Respectfully, these wouldn't be unlimited licenses. They aren't transferable, so the "for sale" comment is hyperbolic and doesn't reflect the issue at hand.
The bill lifts the cap, similar to deer. There are not any unlimited deer licenses in the state, even in areas of over-abundance. So the commission will still set a level. Given the scaling matrix that would go through rulemaking, the public will get to weigh in and influence this if it passes. It actually sets up a better system for spreading hunter pressure around due to the scaling so you won't have as many cow hunters on public land, and more focused on private. It creates a finer scale management tool to make a decision based on several factors, that could include available acreage for public hunting.
It is also disingenuous to tie this to the UPOM case. This is what UPOM was advocating for:
https://wyofile.com/hired-guns-unlimited-tags-wyoming-levels-up-elk-killing-efforts/
The bill talks about creating a metric that calls for the use of objective ranges and desired herd conditions to scale how many licenses would be available for a specific district. Right now we have unit wide tags that are not getting to the heart of the overpopulation issue. We also have overly broad licenses in some areas that shouldn't be OTC, but instead a permit. Having a matrix that helps spell that out in terms related to objective range and desired herd conditions can help the agency prescribe some better management scenarios.
Declaring that landowners should just enroll in Block Management or they should just allow access has been the approach for the last 20 years. In that same timeframe, we've lost over 1.5 million acres of public access to private land. Coming in with the same argument that hasn't changed in 20 years isn't going to suddenly produce new results. In fact, the argument that "we don't have an elk problem, we have an access problem" is exactly what I said at the legislature from 2009 - 2019. It hasn't produced any kind of result other than growing the divide between hunters and landowners.
I've talked with some landowners who are considering only allowing people with suppressed rifles on to hunt management seasons because a shot goes off, and the elk are gone. So it's one and done for the day as the elk move to other places that are off limits. That's due to 10 years of shoulder season hunt pressure that has educated several generations of elk to stay off private and on public until February 15th or to run when they here a gunshot. Hunter pressure remains one of the most significant issues relative to elk distribution. We know that landowners won't throw open the gates for everyone to come on for a variety of reasons. We do know that landowners are offering free public hunting during management seasons (and yes, some limited hunting during general seasons). That's how they are managing their land. If we stat where those landowners are and provide the tools they ask for to become better engaged in the process, then I don't see that are anything other than trying something different than the path that hasn't worked since the early 2000's. If it hasn't been a successful strategy in 20 years, what makes anyone think that it's going to work now? If we approach this from the point of view of landowners, being told to open up access doesn't come across as neighborly. That's been a big reason why some places are shutting down - that perceived sense of hunter entitlement.
I'd rather have licensed public hunters taking elk than sharpshooters or kill permits. The fears of unlimited tags or creating some fantasy where landowners shooting 50 elk doesn't pass the smell test. Similarly, the idea that these animals will go to waste ignores the laws in place to deal with waste of game, as well as ignoring Hunters Against Hunger, which will help pay for the processing and providing meat to food banks.
The fear of this bill has nothing to do with the actual, practical application of it.
