Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[WIbiggame]

This shouldn’t be a worry. The average resident hunter is very casual (lazy) and amazingly shitty at hunting.

Residents maybe although I doubt it but wouldn't know for sure. I was referring to Outfitters and Guides taking clients with stock into areas that they have scouted and have knowledge of the game in the area. Will be interesting to circle back to this in 5 years and see what shakes out.

 

[idahohuntr]

Something to recommend to the task force is to take a "no action" option of just leaving things as they are...as well as opposing the "grand compromise".

In general, things are pretty good in Wyoming as they are regarding hunting, fishing, etc. here.

Thank you buzz and JM and others for helping direct us to the right folks and offering up key messages.

The gist of what I just sent this group was everyone wants a bigger slice of the pie - but nobody is starving. 90/10 is reasonable and fair, but the outfitter set aside is a poison pill.

 

[JM77]

@JM77 I have read and tried listening to the meetings and must have missed it. But I have a couple questions.
1) Does WY have a moratorium on the number of outfitters allowed to be licensed in the state?
2) Is the number of hunter days limited to each outfitter? (Are they limited on the number of clients they can have)
3) If the 50% of outfitters subsidy doesn't sell in their draw do the remainder go to the resident draw or into the NR draw?

If the answer is NO to 1 and 2 I am worried about what will happen when the outfitters need more land for their clients to hunt.

Edit: I think I found the answer in the outfitter handbook. And looks like just need the $, insurance, 70 days of "experience" and pass the online test. Looks like 50% of NR tags is a good way to guarantee the family business survives for future generations and all relatives.

I have heard if the tags from the outfitter draw are undersubscribed, they roll into the NR draw. So NO, NO, NR draw

 

[manitou1]

What would that smaller NR pool in exchange for more resident tags do to state revenue?

You essentially have three losers in this scenario (the three with the most $), and only one winner (the one that contributes the least amount of $). Things like that very rarely happen without concessions.

Uhhh, residents buy homes and land here, pay real estate, sales and personal property taxes here, buy our clothes, vehicles, and groceries here. NR expenditures pale in comparison to the big picture.

 

[manitou1]

To Buzz's point, I live next to the biggest wilderness area in the State. It's the assumption that wilderness areas in Wyoming are the Mecca for elk hunting that all residents flock to every fall and thumb their noses at all the non residents on the borderlines from.

Every elk I have killed in the last 22 years have been outside the wilderness. Every single one.

I live within 30 minutes of a wilderness area. I have never set a foot in it for hunting, for a reason.

 

[Addicting]

I received 3 personal responses, I am glad to see at least some of them care what a NR’s concerns are.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

So when did outfitting become a full time profitable business? I don't know an outfitter personally that does it full time and the ones I do know, do it part time and say it doesn't pay enough to call it a job once you pay all your expenses and people. More of an excuse to get out and have a good time.

I get there's a couple like Doyle that hunt outfit everything under the sun in multiple states but that's not the average outfitter. That's SupaFly tag pimp hustla.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I received 3 personal responses, I am glad to see at least some of them care what a NR’s concerns are.

I've been impressed with the responses I've received--they seemed in direct response to what I wrote, not just a form letter. Hopefully the outpouring actually makes a difference.

 

[huntin24/7]

I’ve already received positive responses from Elissa, Brian, and Adam and expect to hopefully get a few more. Its encouraging to at least get some positive feedback when I’m sure they’re all pretty busy.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

I had a thought today, maybe a bad one but a thought…

I know many of us here have huge distain for the Wyoming wilderness rule, resident and nonresident alike. It’s often been referred to as “the worst hunting law in the US” and I would tend to agree with that sentiment.

Though I would prefer the rule to go away altogether, I realize that is never going to happen with this TF.

Perhaps a compromise, one which the TF might find amenable would be to allow NR to hunt designated wilderness without a guide if they have completed a wilderness hunting course provided by a licensed outfitter.

These could perhaps be 3-7 days in length, hands on courses given during the hunting offseason, and cover things like backcountry first aid, bear and predator safety, backcountry logistics, survival skills, etc.

This would be beneficial to the outfitting industry as it would allow an additional stream of income in the off-season, allowing more “year round” business. Due to the logistics of hunting wilderness areas in general, I would doubt it would cost outfitters much business during the hunting season itself.

Most of us DIY’ers just hunt non wilderness areas and avoid ever doing business with an outfitter. Now we would suddenly have a reason to.

I’d also like to see a carve out to the wilderness rule for those of us veterans who are SERE-C (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) trained. Most of us are pilots, special forces, SOCOM, etc. I’d like to see that for admittedly purely selfish reasons, but I feel like it would be a reasonable exception and we should be willing to take any win we can get with this issue.

I’m debating pitching this to some of the TF members, but wanted to get some feedback here first.

 

[Addicting]

I had a thought today, maybe a bad one but a thought…

I know many of us here have huge distain for the Wyoming wilderness rule, resident and nonresident alike. It’s often been referred to as “the worst hunting law in the US” and I would tend to agree with that sentiment.

Though I would prefer the rule to go away altogether, I realize that is never going to happen with this TF.

Perhaps a compromise, one which the TF might find amenable would be to allow NR to hunt designated wilderness without a guide if they have completed a wilderness hunting course provided by a licensed outfitter.

These could perhaps be 3-7 days in length, hands on courses given during the hunting offseason, and cover things like backcountry first aid, bear and predator safety, backcountry logistics, survival skills, etc.

This would be beneficial to the outfitting industry as it would allow an additional stream of income in the off-season, allowing more “year round” business. Due to the logistics of hunting wilderness areas in general, I would doubt it would cost outfitters much business during the hunting season itself.

Most of us DIY’ers just hunt non wilderness areas and avoid ever doing business with an outfitter. Now we would suddenly have a reason to.

I’d also like to see a carve out to the wilderness rule for those of us veterans who are SERE-C (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) trained. Most of us are pilots, special forces, SOCOM, etc. I’d like to see that for admittedly purely selfish reasons, but I feel like it would be a reasonable exception and we should be willing to take any win we can get with this issue.

I’m debating pitching this to some of the TF members, but wanted to get some feedback here first.

I can do what I need to in the wilderness with in the rules except hunt. How does your proposal fix any of that? How does having a tag in my pocket make me immediately inept that I need training from a outfitter?

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

I can do what I need to in the wilderness with in the rules except hunt. How does your proposal fix any of that? How does having a tag in my pocket make me immediately inept that I need training from a outfitter?

For the record, I don’t think you need special training the hunt wilderness.

This idea is just a “work around” of the existing law. It would benefit the industry that we all know runs the task force, and open up at least a means for NR to hunt wilderness areas on their own where previously that opportunity was non existent.

There is no “reason” codified as to why the law exists, but most theorize it was argued that most NR don’t have the experience/knowledge/logistics available to safely hunt wilderness without an outfitter. We all know the real reason is to prop up a special interest. That law isn’t going away unless that special interest gets something in return.

 

[BrentD]

For the record, I don’t think you need special training the hunt wilderness.

This idea is just a “work around” of the existing law. It would benefit the industry that we all know runs the task force, and open up at least a means for NR to hunt wilderness areas on their own where previously that opportunity was non existent.

they why don't we just charge every hunter a flat rate that they can mail to the outfitter of their choice as a "gift" and save the time, trip, and BS.

The rule is indefensible as anything but Outfitter charity and subsidies, so let's be up front about it.

 

[BuzzH]

For the record, I don’t think you need special training the hunt wilderness.

This idea is just a “work around” of the existing law. It would benefit the industry that we all know runs the task force, and open up at least a means for NR to hunt wilderness areas on their own where previously that opportunity was non existent.

There is no “reason” codified as to why the law exists, but most theorize it was argued that most NR don’t have the experience/knowledge/logistics available to safely hunt wilderness without an outfitter. We all know the real reason is to prop up a special interest. That law isn’t going away unless that special interest gets something in return.

Ask them to allow Residents to sign off for more than 2 NR's a year, maybe 4.

By far the worst rule in all of hunting is AK's guide requirement for sheep, goat, and in particular grizzly/brown bear.

What a joke, hunting brown bears is about as dangerous as your average pronghorn hunt.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

they why don't we just charge every hunter a flat rate that they can mail to the outfitter of their choice as a "gift" and save the time, trip, and BS.

The rule is indefensible as anything but Outfitter charity and subsidies, so let's be up front about it.

Agreed, it’s complete extortion. I’m just realistic in the fact it’s never going away voluntarily on behalf of Wyoming.

Telling the TF it’s an indefensible law isn’t going to get us anything. Giving them an idea that might benefit both interested parties to a degree might.

 

[Bullshot]

Agreed, it’s complete extortion. I’m just realistic in the fact it’s never going away voluntarily on behalf of Wyoming.

Telling the TF it’s an indefensible law isn’t going to get us anything. Giving them an idea that might benefit both interested parties to a degree might.

Work around their influence or oppose their influence, don’t validate it. They do not need your or my help with coming up with additional new ideas to monetize 1) Animals they do not own or 2) Land they do not own.

 

[BuzzH]

Agreed, it’s complete extortion. I’m just realistic in the fact it’s never going away voluntarily on behalf of Wyoming.

Telling the TF it’s an indefensible law isn’t going to get us anything. Giving them an idea that might benefit both interested parties to a degree might.

They aren't going to bite on your idea, they have bigger fish to fry.

Regardless the Task Force has no authority to change anything, what you're wanting to change requires legislative action.

Hire yourself a lobbyist if you're half serious about changing it.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Work around their influence or oppose their influence, don’t validate it. They do not need your or my help with coming up with additional new ideas to monetize 1) Animals they do not own or 2) Land they do not own.

Again, agreed wholeheartedly that it’s crap, and allows monetization of a public resource.

Just trying to find a win somewhere with this current TF. We know the wilderness law isn’t going away anytime soon. In the interim I’d take it being slightly less shitty than it currently is.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

They aren't going to bite on your idea, they have bigger fish to fry.

Regardless the Task Force has no authority to change anything, what you're wanting to change requires legislative action.

Hire yourself a lobbyist if you're half serious about changing it.

Aware of the fact the TF has zero authority to change the law.

My understanding is they would make recommendations to the legislature.

 

[BuzzH]

Aware of the fact the TF has zero authority to change the law.

My understanding is they would make recommendations to the legislature.

Won't happen...they'll be lucky to send anything else, in particular any new ideas this late in the game.