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

[Thx1138]

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.

The whole end goal of those pushing this is to raise the 7250 cap to say just for example it raises to 10,000. Now, you have a system where (fake numbers) 3250 NR are awarded licenses in the limited quota draw so they award 4000 in the Gen NR pool to get them up to 7250. If they raise it to 10,000 you will have 6750 Gen NR hunters. Its a ploy to get a lot more NR elk hunters to sign up for $6000 guided elk hunts, big money and big business. The regional quota is a way to manage and redistribute hunting pressure. If there are 4000 NR Gen elk hunters then potentially all could hunt one region so they want to control the numbers in each region much like they do NR deer. The 16% only applies to the limited quota draw but NR are guaranteed due to past lobbying by the WYOGA to have a minimum of 7250 elk licenses. Remember the way the G &F does not apply the 7250 rule to reduced price Cow/Calf for NR.

 

[WapitiBob]

Under the current system, NR GEN licenses are 16% of the total GEN license quota. All they have to do is split that nr quota into regions.

 

[WapitiBob]

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.

In 2019, nr drew 7,250 full price Elk licenses, 2,771 reduced price cow/calf, 480 full price leftover Elk licenses, and 1,821 reduced price cow/calf leftovers.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

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.

The points made by madtom above are the ones most commonly used today by those that either advocate for NR Gen regions or those that maybe just think they are a good idea. My thoughts on each of those points.

1) Who cares how or why this number exists? The only big game species in Wyo that operates under a quota like this is elk. Since its inception the elk herds in WY have grown and expanded. Several changes to the system have been implemented to deal with this and provide more opportunity (tags) for NR's. Type 6 and 7 licenses being the main one. Since this quota was put in lace the only Big Game animal in Wy that has grown in population has been elk. Everything else is lower and not by a little. Surely the 7250 quota is not solely responsible for this but its also not 0% responsible. Regardless of of how or why the number was created the system is working great. Why mess with the one and only success in Wy Big Game management?

2) The herds that are over objective are not primarily Gen areas. Switching to regions would not change this. Direct quote from Director Nesvik at the last TF meeting "Cant say that NR Gen tag structure is constraining us. Access is" The options for NR under Gen tags is not the problem. Why tinker with it?

3) See number 2. There has been a lot of talk about making these problematic areas Gen areas. Doing that would automatically increase the number of NR Gen licensees. Much of the push to making Gen regions is that some with a financial interest in more NR Gen tags know that making private land dominant areas Gen and then allocating more NR gen tags for that region will boost their bottom line. They even stated in the last TF meeting that NR's will pay for access under a Gen tag where as Res hunters wont. This is ploy to take options and tags away from popular DIY areas and increase Gen tags good for areas where the NR hunter is far more likely to have to pay from either private or Wilderness restrictions.

4) Even the Director of WG&F says the way it works now is not constraining management.

5) Not sure I want to advocate for a system that further incentives private land harboring of elk. Don't think you have to look much further than North to see the issues this creates. Further if congestion in Western of Southern Gen areas is a problem, I disagree that it is, but if it is then the first place to look is opening up Wilderness areas to any NR hunter. Start with the most useless, un-American restriction first then work your way down the list.

 

[BrentD]

Thank you, mulecreek. Very well said.

 

[Treeshark]

Direct quote from Director Nesvik at the last TF meeting "Cant say that NR Gen tag structure is constraining us. Access is"

This is essentially the same issue as in Montana. The problem: too many hunters/too few elk on public, too many elk/too few hunters on private.

As I see it, part of the solution must involve finding ways to shift hunters from public to private to target these elk and help disperse them on to public land.

*I believe transferable landowner tags are a valuable tool to accomplish this goal (edit: added back).

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I believe transferable landowner tags are a valuable tool to accomplish this goal.

Even if I agreed, and I don’t, that juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

 

[Treeshark]

Even if I agreed, and I don’t, that juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

I removed that part before your post, I know it’s controversial and didn’t want to create waves in a good discussion.

Just out of curiosity Snowy, may I ask you while you feel that way? Genuine question and asking you specifically because I respect and appreciate reading your views on these topics.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I removed that part before your post, I know it’s controversial and didn’t want to create waves in a good discussion.

Just out of curiosity Snowy, may I ask you while you feel that way? Genuine question and asking you specifically because I respect and appreciate reading your views on these topics.

We’re all entitled to our opinion and I am not always right.

My reasoning is:
-I don’t think it would make an appreciable dent in redistributing elk to public land.
-I think it moves the needle the wrong direction in terms of commercializing wildlife.
-It works in opposition to public access programs like Access Yes by incentivizing landowners to lock up their hunting in order to sell tags.
-I think it’s an ass backwards approach to management, because it’s really not about management IMO, it’s about selling bull elk. Landowners often seem keen on working with everyone to get elk killed…if they get to do it with gen or bull tags, on their terms.
-One way or another it’s likely tags off the top of a pool, that will no longer be accessible to regular dudes.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

There are guys on here that know many times what I do on the topic, those are just some points that have resonated with me.

 

[Treeshark]

I appreciate the thoughtful reply, much appreciated.

I get your points regarding the commercialization of wildlife. I don’t like it either. As a nonresident to all western states, the constant march towards what looks to me like “Balkanization” of hunting opportunities is of equal or greater concern. It’s a complex challenge all the way around.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

i am not for the landowner tag welfare bail out///if the private areas are overloaded ,,just expand the hma and walk in areas,and do the permit system set up on them,,,problem solved .they will know who is approved to be on there place thru the permit system and by plate numbers.