gmu ) currently has 100 full price tags.
Residents now get 84
Non-residents now get 16

After a change to 90-10
Residents get 90 which is a 7% increase
Non-residents get 10 which is a 37.5 % reduction in tags

Call it what you like but the effect on non-resident chances is greater than the effect on resident chances.

I just hope the sausage makers on the task force don't eliminate the random part of the non-resident draw for all of us who won't get back into the point farce. With price increases all non-resident draws might become "Special".

 

[Steve O]

The reduction in bighorn sheep tags for non resident is 125%. That’s sure throws off some calculations.

 

[4rcgoat]

To sum it up, Wyoming isn't for everyone and most cant hack living here...why they only come here to hunt as NR's while on vacation.

I'm willing to sacrifice a lot for hunting opportunities...most aren't that committed, that's what I find really sad.

Actually, glad its a tough place to call home...if it were easy, everyone would be living here.

Absolutely!! Try carving out a living year round in this state,especially working outdoors. You gotta be tough as hell to call this place home year round. Dont like the rules? Nut up and relocate your family here,try to find a decent paying job that will purchase even a modest home.....make sure you bring some extra shovels to dig your way back from where you came.

 

[Bailer]

I'm the generous type...90-10 seems to be right fair for the rest of the States, no good argument why Wyoming shouldn't be the same.

That’s valid. Since you’re being fair, like my state, be sure to lobby to kill the wilderness rule as well.

 

[netman]

For the record I’m against this big time. Anything I can do to contribute to getting this bill vetoed let me know.
Thanks

 

[Wags]

I own land in WY and qualify for NR Landowner tags. My tags are all but guaranteed every year. I've been hunting there for 30 years and watched it change in my area along the way. It's nowhere near what it used to be in my area. There are a ton of factors that go into that, The least of which is the number of NR hunters IMO.

I still think it's Pandora's box though. It wont be long and WY will allow landowners to sell tags/vouchers like CO does, enter the Outfitters new cash cow. At that point resident landowners who currently don't pull tags or the max amount of tags WILL and then flip them for income. Nobody can blame them for that but it will reduce the number of available tags for the residents looking to draw their own. You'll basically be injecting a new group of "hunters" with much better draw odds to compete against. I see it every year in CO. I didn't pull a NR Landowner antelope tag this year or last because I compete against all the other landowners, most of which DONT hunt, that are pulling tags to sell as income. My neighbor being one of them, he doesn't hunt at all but makes a decent income every fall by pulling tags and selling them.

It's a slippery slope and while us NR hunters can say our piece this will go through and our tag numbers will be reduced. There's way too much money involved for it not to.

 

[Fordguy]

Most states (that I'm familiar with) have game laws designed to meet management objectives, with somewhat broad ethical personal limits on quantity of game that can be taken or held in posession. The bottom line is that very few, very large families are capable of using 15 big game animals per year (or even half that many) without considerable waste.
So, the argument seems to be that wyoming residents should be able to kill more animals and not that they want hunting opportunities, since it's entirely possible to make one or two or even four tags stretch from mid september through mid to late december providing 3-1/2 months of opportunity.

The idea that Wyoming has a corner on the market when it comes to rough weather and living conditions is also laughable. Several states have similar weather.
Im really not sure why personal hardship (that you choose to endure) entitles you to take more game animals than you could personally use- if you're choosing to use them at all. I'm not saying that you're required to use them mind you. You could be donating the meat.

 

[mhabiger]

Man nonresident tag allocations always get me conflicted. As a nonresident I gravitate toward spending my dollars on states that provide more opportunity. I've had a great time hunting Wyoming the last 4 years. But I kind of understand the sentiment of wanting to keep as much opportunity for yourself. When I drive around a unit and see nothing but out-of-state plates (mine included)...I just know resident hunters are gonna be peeved. There just aren't a lot of hunters with an abundance mindset...scarcity rules the day. Plus it means I probably won't be chatting up a local at a trailhead slyly ferreting out his honey hole. Though I always get a little chuckle because if it isn't the the nonresidents then it will be the citiots (as we used to call them growing up in rural Minnesota) or just anybody that doesn't live in the immediate vicinity.
On a serious note, what are the best arguments for not passing these types of regulations? Money? in this case WGFD can probably do ~20% increase in nonres license and point fees and ~10% increase in resident fees to offset fewer nonresident licenses. So this angle doesn't seem likely.

It would seem that unless there is good evidence that population management can't be maintained without more generous nonresident quotas then 90-10 is gonna happen. Alternatively nonresidents somehow have to convince residents that more of us (or the status quo) in their state is better than not having us in their state. To that end, I love all of you in the 307! You guys and gals are great!

FWIW, it seems the first consequence of tightening nonresident quotas is that every other state tightens nonresident quotas.

 

[BuzzH]

Most states (that I'm familiar with) have game laws designed to meet management objectives, with somewhat broad ethical personal limits on quantity of game that can be taken or held in posession. The bottom line is that very few, very large families are capable of using 15 big game animals per year (or even half that many) without considerable waste.
So, the argument seems to be that wyoming residents should be able to kill more animals and not that they want hunting opportunities, since it's entirely possible to make one or two or even four tags stretch from mid september through mid to late december providing 3-1/2 months of opportunity.

The idea that Wyoming has a corner on the market when it comes to rough weather and living conditions is also laughable. Several states have similar weather.
Im really not sure why personal hardship (that you choose to endure) entitles you to take more game animals than you could personally use- if you're choosing to use them at all. I'm not saying that you're required to use them mind you. You could be donating the meat.

Pure crap...and way to accuse WY Residents of wasting game, all class. The only animal I've seen wasted in Wyoming was at a butcher shop killed by one of the Cabela's. A great six point bull brought in whole to a butcher shop here in Laramie in hot weather, thoroughly rotted that the butcher refused to accept.

This is about Residents getting to hunt more often in quality areas.

As to how many animals a resident can hunt, that's none of your concern...I don't care how many animals you can hunt in the state you live in. Your state, your business and that is decided by your legislature and/or Commission.

Same thing here in Wyoming, our hunting public, commission, and legislature worked together to come up with acceptable numbers, none of your business or concern. Just because a hunter may have 6-8-10-12 tags, doesn't mean they're filling them all. Do you use every tag you purchase? I don't. Even if they do get filled, we're allowed to share game with others who aren't as successful. Guys like some close friends of mine, that still hunt elk, but are in their late 70's and early 80's and struggle more to fill their tags. Its nice to be able to share some elk meat with them if they aren't successful, in particular when they've lived on elk their whole lives.

 

[Chad E]

They must realize something needs to be done. Things are becoming a zoo and game numbers in some GMUs are becoming harder to sustain in optimum numbers. Just supposition, but I have noticed a huge difference in the past two decades.

How do you figure that is a non resident allocation issue? Nonresidents have always been capped and at least for deer the allocation continues to go down in a lot of general areas. I absolutely understand where this push to 90 10 comes from but I continue to want to point out that all this crowding talk doesn't really make sense given the current caps. Well that is until 90 10 goes through for elk and nonresidents get more general tags at the cost of LQ tags. Then nonresidents will be blamed for more crowding even though there should be no net gain in hunters because the increase in non residents will be offset by decrease in residents in general units because they pulled LQ tags that formerly went to non residents. Obviously this isn't each and every unit specific but should in theory play out this way.


The real #s don't even matter even with a 90 10 split there will still be the residents complaining that non residents are stealing there tag because they haven't drawn in X number of years. What they fail to disclose is they are applying for a single digit draw odds tag. Sorry that's a completely different rant.

 

[Jimss]

Directly from Buzz's post above..."This is about Residents getting to hunt more often in quality areas."

Buzz your draw odds as a Wyo resident won't improve for quality deer and elk units with 90/10. Go ahead and cut nonres opportunity in 1/2 with 90/10 but it won't improve your odds of drawing a quality tag.

Wyo res opportunity as a whole will only slightly increase but nonres opportunity will be cut in 1/2! Here's resident draw odds with and without

 

[BuzzH]

Thank you for the charts Sebastian...I'm going to present them to the task force on Thursday, as the exact case for going 90-10.

The increase in resident opportunity due to 90-10 is very significant as you pointed out...just in a handful of areas you selected, 140 more Residents per year hunting quality elk units...58 more residents each year hunting great deer tags.

Over the course of a 10 year stretch...just in the small number of elk areas you selected 1,400 Residents...many of them youth hunters, older hunters, new hunters, families, and serious trophy hunters getting to hunt quality areas.

Same thing with deer...from just 6 areas over a 10 year period 580 additional residents getting a chance to hunt the best Wyoming has to offer.

That's significant to the Residents that live here...and that will be the message the task force gets on Thursday....

 

[Fordguy]

Pure crap...and way to accuse WY Residents of wasting game, all class. The only animal I've seen wasted in Wyoming was at a butcher shop killed by one of the Cabela's. A great six point bull brought in whole to a butcher shop here in Laramie in hot weather, thoroughly rotted that the butcher refused to accept.

This is about Residents getting to hunt more often in quality areas.

As to how many animals a resident can hunt, that's none of your concern...I don't care how many animals you can hunt in the state you live in. Your state, your business and that is decided by your legislature and/or Commission.

Same thing here in Wyoming, our hunting public, commission, and legislature worked together to come up with acceptable numbers, none of your business or concern. Just because a hunter may have 6-8-10-12 tags, doesn't mean they're filling them all. Do you use every tag you purchase? I don't. Even if they do get filled, we're allowed to share game with others who aren't as successful. Guys like some close friends of mine, that still hunt elk, but are in their late 70's and early 80's and struggle more to fill their tags. Its nice to be able to share some elk meat with them if they aren't successful, in particular when they've lived on elk their whole lives.

Insults? Grow up man. I haven't accused anyone of anything. Better reread the post- the part at the end about donating.
Share away. I've given away more venison than I've eaten in the last decade, and I really enjoy my venison. It doesn't entitle me to take more than my own share of anything. If you want to share your portion of a states resources with someone, that's cool. I applaud your generosity. However, sharing your allotted portion of the resource doesn't usually mean you're entitled to more of the resource.
Also read the part about ethical possession limits- meaning a quantity that an average individual or family can hold and possess for consumption without significant waste in a reasonable time. This applies to the individual, and is meant for an individual.
Do I fill every tag? No. However my OTC tag purchases don't keep anyone else from buying a tag either. So no loss of opportunity for anyone there. On my limited western hunts i go with the mindset that I'll fill the tag if I have an opportunity- unless I see so few animals that it just doesn't feel right. I'm primarily a meat hunter. Point being- my single unfilled tag isn't taking away the opportunity of 6 other hunters in Wyoming- as would be the case if you, as a resident had 12 tags and only filled/used six. I still have the opportunity to hunt because of the single nonresident tag- no lost opportunity. There's never a guarantee of success.

And, quite honestly- you're not understanding or are pretending not to understand why it is the concern of thousands of non-residents. They've invested (some quite heavily) in Wyoming, and now Wyoming is proposing changes to their detriment.

I was and am still open to hearing about why wyoming residents are in favor of the 90/10. I wasn't for it, but I'm not totally against it either. Might say I'm still on the fence. I feel that 90/10 could work with some additional measures, but most people wouldn't like those either. I'm more than happy to discus it with an adult.

 

[BuzzH]

Insults? Grow up man. I haven't accused anyone of anything. Better reread the post- the part at the end about donating.
Share away. I've given away more venison than I've eaten in the last decade, and I really enjoy my venison. It doesn't entitle me to take more than my own share of anything. If you want to share your portion of a states resources with someone, that's cool. I applaud your generosity. However, sharing your allotted portion of the resource doesn't usually mean you're entitled to more of the resource.
Also read the part about ethical possession limits- meaning a quantity that an average individual or family can hold and possess for consumption without significant waste in a reasonable time. This applies to the individual, and is meant for an individual.
Do I fill every tag? No. However my OTC tag purchases don't keep anyone else from buying a tag either. So no loss of opportunity for anyone there. On my limited western hunts i go with the mindset that I'll fill the tag if I have an opportunity- unless I see so few animals that it just doesn't feel right. I'm primarily a meat hunter. Point being- my single unfilled tag isn't taking away the opportunity of 6 other hunters in Wyoming- as would be the case if you, as a resident had 12 tags and only filled/used six. I still have the opportunity to hunt because of the single nonresident tag- no lost opportunity. There's never a guarantee of success.

And, quite honestly- you're not understanding or are pretending not to understand why it is the concern of thousands of non-residents. They've invested (some quite heavily) in Wyoming, and now Wyoming is proposing changes to their detriment.

I was and am still open to hearing about why wyoming residents are in favor of the 90/10. I wasn't for it, but I'm not totally against it either. Might say I'm still on the fence. I feel that 90/10 could work with some additional measures, but most people wouldn't like those either. I'm more than happy to discus it with an adult.

I read your post just fine...maybe you should try reading it.

Here, to remind you:

The bottom line is that very few, very large families are capable of using 15 big game animals per year (or even half that many) without considerable waste.

There's no ambiguity in your words...its the "bottom line"...