Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

[mhabiger]

I let the task force meeting play in the background yesterday as I worked. Here is what I took away:

Task force supports and will recommend

• Move Big 5 to 90-10 split
• Big 5 hunts that allow take of male species become once-in-a-lifetime

Restructure Big 5 draw

• Bunch of debate about how to phase out current system and move to something closer to a bonus point or pure random draw system.
• Desire to balance opportunity for all while still reward those who have been applying
• Seemed to be some support for moving to 50/50 system where half the tags continue as is for those with points today and the other half go to a new system.

Antelope, Deer and Elk discussion

• WYGFD gave fantastic presentation on previous senate bill wanting 90-10. They showed 6 different approaches to 90-10 and scenario analysis around resident draw odds impact, fiscal impact under no license price change and revenue neutral approach (at least for license revenue) where nonresidents shoulder the entire cost (hopefully they'll post this online)
• Task force decided to discuss ideas around increasing opportunity outside of DEA 90-10 until they could get more info on certain aspects of the tag allocation

Opportunity discussion

• Discussion around choose your weapon tags, possibly make residents and nonresident general tag holders choose their weapon
• Discussion around adding late season hunts
• Discussion around landowner access and what could be done to improve access, particularly through the Access Yes! program

There is probably some stuff I missed but that is what stood out to me. I'd say the task force is influenced by public comment (especially well thought out comments), there is a desire to not just follow what other states are doing and to generally leave WYGFD latitude when it comes to balancing game management and tag allocations. So keep it coming if you have an opinion. Next meeting is in September.

 

[Bighorner]

I sat in on the web cast as well. I think the topic of transferable landowner tags will come up. In my opinion this hurts the average hunting by shrinking the pool of tags avaible to be drawn and goes further to monitze game animals.

 

[tdhanses]

Transferrable tags go for big money. The average hunter isn't going to pay 3k+ for those tags. Transferrable tags also remove tags from the general applicant pool giving less opportunity to regular DIY hunters. There are plenty of opportunities for the guys who want to pay big money in Utah, New Mexico, etc.

Why not when we pay $5-$12k to outfitters already, you can’t hunt the land but those that could afford to would open another opportunity and give land owners more income in a state where it sounds like the cost of living is high but the wages low.

 

[tdhanses]

Also I would say with non transferable tags, not every landowner applies to receive a tag. Maybe they don't hunt, maybe they get 1 elk tag when they qualify for 2 etc. . .

With transferable and monetized land owner tags, every land owner will take their max allocation in order to sell them and profit. . . It's the best business decision. And when that happens the overall impact is less tags to be drawn, thus impacting the public land hunter that cannot afford to pay 2-15k for a land owner tag.

For further info see new Mexico as case study #1.

But not less tags for the NR as by statute or reg we get say 7250 elk tags no matter what. It would open up a new rev source for landowners and also increase the NR tag opportunities.

 

[String&stick]

But not less tags for the NR as by statute or reg we get say 7250 elk tags no matter what. It would open up a new rev source for landowners and also increase the NR tag opportunities.

Except every non resident land owner taking his max tags and selling them will come out of that pot, and I'm sure if there gets to be a glut of NR buying land owner tags then they will start to crack down on that by counting it against the NR quota. . . All it takes is making the land owner "tag" a land owner "voucher" now your voucher guarantees you a tag but it comes out of whatever pool you fall in (NR or R) and just like that it's taking tags out of the NR pool and hurting the average guy.

Just go ahead and say you don't give a shit about Joe schmo that DIY hunts and can't afford to buy a $3,000 voucher, you can afford it and want to get better access to tags. . . I have no problem with it, but don't paint a pretty picture of it not effecting the average guy!

 

[tdhanses]

Except every non resident land owner taking his max tags and selling them will come out of that pot, and I'm sure if there gets to be a glut of NR buying land owner tags then they will start to crack down on that by counting it against the NR quota. . . All it takes is making the land owner "tag" a land owner "voucher" now your voucher guarantees you a tag but it comes out of whatever pool you fall in (NR or R) and just like that it's taking tags out of the NR pool and hurting the average guy.

Just go ahead and say you don't give a shit about Joe schmo that DIY hunts and can't afford to buy a $3,000 voucher, you can afford it and want to get better access to tags. . . I have no problem with it, but don't paint a pretty picture of it not effecting the average guy!

The resident desire to keep reducing NR opportunities hurts Joe Schmo much more then transferable LO tags ever would, even if you took the NR land owners out of the quota.

 

[String&stick]

The resident desire to keep reducing NR opportunities hurts Joe Schmo much more then transferable LO tags ever would, even if you took the NR land owners out of the quota.

They will take all non residents purchasing land owner tags out of the non resident quota. . . It will be a simple process for them to accomplish, and 90% of your landowner tags that get sold will be sold to . . . Nonresidents.

Residents reducing NR quota in LE units will hurt in those units but NR will still get their full allotment of tags that the average Joe has an equal shot at . . Transferable tags will result in NR buying tags and reducing the available allotment that average Joe's have an equal shot at.

So in my opinion you are wrong.

 

[tdhanses]

They will take all non residents purchasing land owner tags out of the non resident quota. . . It will be a simple process for them to accomplish, and 90% of your landowner tags that get sold will be sold to . . . Nonresidents.

Residents reducing NR quota in LE units will hurt in those units but NR will still get their full allotment of tags that the average Joe has an equal shot at . . Transferable tags will result in NR buying tags and reducing the available allotment that average Joe's have an equal shot at.

So in my opinion you are wrong.

Guess we’ll see how they determine what pool LO tags will come out of.

We already pay $1300 for a tag. NR hunting isn’t cheap as it is. But let’s say there are 5000 LO tags and NR buy 100% of these, the majority of LO’s are probably residents.

 

[Laramie]

Why not when we pay $5-$12k to outfitters already, you can’t hunt the land but those that could afford to would open another opportunity and give land owners more income in a state where it sounds like the cost of living is high but the wages low.

WE don't pay 5-12k to outfitters. Some do but nowhere near the majority of non-residents. Most are diy and on a budget.

Congrats if that fits your lifestyle and type of hunting but to most non-residents, it would be terrible.

Also, the average landowner isn't the guy hurting for money or suffering from low wages.

 

[tdhanses]

WE don't pay 5-12k to outfitters. Some do but nowhere near the majority of non-residents. Most are diy and on a budget.

Congrats if that fits your lifestyle and type of hunting but to most non-residents, it would be terrible.

Also, the average landowner isn't the guy hurting for money or suffering from low wages.

I‘d bet a large portion of NR‘s pay an outfitter or for access etc. Not all do you are correct but most people that hunt as a NR invest thousands to hunt even if they elect for the $1300 special license or don’t, many travel across the country, stay in hotels etc.

The avg LO is a business and that extra cash would help pay wages.

 

[Laramie]

I‘d bet a large portion of NR‘s pay an outfitter or for access etc. Not all do you are correct but most people that hunt as a NR invest thousands to hunt even if they elect for the $1300 special license or don’t, many travel across the country, stay in hotels etc.

The avg LO is a business and that extra cash would help pay wages.

Depends on what you consider a large portion. On average Wyoming has about 45k non-resident hunters yearly with about 10k hiring an outfitter for their hunt. Under 25%. I would be willing to bet that a decent amount of those hiring outfitters would be against transferrable tags as well since that typically leads to a very specific style of hunt. Many of those hiring outfitters do so to gain access to wilderness so a change to transferrable tags that reduced nonresident quotas would negatively impact them going forward.

Yes, some rich guys would love to see transferrable tags so they could go hunt private ranches in Wyoming yearly. Most of us do not want to see that.

 

[tdhanses]

Depends on what you consider a large portion. On average Wyoming has about 45k non-resident hunters yearly with about 10k hiring an outfitter for their hunt. Under 25%. I would be willing to bet that a decent amount of those hiring outfitters would be against transferrable tags as well since that typically leads to a very specific style of hunt. Many of those hiring outfitters do so to gain access to wilderness so a change to transferrable tags that reduced nonresident quotas would negatively impact them going forward.

Yes, some rich guys would love to see transferrable tags so they could go hunt private ranches in Wyoming yearly. Most of us do not want to see that.

I don’t think it would effect the majority of NR if it happened, doubt they would reduce the already limited amount of NR tags that are a cash cow to WYFG by pulling tags for private land owned in WY that pay taxes, I’d think most would come out of the resident quota if not all.

Of the 45k how many antelope hunters pay for access only? WY has a ton of land locked ground, this could open some of it up. I’m just not seeing a downside for NR‘s with this and R would have the same opportunity to get a tag where they never could hunt.

It hasn’t hurt opportunities for R and NR in CO.

 

[wapitibob]

NR landowner tags currently come off the top of the nr quota.

When the commission looked at increasing the NR 7,250 one commissioner noted that half the nr Elk tags went to outfitted hunts.

 

[Gobbler36]

Will you guys catch me up to speed, did the 90-10 ruling pass and if so what year is it in effect???

 

[cgasner1]

I don’t think it would effect the majority of NR if it happened, doubt they would reduce the already limited amount of NR tags that are a cash cow to WYFG by pulling tags for private land owned in WY that pay taxes, I’d think most would come out of the resident quota if not all.

Of the 45k how many antelope hunters pay for access only? WY has a ton of land locked ground, this could open some of it up. I’m just not seeing a downside for NR‘s with this and R would have the same opportunity to get a tag where they never could hunt.

It hasn’t hurt opportunities for R and NR in CO.

Apples to oranges with co to Wyoming. Colorado seems to be almost anti elk with the amount of elk hunting they allow and now bring wolves back. You can hunt Colorado every year if you want. Not much of a option for Wyoming being able to open your check book shouldn’t change that for people in the state


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mhabiger]

Will you guys catch me up to speed, did the 90-10 ruling pass and if so what year is it in effect???

My update a few posts back was from the last meeting and is the latest, the next meeting is tomorrow (Sept. 1st). The final task force meeting is scheduled for Dec. 3rd and then the task force makes recommendations to the legislature afterwards (unless they jump the gun).

 

[Bobbyboe]

If they want to go 90-10, then they should just drop the point system all together. Point creep will be horrid if the system stays.

Should just rip that bandaid off now, if the allotment is changing anyways.

 

[Gobbler36]

If they want to go 90-10, then they should just drop the point system all together. Point creep will be horrid if the system stays.

Should just rip that bandaid off now, if the allotment is changing anyways.

See this is how I feel also. As an Idaho resident I sympathize with WY residents to want to go 90-10, it sucks to see your state overrun with NR plates during hunting season but I think a move to a random system if they are slashing controlled hunt allocation is the way to go since the point creep is gonna be nasty. I’d be in favor of a 3-5 year phased approach so they aren’t burning everyone who has been faithfully building points also. Who knows….
We’ve put ourselves in this pickle by glorifying western hunting and putting too much demand on it, now we’re reaping the rewards of states needing to roll back opportunities and change their management and unfortunately I see that’s it’s gonna come to the man with $$$ has the tags

 

[tdhanses]

See this is how I feel also. As an Idaho resident I sympathize with WY residents to want to go 90-10, it sucks to see your state overrun with NR plates during hunting season but I think a move to a random system if they are slashing controlled hunt allocation is the way to go since the point creep is gonna be nasty. I’d be in favor of a 3-5 year phased approach so they aren’t burning everyone who has been faithfully building points also. Who knows….
We’ve put ourselves in this pickle by glorifying western hunting and putting too much demand on it, now we’re reaping the rewards of states needing to roll back opportunities and change their management and unfortunately I see that’s it’s gonna come to the man with $$$ has the tags

Thing is this isn’t a reduction in tags overall so the same amount of NR will still be in WY just more NR in general units and R will get a slightly better chance to draw a limited tag.

So really R won’t see much change other then more NR hunters in general units If it goes through, at least for elk and deer.

 

[Gobbler36]

Thing is this isn’t a reduction in tags overall so the same amount of NR will still be in WY just more NR in general units and R will get a slightly better chance to draw a limited tag.

So really R won’t see much change other then more NR hunters in general units If it goes through, at least for elk and deer.

Huh
That’s interesting, I guess I’m not understanding it then. These things always seem to have many angles and very convoluted that wasn’t my takeaway at first glance so seems I need to go back and reread

thanks.