seeth07
Well-known member
That wasn't my point. My point was that using what he said as an argument is pointless.
LO Battle Ahead?
- Thread starter Treeshark
- Start date
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,647
unit 7 has a objective of 5000 elk and is sitting with a current estimated population of 12-13k elk. How much more tolerant of elk do we need them to be? This unit is so over objective Fwp was considering shooting them from a helicopter. Wyofile refers to it as super herds were you can watch elk herds of over a thousand move across the landscape. They already offer basically unlimited cow tags which are hard to fill due to wagonhound wanting 2k a cow maybe more I haven’t looked in a minute. They wanted around 15k to kill a bull last time I looked. Unit 7 is the exact unit I would pick to show why this is a shit idea and will turn into a money grab
rjthehunter
Well-known member
The discussion was already about the costs. Look back about 10 or so for seeth's math. The rich are probably already buying their tags for UT or NM.
I think it was like 5th grade where we learned about supply & demand.
When demand is high and supply is low, cost goes up. When demand is low, and supply is high, costs go down. More tags for purchase lowers the average cost.
Obviously a great tag will sell for more money, the same way it takes more points (also money) to draw said tag.
Are there any states that currently mandate this?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,040
If there are - it wouldnt last.
seeth07
Well-known member
Would be fantastic if they did
antlerradar
Well-known member
The number of landowners that would take that deal is close to zero.
One of my favorite quotes from a WY friend of mine comes to mind......
"You have quite the imagination. In fact, you should write fairy tales."
seeth07
Well-known member
You know, as much as I want to give you a laughing emoji for that one, it makes me realize just how unfortunate the situation is in these western states and just how much power and strong of a voice the landowners must carry into the legislative sessions. Nothing in my statement is really that crazy or unreasonable yet it gets laughed at as impossible.
this is certainly a big reason as to why western residents have zero desire for any or more transferable landowner tags.
lots of great "what ifs" and ideas for how to structure it beneficially, sure. but the elephant in the room is the landowners who have enormous pull with commissions and general assemblys, their own "what ifs" and wonderful ideas, and, of course, they're insatiable.
give a fricken mouse a cookie and all.
“It’s not going to go over well with sportsmen. It’s going to go over just about as well as selling our public lands.”
wyofile.com
Outcry causes Wyoming to back off plan to curb ‘landowner tag’ advantages - WyoFile
Game and Fish reconsiders proposed changes amid a legislative discussion about making special tags saleable — a hugely unpopular idea with sportspeople.
wyofile.com
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Hundreds Of Landowners Angry Over Proposed Wyoming Hunting Tag Changes
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on Tuesday could face hundreds of landowners and residents angry over proposed changes to the landowner hunting tag…
cowboystatedaily.com
What are the groups thoughts on this?
Should they raise the minimum property requirements to receive landowner tags? Right now it's only 160 acres, it would be raised up to 640 acres. It would also jump from 2,000 animal use days to 3,000.
It seems like a benefit to R & NR hunters. Should mean there's more tags available to hunters in the units where a lot of LO tags are being given away. In the name of more opportunity, I think this would be great for all hunters. (except for the landowners who are getting a handful of tags every year).
It’s difficult to imagine large landowners giving something up without receiving something in return.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,040
Absolutely. Should do the same thing in MT.Hundreds Of Landowners Angry Over Proposed Wyoming Hunting Tag Changes
The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on Tuesday could face hundreds of landowners and residents angry over proposed changes to the landowner hunting tag…
What are the groups thoughts on this?
Should they raise the minimum property requirements to receive landowner tags? Right now it's only 160 acres, it would be raised up to 640 acres. It would also jump from 2,000 animal use days to 3,000.
It seems like a benefit to R & NR hunters. Should mean there's more tags available to hunters in the units where a lot of LO tags are being given away. In the name of more opportunity, I think this would be great for all hunters. (except for the landowners who are getting a handful of tags every year).
The last thing we should want is more of the properties subdivided.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
It doesn’t really sound like this would affect large landowners at all. 160 acres in the west is basically nothing. Any large landowner would be way over 640 acres.
I hesitate to share this because it’s so biased and poorly-written, but always seems to make for an interesting discussion:
LO Tags Back in the Picture
LO Tags Back in the Picture
Last edited:
Point Creep
Well-known member
Treeshart’s favorite topic, selling/buying landowner tags.
Gellar
Well-known member
Questions that have probably been answered in the previous 18 pages of this thread.
Are Wyoming LO tags good for the entire unit or only the persons property?
What are the “thresholds” that a LO must meet?
Are Wyoming LO tags good for the entire unit or only the persons property?
What are the “thresholds” that a LO must meet?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,040
The comments in there are gold.
Based on the over 2k public comments in 1998, and the vitriol in the written comments in the article, I'd say Montanans could learn a thing or two about standing up to this kind of bullshit. Instead - parrot lobbyist propaganda about "providing incentives."
Similar threads
