SF118 Action alert big bucks for big bucks take 2

[BuzzH]

NR Elk (antlered) regular draw license: $692
NR Elk (antlered) special draw license: $1950

So yeah - you can buy your way into potentially higher odds of drawing a tag at the same point level or even at a lower point level than the non-special draw; thus bypassing the usual wait time to accumulate points. Other than how much of the queue one could skip over, the basic premise remains the same. Unless I am missing something else in the discussion.

That's a tiered license fee structure, totally different than transferable landowner tags.

I don't care for the tiered license fees either.

 

[Alpine01]

That's a tiered license fee structure, totally different than transferable landowner tags.

I don't care for the tiered license fees either.

End result is (nearly) the same. But on the tiered license system, I am 100% with you.

 

[BuzzH]

End result is (nearly) the same.

Not hardly.

 

[Alpine01]

Reduced opportunity and tag allocations should stay with the states. Transferable tags would also destroy access, our accessyes program, increase pressure on public lands, move elk onto private sooner, etc etc.

Following up after some additional noodling on the issue. Apologies in advance for the long reply.

The Muley Fanatic Foundation (MFF) seems to have a different spin on the issue. Namely that increased landowner tags will come out of the Resident pool of tags thus impacting Wyoming residents rather than NRs. This is quite different than the scenario Buzz put forward.

And according to MFF, these landowner tags come off the top before being made available to the General application pool. That certainly helps to clarify the angst being generated.

I think WYO BHA, MFF, and the rest, are tackling this issue from the wrong angle. Let me explain:

WYO established a set of regulations for landowners to acquire tags (every year?) based on a set of defined criteria. Let’s take the case where 100% of the eligible landowners that qualify, apply for and get the tags they are entitled to. For this example, let’s assume that a total 10000 bull elk tags across all pools are available in a given year. And let’s further assume that the 100% landowner pool would consume 4000 tags out of the 10000-tag allotment. That leaves 6000 tags for the remaining application pools. But to date, the percentage of landowners who exercised their right has been more like 40% (random number for this example) resulting in only 1600 tags being taken out of circulation prior to the general pool offering. Thus, Residents and NRs have access to an additional 2400 tags which obviously increases the opportunity for Residents and NRs alike based on the R vs NR allocations that WYO has defined. These 2400 tags are bonus tags, and that number will fluctuate depending on landowner usage rates all else being held constant. Given that example, Rs and NRs in the general pool have been living on borrowed time. Regardless of the motivation for a landowner to exercise the rights WYO has given them, that landowner pool is entitled to 4000 tags. It doesn’t matter whether they hunt themselves, give it to a family member to hunt, sell it, or just sit on it, up to 4000 tags are out of circulation and the rest of the Rs and NRs are right where they are today.

What’s a better approach? Several options come to mind with varying degrees of difficulty:

1) Eliminate landowner tags all-together. Every hunter is in the general pool and takes their chances based on preference points. Tough sell to be sure.

2) Reduce the landowner pool by either:
a) changing acreage ownership thresholds;
b) reducing the number of tags they can receive (e.g., 1 instead of 2);
c) allowing any landowner to only draw a tag every 2, 3, or 4 years (pick a number) once they get one;
d) capping the pool to a fixed level of the total (e.g., 10% or 1000 tags) and placing landowners on their own preference point system or selection rotation such that they are guaranteed a tag every x-number of years.

Any of the options under 2) are doable but may still be a hard sell although likely easier than option 1) given enough general public outcry and support for a different model. The $’s associated with the current model are going to be tough to overcome.

3) Others approaches. Certainly there are others I haven’t thought of.

4) Do nothing except keep blaming the NRs and hope it all work out in the end.

In the end, WYO has established an entitlement program that the targeted recipients are taking advantage of more fully than before and with transferable tags, will likely lead to an additional increase in the exercising of that right. From an outsider’s perspective, Residents are howling because now it is their ox that is getting gored.

The arguments made to date aren’t really that compelling. And mixed messaging doesn’t help. Buzz tells the NRs they are the ones at risk, MFF points to Residents taking the brunt. They invoke loss of access (I don’t see anything like that in the bill that was referenced but may not have seen the most recent version) or erosion of the NAMW. Giving landowners preferential treatment in and of itself does that.

One can just as easily argue that WYO Residents have enjoyed an over-abundance of tags that were never really theirs to enjoy in the first place and landowners are just using what is rightfully (and legally) theirs from the beginning.

Mostly it is expressing a fear of what might happen in the future when the reality is that it’s a failed model that exists now. So address the root problem and not the boogieman of what could be – WYO has put in place a landowner entitlement program that has (an is now) turning out to be too generous. The same can be said for other entitlement programs but that is a different topic that has been hashed to death already.

Aren’t Entitlements a b!$@# ….

Just my $0.02. YMMV

 

[BuzzH]

Following up after some additional noodling on the issue. Apologies in advance for the long reply.

The Muley Fanatic Foundation (MFF) seems to have a different spin on the issue. Namely that increased landowner tags will come out of the Resident pool of tags thus impacting Wyoming residents rather than NRs. This is quite different than the scenario Buzz put forward.

And according to MFF, these landowner tags come off the top before being made available to the General application pool. That certainly helps to clarify the angst being generated.

I think WYO BHA, MFF, and the rest, are tackling this issue from the wrong angle. Let me explain:

WYO established a set of regulations for landowners to acquire tags (every year?) based on a set of defined criteria. Let’s take the case where 100% of the eligible landowners that qualify, apply for and get the tags they are entitled to. For this example, let’s assume that a total 10000 bull elk tags across all pools are available in a given year. And let’s further assume that the 100% landowner pool would consume 4000 tags out of the 10000-tag allotment. That leaves 6000 tags for the remaining application pools. But to date, the percentage of landowners who exercised their right has been more like 40% (random number for this example) resulting in only 1600 tags being taken out of circulation prior to the general pool offering. Thus, Residents and NRs have access to an additional 2400 tags which obviously increases the opportunity for Residents and NRs alike based on the R vs NR allocations that WYO has defined. These 2400 tags are bonus tags, and that number will fluctuate depending on landowner usage rates all else being held constant. Given that example, Rs and NRs in the general pool have been living on borrowed time. Regardless of the motivation for a landowner to exercise the rights WYO has given them, that landowner pool is entitled to 4000 tags. It doesn’t matter whether they hunt themselves, give it to a family member to hunt, sell it, or just sit on it, up to 4000 tags are out of circulation and the rest of the Rs and NRs are right where they are today.

What’s a better approach? Several options come to mind with varying degrees of difficulty:

1) Eliminate landowner tags all-together. Every hunter is in the general pool and takes their chances based on preference points. Tough sell to be sure.

2) Reduce the landowner pool by either:
a) changing acreage ownership thresholds;
b) reducing the number of tags they can receive (e.g., 1 instead of 2);
c) allowing any landowner to only draw a tag every 2, 3, or 4 years (pick a number) once they get one;
d) capping the pool to a fixed level of the total (e.g., 10% or 1000 tags) and placing landowners on their own preference point system or selection rotation such that they are guaranteed a tag every x-number of years.

Any of the options under 2) are doable but may still be a hard sell although likely easier than option 1) given enough general public outcry and support for a different model. The $’s associated with the current model are going to be tough to overcome.

3) Others approaches. Certainly there are others I haven’t thought of.

4) Do nothing except keep blaming the NRs and hope it all work out in the end.

In the end, WYO has established an entitlement program that the targeted recipients are taking advantage of more fully than before and with transferable tags, will likely lead to an additional increase in the exercising of that right. From an outsider’s perspective, Residents are howling because now it is their ox that is getting gored.

The arguments made to date aren’t really that compelling. And mixed messaging doesn’t help. Buzz tells the NRs they are the ones at risk, MFF points to Residents taking the brunt. They invoke loss of access (I don’t see anything like that in the bill that was referenced but may not have seen the most recent version) or erosion of the NAMW. Giving landowners preferential treatment in and of itself does that.

One can just as easily argue that WYO Residents have enjoyed an over-abundance of tags that were never really theirs to enjoy in the first place and landowners are just using what is rightfully (and legally) theirs from the beginning.

Mostly it is expressing a fear of what might happen in the future when the reality is that it’s a failed model that exists now. So address the root problem and not the boogieman of what could be – WYO has put in place a landowner entitlement program that has (an is now) turning out to be too generous. The same can be said for other entitlement programs but that is a different topic that has been hashed to death already.

Aren’t Entitlements a b!$@# ….

Just my $0.02. YMMV

If we only had someone with your expertise in Wyoming, our problems would be solved.

How are things in Colorado? I hear all your wildlife, habitat, landowner tags, draw systems, are all just peachy...

 

[cgasner1]

NR Elk (antlered) regular draw license: $692
NR Elk (antlered) special draw license: $1950

So yeah - you can buy your way into potentially higher odds of drawing a tag at the same point level or even at a lower point level than the non-special draw; thus bypassing the usual wait time to accumulate points. Other than how much of the queue one could skip over, the basic premise remains the same. Unless I am missing something else in the discussion.

Maybe you can maybe you can’t just because you pay more for a tag doesn’t mean you get better odds. I don’t blame Wyoming at all for taking money from people that can’t read

 

[Alpine01]

If we only had someone with your expertise in Wyoming, our problems would be solved.

How are things in Colorado? I hear all your wildlife, habitat, landowner tags, draw systems, are all just peachy...

Hah - I am not an expert, never claimed to be. I just stated an opinion. I think that is still allowed on this forum. Maybe Big Fin can correct me if I am wrong on that point.

CO's system has its own flaws. No system is perfect and there are aspects I like as a CO Resident and aspects I don't like as a hunter that cares about improving wildlife management along with improving public hunting access. But that is not the topic of this thread. Whataboutism is a great way to deflect an argument that hits too close to home rather than actually considering a different perspective and whether that perspective has merit.

Anyway - you do you ....

Have a nice evening.

 

[BuzzH]

Hah - I am not an expert, never claimed to be. I just stated an opinion. I think that is still allowed on this forum. Maybe Big Fin can correct me if I am wrong on that point.

CO's system has its own flaws. No system is perfect and there are aspects I like as a CO Resident and aspects I don't like as a hunter that cares about improving wildlife management along with improving public hunting access. But that is not the topic of this thread. Whataboutism is a great way to deflect an argument that hits too close to home rather than actually considering a different perspective and whether that perspective has merit.

Anyway - you do you ....

Have a nice evening.

My opinion is transferable landowner tags are not needed in Wyoming, the subject of this thread.

Not much to discuss beyond that.

 

[Alpine01]

Maybe you can maybe you can’t just because you pay more for a tag doesn’t mean you get better odds. I don’t blame Wyoming at all for taking money from people that can’t read

Hmmm ... Looking at the 2024 NR draw results from WYO G&F would generally indicate otherwise.

A few random examples (just looking at Type-1 and first choice applicants) on quotas vs number of applicants:

Area 1: Random is 1 in 243; Random Special is 1 in 76
Area 16: Random is 3 in 353; Random Special is 2 in 137
Area 34: Random is 17 in 170; Random Special is 11 in 41
Area 51 (South): Random is 2 in 200; Random Special is 2 in 25
Area 97: Random is 5 in 70; Random Special is 3 in 7
etc ....

Not an exhaustive sampling so there are likely cases where the odds are roughly the same.

That said, seems like Random Special offers much better odds, particularly in low-quota areas. Feel free to pick your own areas though to evaluate.

 

[Mallardsx2]

The Muley Fanatic Foundation (MFF) seems to have a different spin on the issue. Namely that increased landowner tags will come out of the Resident pool of tags thus impacting Wyoming residents rather than NRs. This is quite different than the scenario Buzz put forward.

And according to MFF, these landowner tags come off the top before being made available to the General application pool. That certainly helps to clarify the angst being generated.

And there it is….

 

[Forkyfinder]

And there it is….

 

[cgasner1]

Hmmm ... Looking at the 2024 NR draw results from WYO G&F would generally indicate otherwise.

A few random examples (just looking at Type-1 and first choice applicants) on quotas vs number of applicants:

Area 1: Random is 1 in 243; Random Special is 1 in 76
Area 16: Random is 3 in 353; Random Special is 2 in 137
Area 34: Random is 17 in 170; Random Special is 11 in 41
Area 51 (South): Random is 2 in 200; Random Special is 2 in 25
Area 97: Random is 5 in 70; Random Special is 3 in 7
etc ....

Not an exhaustive sampling so there are likely cases where the odds are roughly the same.

That said, seems like Random Special offers much better odds, particularly in low-quota areas. Feel free to pick your own areas though to evaluate.

Well considering I have a pile of points in Wyoming and have looked at it I can tell you in the past when have applied and wasn’t building points such as this year I found units that the lower cost had better odds. A fool and his money…..

 

[Alpine01]

Well considering I have a pile of points in Wyoming and have looked at it I can tell you in the past when have applied and wasn’t building points such as this year I found units that the lower cost had better odds. A fool and his money…..

No doubt. And good for you. You apparently found a draw unit that fit your hunting desires at a cost you were willing to pay. As I said, I looked at a small sample that focused on Type-1 tags only.

 

[jimss]

The root of the problem is the current flaws in the landowner license policy. Unlimited number of res/nonres landowner tags taken off the top of the pile prior to the public draw.

With that said, transferable landowner tags will impact both res and nonres, especially with the current system. As mentioned by the MDF and others, switching to transferable tags will promote more landowners to apply for these tags since tags are worth $ rather than having only a few tags available for their immediate family members. Outfitters will be highly motivated to work with every landowner in Wyoming that qualifies, given $ incentives to begin applying for these high value tags.

As all of us are aware, there are very few tags currently issued to nonres and these tags are highly sought after by Wyo residents. Even with the current system, there are a few elk units that don't offer tags to nonres because every tag is issued to nonres landowners. If landowner tags remain unlimited, with transferable tags there will be even fewer tags and units available in the public res and nonres draws.

Wyo residents also will be impacted. More resident landowners will apply for current unlimited landowner tags once they find out that they can sell tags to the highest bidder. Resident landowner tags are taken off the top of the available public pool of tags prior to the public resident draw. These resident transferable landowner tags will be sold to highest resident or nonresident highest bidders. Obviously, every new transferable resident tag gained is one less tag available to every resident in the public draw.

This is one of the biggest flaws in New Mexico and Colorado landowner tag system. Transferable tags are taken from both the resident and nonres public pool of tags and sold to the highest bidders.

 

[Horseman]

Yes, 100%.

I have a landowner in a very good Wyoming elk unit that would sell me his landowner tag in a heart beat. Have a few more that most likely would as well.

I definitely have the disposable income to do it.

So yes, personally I'd benefit significantly from this bill.

But, it's not about me or other residents that could, and would buy them.

Do you want a few hundred of your NR allocation of tags going to the highest bidder? Because it would be real easy to see all the transferable tags if this were to pass come from the NR pool.

I get it, you always like to play the role of the village smart ass.

The Resident Hunters in Wyoming are not OK with this bill for every right reason., that’s really cool that you “have the disposable income” to purchase a private land trophy bull.

Yes, 100%.

I have a landowner in a very good Wyoming elk unit that would sell me his landowner tag in a heart beat. Have a few more that most likely would as well.

I definitely have the disposable income to do it.

So yes, personally I'd benefit significantly from this bill.

But, it's not about me or other residents that could, and would buy them.

Do you want a few hundred of your NR allocation of tags going to the highest bidder? Because it would be real easy to see all the transferable tags if this were to pass come from the NR pool.

I get it, you always like to play the role of the village smart ass.

The Resident Hunters in Wyoming are not OK with this bill for every right reason.

Hey Buzz, that’s really cool that you ‘have the disposable income to purchase’ a landowner bull tag in a trophy unit! That’s sorta badass!!

 

[BuzzH]

The root of the problem is the current flaws in the landowner license policy. Unlimited number of res/nonres landowner tags taken off the top of the pile prior to the public draw.

With that said, transferable landowner tags will impact both res and nonres, especially with the current system. As mentioned by the MDF and others, switching to transferable tags will promote more landowners to apply for these tags since tags are worth $ rather than having only a few tags available for their immediate family members. Outfitters will be highly motivated to work with every landowner in Wyoming, given $ incentives to begin applying for these high value tags.

As all of us are aware, there are very few tags currently issued to nonres and these tags are highly sought after by Wyo residents. Even with the current system, there are a few elk units that don't offer tags to nonres because every tag is issued to nonres landowners. If landowner tags remain unlimited, with the current system there will be even fewer tags and units available in the public res and nonres draws.

Wyo residents also will be impacted. More resident landowners will apply for current unlimited landowner tags once they find out that they can sell tags to the highest bidder. Resident landowner tags are taken off the top of the available public pool of tags prior to the public resident draw. These resident transferable landowner tags will be sold to highest resident or nonresident highest bidders.

This is one of the biggest flaws in New Mexico and Colorado landowner tag system. Transferable tags are taken from both the resident and nonres public pool of tags!

The root of the problem is ever allowing a transferable landowner tag at all.

 

[jimss]

I agree that the best thing Wyoming can do is prevent transferable tags from infiltrating their tag system. It's also important to change flaws in the current system that may nip Wyo residents in the butt in the coming years!

 

[BuzzH]

I agree that the best thing Wyoming can do is prevent transferable tags from infiltrating their tag system. It's also important to change flaws in the current system that may nip Wyo residents in the butt in the coming years!

I don't have a problem with WY's current landowner tag program.

As long as the tags stay with the landowner or family only, I'm good with it.

Could use some tightening up with the corporate non-sense that goes on.

 

[Alpine01]

I don't have a problem with WY's current landowner tag program.

As long as the tags stay with the landowner or family only, I'm good with it.

Is that immediate family only or extended family?

What about really close personal friends? Friends of the immediate family? I.e., the son wants to take his high school or college buddy out hunting? Friends of the extended family? How far does that model go? No money changes hands but the tags are still taken away from the draw pool.

What happens if that family member or friend offers to cover the cost of the license as a way of saying thanks? Is that ok?

 

[cgasner1]

Is that immediate family only or extended family?

What about really close personal friends? Friends of the immediate family? I.e., the son wants to take his high school or college buddy out hunting? Friends of the extended family? How far does that model go? No money changes hands but the tags are still taken away from the draw pool.

What happens if that family member or friend offers to cover the cost of the license as a way of saying thanks? Is that ok?

About 3/4 of that is bullchit and illegal which you know