April WTF (Wildlife Task Force) Questionnaire Very important...

[WYelker]

If you have not taken the time to fill out comment for the April WY Wildlife Task Force, please take the time and complete it...

Important items for both residents and NR to consider... Pick a region is being pushed for Residents. They are looking at forcing a person to pick between whitetail and mule deer hunting, and also they are looking to change the NR cap by forcing all NR to pick a region on the general elk license. All of which are nothing to do with the biology and all about trying to change the entire system for the benefit of a few.

The questionnaire is found here:

Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce - Public Input

Submit comments for the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce below. Public comment provided to the taskforce for consideration prior to each meeting can be found on the "Meeting Materials" page. Comments received by 5 p.m. MST on April 21, 2022 will be provided to the Taskforce for the April 28, 2022

sites.google.com

 

[BackofBeyond]

Totally read that as "April What The F*** Questionaire..."

I need more coffee.

 

[MarvB]

^^^ditto, my first thought was damn and Randy just told us to clean things up

 

[Hem]

WTF poll could go alot of directions.

 

[bklotthor]

Interesting, how would the change to a regional quota system for general NR elk effect the total number of general tags issued to NR? The link statues that the 7,250 cap would be removed, so would there be less tags overall issued to NR or would the total stay the same?

 

[WYelker]

Interesting, how would the change to a regional quota system for general NR elk effect the total number of general tags issued to NR? The link statues that the 7,250 cap would be removed, so would there be less tags overall issued to NR or would the total stay the same?

The way they worded it:

The 7,250 cap on full‐price licenses issued in the nonresident drawing would be removed. Nonresident general elk licenses would be issued through a regional quota system, similar to how nonresident general deer licenses are issued. Neither of these changes, if recommended, would result in a change to the percentage (16%) of non-resident limited quota licenses issued in limited quota drawings

I think they would look at WY general units data and make sure that 16% of the users in the general unit were NR. Potentially adding a ton of licenses to general units liked by residents. No matter what I do not see this having support by the WYGOA without it meaning an increase in NR numbers...

 

[WYelker]

Totally read that as "April What The F*** Questionaire..."

I need more coffee.

I added a little to help avoid that... But the proposals do make a person wonder!!! LOL!

 

[BrentD]

Not enough info to make a decision. That is a horribly written poll.

If the mulies and white tails are split, could a hunter buy tags for both? If so. I'm opposed. If not, then I'm for.

Elk is similarly vague. How many NR tags under the proposed system?

 

[madtom]

I don’t think the regional gen elk quotas will have anything to do with maintaining 84/16% by region. It’s just a way to distribute gen elk hunters according to elk numbers and access similar to what’s done with deer (I.e., gen deer regions have nothing to do with maintaining R/NR ratio by region).

At face value, regional gen elk for NR makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[WYelker]

Interesting, how would the change to a regional quota system for general NR elk effect the total number of general tags issued to NR? The link statues that the 7,250 cap would be removed, so would there be less tags overall issued to NR or would the total stay the same?

Good question. I initially made some assumptions. That it would increase the NR license allocation, but then I need to look up the numbers to be sure. I may have been a little premature in assuming it would increase. But still as a resident I would be against limiting the NR without really good data to suggest that is needed

 

[WYelker]

I don’t think the regional gen elk quotas will have anything to do with maintaining 84/16% by region. It’s just a way to distribute gen elk hunters according to elk numbers and access similar to what’s done with deer (I.e., gen deer regions have nothing to do with maintaining R/NR ratio by region).

At face value, regional gen elk for NR makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't agree. Simply for this the very first thing is states: The 7,250 cap on full‐price licenses issued in the nonresident drawing would be removed. Neither of these changes, if recommended, would result in a change to the percentage (16%) of non-resident limited quota licenses issued in limited quota drawings. I am not sure how it would not apply somehow? Seriously I do not see anyone on this taskforce except maybe 1 guy entertaining a decrease in NR elk licenses.

I would ask you this, if we assume that there is still the same number of NR hunters what would it accomplish to force the NR to pick a region? What Justification would you have to qualify that? I am seriously interested in the answer, I can not imagine how this move would make a difference, unless you have somehting I am not thinking about...

 

[WapitiBob]

The 16% is independent of the 7250 (sort of). Currently we are allocated 16% in the draw, after which, the dept back fills up to the 7250 with special gen licenses. All they have to do is remove the 7250 and combine areas to regions.

 

[madtom]

I would ask you this, if we assume that there is still the same number of NR hunters what would it accomplish to force the NR to pick a region?

This isn't a hill for me to die on and I work for a living, so this is my final two cents to clarify on my earlier post.

1. The 7,250 cap is silly and arbitrary (my opinion). It has remained static for decades while elk numbers continue to increase.

2. Many/most elk herds in Wyoming are way over objective, and causing more damage issues all the time.

3. Some of the most "problematic" elk issues occur east of I-25 where private land dominates.

4. As I see it, regionalizing gen elk allows managers to adjust regional quotas based on the elk numbers and access (again, similar to what's done for deer).

5. NR who are willing to negotiate access issues (e.g., pay to trespass, outfitted, etc.) would likely have easier drawing odds and more private land "problem" elk could be hunted than the current system that basically sends every NR gen hunter to congested southern or western WY.

I'm humble enough to know it won't be perfect, but I do see it as a means to increase harvest in the less-public parts of the state. Ultimately, it will likely result in more NR gen tags than are currently issued under 7,250, but we will have the means to address crowding and/or reduced elk densities (if that ever actually happens).

Have a good afternoon.

 

[WYelker]

This isn't a hill for me to die on and I work for a living, so this is my final two cents to clarify on my earlier post.

1. The 7,250 cap is silly and arbitrary (my opinion). It has remained static for decades while elk numbers continue to increase.

2. Many/most elk herds in Wyoming are way over objective, and causing more damage issues all the time.

3. Some of the most "problematic" elk issues occur east of I-25 where private land dominates.

4. As I see it, regionalizing gen elk allows managers to adjust regional quotas based on the elk numbers and access (again, similar to what's done for deer).

5. NR who are willing to negotiate access issues (e.g., pay to trespass, outfitted, etc.) would likely have easier drawing odds and more private land "problem" elk could be hunted than the current system that basically sends every NR gen hunter to congested southern or western WY.

I'm humble enough to know it won't be perfect, but I do see it as a means to increase harvest in the less-public parts of the state. Ultimately, it will likely result in more NR gen tags than are currently issued under 7,250, but we will have the means to address crowding and/or reduced elk densities (if that ever actually happens).

Have a good afternoon.

Good points, but am I wrong in thinking that the cap only goes towards type one tags or at least the bull tags? If it is about increasing harvest to bring herd back under objective then that could be done with cow calf licenses that are not figured into the 7,250 number.

I am not 100% sure I am correct and I enjoy the conversation as I try to wrap my head around different issues.

 

[WYelker]

The 16% is independent of the 7250 (sort of). Currently we are allocated 16% in the draw, after which, the dept back fills up to the 7250 with special gen licenses. All they have to do is remove the 7250 and combine areas to regions.

But then how do they figure out the percent? What would keep the state from dumping 7,000 NR hunters in a unit and eliminating them entirely from a different unit? I do not know based on the questionnaire how it will play out. I highly doubt it will be in favor of the average resident.

 

[Thx1138]

Controlling who hunts where is probably a good idea for NR Gen elk management. I am opposed to increasing the 7250 but the regional control could help distribute pressure. If Wyoming Game and Fish wants to decrease elk, issue more Cow/Calf tags or put pressure on landowners and give incentives to open up private lands. We don’t need more NR pressure in Gen areas by increasing the 7250 for elk or it’ll just be another zoo like Colorado……..

 

[Thx1138]

But then how do they figure out the percent? What would keep the state from dumping 7,000 NR hunters in a unit and eliminating them entirely from a different unit? I do not know based on the questionnaire how it will play out. I highly doubt it will be in favor of the average resident.

I suggest you watch this video on how the Wyoming draw system works……

 

[WYelker]

I suggest you watch this video on how the Wyoming draw system works……

I know exactly how the draw system works. The question is about the switch from a cap of 7250 to the idea that general tags would go region. Seriously think just a bit... Right now there the NR tags are capped at 7250. Under the system the draw only is taken out first, leaving the general tags to make up the difference. But in this post they say that they would eliminate the cap and maintain the percent splits. How do they determine what is 16% of a general tag for residents? That is the question, under the wording they suggest that they would maintain the current split... So does that mean that they would take the total number resident general elk tags and use that number to determine how many general tags to give NR? So they would look at the total number of resident genral tags and allocate 16% of that? That is the question, that is the concern as it could move the number of nonresident tags way up.

 

[WYelker]

Controlling who hunts where is probably a good idea for NR Gen elk management. I am opposed to increasing the 7250 but the regional control could help distribute pressure. If Wyoming Game and Fish wants to decrease elk, issue more Cow/Calf tags or put pressure on landowners and give incentives to open up private lands. We don’t need more NR pressure in Gen areas by increasing the 7250 for elk or it’ll just be another zoo like Colorado……..

Yes I agree. The more I dig into this, it is being pushed as a way to get elk off of private lands in the east where access is limited. The private land owners want paying NR to kill the elk. As you said the real answer to this is to beef up the access yes program to the point that the majority of landowners will allow regulated access. Sadly this is more about outfitter/landowner profits than it is about management. I fully agree if they want to decrease herds on the private lands in the east, then the answer is cow/calf licenses. If they want to really do it with NR then create some reduced cost cow calf license.

Interestingly enough when we dig into the data NR typically get around 13,000 full price licenses every year due to the leftover process.

 

[WYelker]

Good points, but am I wrong in thinking that the cap only goes towards type one tags or at least the bull tags? If it is about increasing harvest to bring herd back under objective then that could be done with cow calf licenses that are not figured into the 7,250 number.

I am not 100% sure I am correct and I enjoy the conversation as I try to wrap my head around different issues.

I double checked and found that the 7,250 cap applies to all full priced tags. So one way to keep the cap and not change the system, while still allowing there to be private land hunts would be to create some reduced price cow calf tags for the private lands experiencing too many elk. Of course a private land owner who wants to decrease the elk herd could always part take in the access yes program. But adding some reduced cow calf tags to specific areas could get the goal of reducing elk on certain land without adding a ton of NR only tags.