Commission meeting
- Thread starter wytex
- Start date
I noticed that too.
Trade you Colorado's model DEI Commission for yours!
Up_A_Creek
New member
Why the change to 3 regions? The 13 region proposal made more sense if they are going to regionalize.
Archer86
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2022
- Messages
- 500
I have no idea. I know some of the outfitters spoke at a meeting in January February time frame and complained about the first one and at that time they wanted the state split in half so they got most of what they wanted it appears. They need to just leave it alone.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I am not now and have not been in favor of elk regions, but…less, and large regions is better in my world. For example, the Jackson region in the first iteration had a lot of tags — great we have lots of elk. But most of those NR holders would be crammed in non-wilderness, would have been a crowding nightmare.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The regions are a bad idea, so is removing the 7250 cap.
Residents are going to push for 90-10 on LQ elk if this horseshit passes. I think its probably time to head to the legislature to cap the NR general tags as well.
The GF is hell bent on destroying the best thing they have going right now in Wyoming, elk. Its all to appease some landowners in area 6, the black hills and Eastern Wyoming. Why not just issue more LQ private land only tags in those areas? Nope, lets jack the rest of the State up to appease a handful of landowners. Just ridiculous.
The statewide general tags and 7250 cap just flat worked, they aren't going to make things better for anyone by deviating from that.
Residents are going to push for 90-10 on LQ elk if this horseshit passes. I think its probably time to head to the legislature to cap the NR general tags as well.
The GF is hell bent on destroying the best thing they have going right now in Wyoming, elk. Its all to appease some landowners in area 6, the black hills and Eastern Wyoming. Why not just issue more LQ private land only tags in those areas? Nope, lets jack the rest of the State up to appease a handful of landowners. Just ridiculous.
The statewide general tags and 7250 cap just flat worked, they aren't going to make things better for anyone by deviating from that.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Pull the blinders off or get some better glasses...you're ability to "see" is suspect.
It's going to be worse for NRs. Regions are not under 84-16 requirements so the quotas can be cut drastically for nr general elk...look at deer regions tags for an example. Plus, residents are going to push for 90% of LQ tags.
First cuts made to elk when recreation management strategies drop below required bull to cow ratios will be nr region general tags.
If the 7250 regulation that forced us to issue that many full priced tags goes away, there will be residents pushing for lower NR general region elk quotas...me being one.
Last edited:
WYelker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 488
This entire thing is Bs and should be met with stiff resistance from resident hunters.
What problem will this solve? From the outside, I have not seen the actual problem they are trying to solve defined.
They say it will fox herd issues in areas that are under hunted. But they could do that with offering more PLO tags etc.
Also the Game and Fish tend to speak out of both sides of their mouth. They say that they are doing this to address over population in specific areas. Then they claim that offering tags for males is not a limiting factor in the resource. So which is it? This is simply about giving landowners a handout to sell more hunts… If it was really about populations, then we all know it would be about cow/calf tags and not type one/general tags…
What problem will this solve? From the outside, I have not seen the actual problem they are trying to solve defined.
They say it will fox herd issues in areas that are under hunted. But they could do that with offering more PLO tags etc.
Also the Game and Fish tend to speak out of both sides of their mouth. They say that they are doing this to address over population in specific areas. Then they claim that offering tags for males is not a limiting factor in the resource. So which is it? This is simply about giving landowners a handout to sell more hunts… If it was really about populations, then we all know it would be about cow/calf tags and not type one/general tags…
Archer86
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2022
- Messages
- 500
This is key. They said multiple times during the winter kill discussion that hunting antlered deer doesn't have a significant impact on the population. if that's the case they can add in extra type 6 tags in those areas where they want to kill more elk and give the RESIDENTS of the state more tags as well.
what's even worse is they have put this out for Comment 3 times now and a majority of residents have been against it the last 2 what do they think the outcome will be this time?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Oh come on...what's with all this common sense crap regarding lowering populations by shooting cows?
Oh, and issuing PLO tags via existing license types? Better to reinvent the wheel and screw up a working system.
Oh, and issuing PLO tags via existing license types? Better to reinvent the wheel and screw up a working system.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Same thing with res deer regions — over and over explained that we’ve got high buck:doe in G and H, need to grow the doe resource, it didn’t pass the TF, majority of comment (other than outfitters) not in favor, but commissioner Bell won’t let it go.
The way they seem hell bent to flood generals withs NRs(removal of limit is bad!) i am beginning to reconsider 90/10 (which should be in conjunction with this). Add to this the way outfitters basically made decisions on G/H deer tags and season settings this year. Outfitters will set the regional elk quotas, hell they already have 520 -9 tags in general units that overlap as welfare tags.
Thinking maybe resident press should be ALL LE tags primary draws???
Thinking maybe resident press should be ALL LE tags primary draws???
perma
Well-known member
This is awfully absurd. Where are they going to fit all these hunters in eastern WY?
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
So here is what the department says about issuing more Gen tags in the Eastern region. They know it won’t lower pops in any meaningful way. But by getting rid of the 7250 cap it will allow them to issue more Type 4 tags in the eastern units, therefore reducing the population without deducting from the total number of Gen tags. When asked why not just make more Type 6 tags that don’t come out of the 7260 allocation, they were very open about saying they are confident they will sell every Type 4 tag they issue to NRs in the eastern units. If they made them Type 6 they would be leaving money on the table.
Don’t shoot me, just the messenger. I give them some credit for honesty.
BuzzH
Well-known member
If they're going to use that logic, then I expect the commission to change a whole pile of those harder to draw type 6's to type 4's. Like in the areas around Rock Springs where demand far outstrips supply on the type-6's.
WYelker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 488
Exactly. That is a stupid reason. Nothing to do with biology at all.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Not every decision the G&F makes has to do with biology. Never has, never will. Some decisions are people management, budgetary, etc. While I do not agree with making NR region, I actually think since the G&F are the ones that were asked by the Commission to come up with proposals to go to regions, I think this is actually a pretty sound thought process to use. Also agree that if and when this change happens a whole bunch of the Type 6&7 tags need to go back to Type 4, since Type 4's being subtracted from 7250 was the main reason used to create the Type 6&7 tags.
Private land outfitted hunts, outfitter welfare in a roundabout way.
Similar threads
