SF118 Action alert big bucks for big bucks take 2

jimss said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where does it say landowner tags are unlimited? I think they are limited by the number of qualifying landowners in a hunt area and by the quota for the hunt area.
 
Alpine01 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The information is out there, I know exactly how it works.

That google thing can help you.
 
Lost Arra said:
Where does it say landowner tags are unlimited? I think they are limited by the number of qualifying landowners in a hunt area and by the quota for the hunt area.
Click to expand...
Landowners can draw every single tag in any given LQ area. I believe it has happened in the past in some LQ units.

If there's more qualifying landowners than available tags, then there is a draw.

NR quota's go to NR landowners, R quota's go to R landowners via appropriate tag splits (84-16 for elk as an example).
 
Thanks. That was my understanding. The quota is the quota (limited) for every hunt area and the number of applying landowners could require a draw. They just don't keep printing tags for every landowner application.
 
BuzzH said:
The information is out there, I know exactly how it works.

That google thing can help you.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I looked it up for myself. Wouldn't want to have you over-extend yourself.

For those that are interested:

Immediate family of the "individual" only - spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, or lineal descendants and their spouses.

But the "landowner" can also be a partnership, corporation, Trust entity, LLC, or any combination of these in addition to a single individual. That would seem to open the door to a potentially large group of folks if I read the WYO regs correctly. Certainly enough folks in that pool to make a rather large dent in the tags available on the whole if all the landowners exercised the rights WYO has given them.

I also note that NR landowners draw from the NR pool and Res landowners draw from the Res pool. Given the 90/10 (or 84/16 that Buzz references) split, the real pain will be experienced by the Res population.

Landowners are restricted to 2 licenses per species (elk, deer, fall turkey, spring turkey).

"Licenses shall be issued to landowners without participating in a competitive drawing unless the number of landowner license applications exceeds the number of licenses authorized for the hunt area by the Commission. In such cases, a competitive
drawing shall be utilized to determine successful landowner license applicants." - Guess that already partially addresses one of the options I offered previously. Thus not every landowner is guaranteed a tag if more landowners apply than there are tags available under the quota. That's at least one positive.

And it doesn't automatically kick in where there are General Licenses, be it Res or NR, unless that GL is for anterless only. That clearly removes a large number of hunting areas from the pool.

So it appears the real issue is a) does a transferable tag result in a larger fraction of landowners exercising their right to apply for a highly sought-after tag that in turn removes a tag from the competitive draw; and b) would monetizing that draw compound that increased application trend?

For a) the 2024 draw results (elk only) show that Res landowners represented less than 5% of all Res tags awarded and slightly less than 10% of Type-1 Res tags awarded. Archery tags were inconsequential. So the potential impact is huge if the size of the landowner pool is significantly higher than the number that actually participate now. But per online news stories, the landowner usage is already growing (26% between 2014 and 2021) and I suspect that trend hasn't slowed down. Thus while making tags transferable may increase that rate, it's seems hard to argue that by itself, it poses a major threat that isn't already there. There are a few units where landowners take >10% of the tag quota but that is in less than 16% of the total hunting areas affected (Resident numbers only). Could that double? Probably. Increase by 10-fold? Seems unlikely as those that want to hunt already do and those that don't, don't.

for b) highly likely. Human nature is to take advantage of the opportunity to make a $ whenever possible. There is an existing capping mechanism but that doesn't look to help the draw pool hunter much.

Again, just my observations. As a NR and not a landowner in WYO, I don't have any say in the matter and don't have an ox in the arena.
 
How much of Wyo will be sold off into 160 acre pads so that wealthy res and nonres hunters can apply and receive tags every year? My guess is that if the tag is only valid on the private property of the owner that this would curtail some of this from happening. It also would put more hunting pressure on private vs public land where the critters seem to always spend time....a couple other faults with the current flawed landowner program.

www.swanlandco.com

6 Important Regulations Regarding Wyoming Landowner Hunting License | Swan Land Company

What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming has some great hunting opportunities, for both residents and non-residents. One
www.swanlandco.com www.swanlandco.com


www.whitetailproperties.com

Wyoming Land for Sale | Ranch, Farm and Hunting Properties | Whitetail Properties

Explore Wyoming land for sale including ranch, farm, and hunting tracts. Discover your Cowboy State property with Whitetail Properties Real Estate.
www.whitetailproperties.com www.whitetailproperties.com

 
Last edited:
jimss said:
How much of Wyo will be sold off into 160 acre pads so that avid res and nonres hunters can apply and receive tags every year?

www.swanlandco.com

6 Important Regulations Regarding Wyoming Landowner Hunting License | Swan Land Company

What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming has some great hunting opportunities, for both residents and non-residents. One
www.swanlandco.com www.swanlandco.com


www.whitetailproperties.com

Wyoming Land for Sale | Ranch, Farm and Hunting Properties | Whitetail Properties

Explore Wyoming land for sale including ranch, farm, and hunting tracts. Discover your Cowboy State property with Whitetail Properties Real Estate.
www.whitetailproperties.com www.whitetailproperties.com

Click to expand...
Not many, because most likely they won't qualify here shortly. The commission is looking to change the minimum acreage to 640, increase use days, and also tighten up the corporation problems.
 
Alpine01 said:
Fair enough. I looked it up for myself. Wouldn't want to have you over-extend yourself.

For those that are interested:

Immediate family of the "individual" only - spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, or lineal descendants and their spouses.

But the "landowner" can also be a partnership, corporation, Trust entity, LLC, or any combination of these in addition to a single individual. That would seem to open the door to a potentially large group of folks if I read the WYO regs correctly. Certainly enough folks in that pool to make a rather large dent in the tags available on the whole if all the landowners exercised the rights WYO has given them.

I also note that NR landowners draw from the NR pool and Res landowners draw from the Res pool. Given the 90/10 (or 84/16 that Buzz references) split, the real pain will be experienced by the Res population.

Landowners are restricted to 2 licenses per species (elk, deer, fall turkey, spring turkey).

"Licenses shall be issued to landowners without participating in a competitive drawing unless the number of landowner license applications exceeds the number of licenses authorized for the hunt area by the Commission. In such cases, a competitive
drawing shall be utilized to determine successful landowner license applicants." - Guess that already partially addresses one of the options I offered previously. Thus not every landowner is guaranteed a tag if more landowners apply than there are tags available under the quota. That's at least one positive.

And it doesn't automatically kick in where there are General Licenses, be it Res or NR, unless that GL is for anterless only. That clearly removes a large number of hunting areas from the pool.

So it appears the real issue is a) does a transferable tag result in a larger fraction of landowners exercising their right to apply for a highly sought-after tag that in turn removes a tag from the competitive draw; and b) would monetizing that draw compound that increased application trend?

For a) the 2024 draw results (elk only) show that Res landowners represented less than 5% of all Res tags awarded and slightly less than 10% of Type-1 Res tags awarded. Archery tags were inconsequential. So the potential impact is huge if the size of the landowner pool is significantly higher than the number that actually participate now. But per online news stories, the landowner usage is already growing (26% between 2014 and 2021) and I suspect that trend hasn't slowed down. Thus while making tags transferable may increase that rate, it's seems hard to argue that by itself, it poses a major threat that isn't already there. There are a few units where landowners take >10% of the tag quota but that is in less than 16% of the total hunting areas affected (Resident numbers only). Could that double? Probably. Increase by 10-fold? Seems unlikely as those that want to hunt already do and those that don't, don't.

for b) highly likely. Human nature is to take advantage of the opportunity to make a $ whenever possible. There is an existing capping mechanism but that doesn't look to help the draw pool hunter much.

Again, just my observations. As a NR and not a landowner in WYO, I don't have any say in the matter and don't have an ox in the arena.
Click to expand...
The only species that are 90/10 are moose, sheep, goat, and bison.
 
Separate LO tags from official quota.

Restrict LO tags to ranch only.

No heartburn

Win win.
 
If LO really want additional tags make them available for private land only and through the public draw. The PLO tags in Colo usually have better draw odds and relieve hunting pressure on public land. There is no need for transferable tags if there are PLO tags available in a public draw.
 
This bill destroy everything. NR corporate interest are already eating up lands without transferable tags. This goes through and there will be big money in owning land here.

This will cause several negative impacts. lands in areas that are marginal livestock lands will have inflated values. As the hunting in some of those areas are incredible. Think a 124 elk (already suffering from this issue). Or pretty much anywhere in the checker board. Changing the acres to 649 would not matter much as landowners will still divide out into LLCs that are now 640 acres. Huge swaths of land will be changed by this. Think about the rock springs grazing association, Stratton sheep company. Hell we just recently lost access on the stone ranch as it sold to NR investors who were primarily buying for access to tags in elk 22.

End result will be less land available for ranching, especially sheep as sheep are not favored by hunters. NW Colorado saw several sheep properties taken out of sheep production when transferable tags came on board. Same will happen in WY.

The other major impact will be the end of Access Yes, the end of HMAs and the end of walk-in access. Those programs will be all but gone. Simply put they will not be able to compete with the big money from the tags and leasi g. Transferable tags are the biggest reason why Colorados access programs struggle. Raymond in 22 will be gone. The Tipton ranch access gone, any access we can get in 118, will be gone.

Lastly can you imagine the pressure and fight we will have to keep any access in the elk mountain area etc?

So if the changing land ownership, the subdividing and creation of LLcs, is not enough. We will not have any successful access programs left for all the public. Resident or Non

Lastly once this starts it will be a never ending g co start battle. The landowners will never let up and they will want more and more.
 
BuzzH said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I don’t want to see transferable tags to the masses, I wouldn’t mind seeing it more than just immediate family. There are alot of long time ranch hands that work these properties every day. They may be on the property more than the owner. I wish there was a way for them to get a one of these tags.

I realize there is potential for abuse by “hiring” a hand then transfer the tag. I’m not sure how it could be worded to prevent a one day hire.

Anyway, thanks for bringing light to this. It needs all the light it can get to stop it.
 
Addicting said:
While I don’t want to see transferable tags to the masses, I wouldn’t mind seeing it more than just immediate family. There are alot of long time ranch hands that work these properties every day. They may be on the property more than the owner. I wish there was a way for them to get a one of these tags.

I realize there is potential for abuse by “hiring” a hand then transfer the tag. I’m not sure how it could be worded to prevent a one day hire.

Anyway, thanks for bringing light to this. It needs all the light it can get to stop it.
Click to expand...
Primary income with a w-2
 
Elks brings up several good points. First and foremost there needs to be landowner quotas. There currently are none. Every available tag in a unit can go to landowners prior to the draw.

A quota would prevent the sub-dividing of property and many other problems.

How on earth would landowners benefit from the headaches of public HMA and Walk-in programs when they can make big $ off transferable tags?

If a landowner is really concerned about ranch hands, why not claim them as owners with the current system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
ACTION ALERT: CPW Commissioner confirmation this week
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
bayoublaster7527
B
R
Farm Bill H.R. 5017 Now Anti-Hunting
Replies
8
Views
1K
44hunter45
44hunter45
B
SF118 on the shelf, thank you.
Replies
15
Views
2K
WyoCoalMiner
W
Big Fin
Conservation or Big Beautiful Ballrooms?
9 10 11
Replies
201
Views
11K
Exhausted
E
B
ND Trust Lands Completion act is BACK! Oppose this BLM Land Transfer!
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
icepirate
I

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,684
Messages
2,234,737
Members
38,976
Latest member
Fillzplace

Share this page

Back
Top