Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[Sytes]

What in that for the residents of the state wyoga isn't the only hurdle.

I hear what Buzz is saying and I appreciate the constructive conversation.

IMO, what's in that for residents of WY, based on my shared idea:
Currently residents sit on 80/20 for drawn tags for deer and antelope.
86/14 for elk (drawn tags.

If it turned to a flat 85/15 w/ 5% going to State welfare WYOGA set clients, the results for residents:

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 20% DIY NR (excluding Wilderness welfare WYOGA) Deer and antelope.

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 14% NR elk draw (excluding the WYOGA welfare NR draw tags)

As for those who would not like the 10% DIY NR tags, look @ MT 10% and ID 10-15% variance for DIY AND Outfitter use...

Sure it's a hit though MT and ID seem to retain the same and 15% NR tags is a good revenue stream.

As for WYOGA welfare - seems a steal from Paul (Wilderness tags) to pay Peter (Statewide) with 5%... For the welfare ideals, though with WYOGA excited to have gauranteed clients - and DIY NR 's exceeding the tag allotments of MT and ID. (CO - the exception). Not sure of NM and I've not hunted there...

 

[Archer86]

I hear what Buzz is saying and I appreciate the constructive conversation.

IMO, what's in that for residents of WY, based on my shared idea:
Currently residents sit on 80/20 for drawn tags for deer and antelope.
86/14 for elk (drawn tags.

If it turned to a flat 85/15 w/ 5% going to State welfare WYOGA set clients, the results for residents:

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 20% DIY NR (excluding Wilderness welfare WYOGA) Deer and antelope.

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 14% NR elk draw (excluding the WYOGA welfare NR draw tags)

As for those who would not like the 10% DIY NR tags, look @ MT 10% and ID 10-15% variance for DIY AND Outfitter use...

Sure it's a hit though MT and ID seem to retain the same and 15% NR tags is a good revenue stream.

As for WYOGA welfare - seems a steal from Paul (Wilderness tags) to pay Peter (Statewide) with 5%... For the welfare ideals, though with WYOGA excited to have gauranteed clients - and DIY NR 's exceeding the tag allotments of MT and ID. (CO - the exception). Not sure of NM and I've not hunted there...

So the current allocation none of those nr hunters use a outfitter?

So you are proposing resident get 1 percent increase for elk tags and gain a few deer and antelope tags and then It will be better for us because there will be less pressure from diy nr. Since we don't have to compete with outfitters.

Then eliminate the wilderness rule where we only have some outfitters to compete with and allow all nr diy hunters in there as well? Again. Tell me how that's good for the residents.

 

[Sytes]

85/15 across the board. Not 15% elk and 15% deer/antelope. It's 15% of the total NR drawn tags... With 5% going to WYOGA.
It's staged the same as MT and ID. A total of 10% drawn tags are allotted for NR to hunt MT...

Edit added - pre Buzz response seen.
Right now, it's 20% deer/lopes with 14% elk per drawn area. Dropping 5% deer /lope competition from Residents is pretty big when in the draw pool. +1% elk? Minor, very minor (IMO).
This also has to factor the outfitters working federal/state/private land now salivating over gauranteed tags. I'd say, that opens up Residents to greater opportunity for the sake of NR's still paying to hunt and outfitters w/ tags pulling NR's out of Resident areas, in general.

 

[BuzzH]

I hear what Buzz is saying and I appreciate the constructive conversation.

IMO, what's in that for residents of WY, based on my shared idea:
Currently residents sit on 80/20 for drawn tags for deer and antelope.
86/14 for elk (drawn tags.

If it turned to a flat 85/15 w/ 5% going to State welfare WYOGA set clients, the results for residents:

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 20% DIY NR (excluding Wilderness welfare WYOGA) Deer and antelope.

10% DIY NR to contend with vs 14% NR elk draw (excluding the WYOGA welfare NR draw tags)

As for those who would not like the 10% DIY NR tags, look @ MT 10% and ID 10-15% variance for DIY AND Outfitter use...

Sure it's a hit though MT and ID seem to retain the same and 15% NR tags is a good revenue stream.

As for WYOGA welfare - seems a steal from Paul (Wilderness tags) to pay Peter (Statewide) with 5%... For the welfare ideals, though with WYOGA excited to have gauranteed clients - and DIY NR 's exceeding the tag allotments of MT and ID. (CO - the exception). Not sure of NM and I've not hunted there...

Nope, not enough upside for Residents, you're saying we will have less NR hunter which would be true, but way more in the Wilderness areas.

Plus, the biggest problem is the 5% you'd be giving up to WOGA for their set aside.

That will increase leasing substantially, which will mean a huge hit to the AccessYes program and public access to those lands.

Once again, not enough upside for Residents in that proposal. I mean 1% increase in elk tags, BFD, and a 5% gain on deer and pronghorn for a massive loss of accessible private lands via accessyes.

No thanks, and no residents are going for that.

 

[Sytes]

AccessYes better or worse than BMA MT?

 

[BuzzH]

AccessYes better or worse than BMA MT?

IMO, about 100% better. My wife and I have killed B&C animals on AccessYes lands here.

Can't tell you how many elk, deer, and pronghorn we've killed on AccessYes lands, but a bunch.

 

[Bluffgruff]

His explanation is 100% solid. I highly doubt you were going to find a lot of resident support for repealing the law, which really only leaves the option he laid out as a negotiation, and I guarantee you that won’t be pretty in the long run.

From my experience, granted it's limited, I found a resident to take me into the Wilderness, and then had a game warden tell me point blank while checking my sheep that he thought it was very unnecessary rule that was bordering on idiotic to maintain when non-residents were doing EVERYTHING ELSE in the Wilderness. So saying that enough residents support the rule to prevent legislative action without sacrifice might not necessarily be true.

 

[Derek44]

Way out of turn here, but ANYTHING that plays into any sort of outfitter welfare, or making them “salivate” and jump for joy needs to be loudly and adamantly stricken down. So many percentages and allotments being thrown around here that I’m having trouble finding the good and bad thru the recommendations but I’m a hard NO to anything that subsidizes outfitters with a public resource. And I’m with @BuzzH im not thinking I want to give up 75% of my chance just to hunt wilderness. That doesn’t add 75% to the acres that I’m already allowed to hunt. Thanks for all of your insight Buzz and for keeping us all posted on the up and coming BS that is trying to be changed in the great state of WY. That state has been very generous to me in both opportunities and success in the past few years and I truly hope it continues. I’ll be submitting my comments where they belong on this issue, and hope that we will prevail. FWIW

 

[Deleted member 20812]

From my experience, granted it's limited, I found a resident to take me into the Wilderness, and then had a game warden tell me point blank while checking my sheep that he thought it was very unnecessary rule that was bordering on idiotic to maintain when non-residents were doing EVERYTHING ELSE in the Wilderness. So saying that enough residents support the rule to prevent legislative action without sacrifice might not necessarily be true.

I have a good friend that’s worked for WYGF since I lived in Laramie 28 years ago. He agreed it was stupid too. BUT, most all of my other acquaintances loved it because it gave them somewhere to escape the NR pressure, real or perceived.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

IMO, about 100% better. My wife and I have killed B&C animals on AccessYes lands here.

Can't tell you how many elk, deer, and pronghorn we've killed on AccessYes lands, but a bunch.

Sir, we’ve probably all seen or killed, or know someone killed a bunch of animals on BMAs here in MT. Hell, I got my wife her first deer on a block management piece. How does that make it 100 percent better?

Ive heard the subsidies and tax benefits aren’t worth a hoot here but thankfully landowners still enroll. Is it better in that regard?

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Honest question.. I don’t feel like being picked apart by the birds…..

 

[Sytes]

BUT, most all of my other acquaintances loved it because it gave them somewhere to escape the NR pressure, real or perceived.

I've lived a couple years in Wyoming. One notable aspect, there's a defined self serving, sovereign mentality.
Montana: The mass behind I-161, and all involved in State capitol activity, continuous comment flooding to State and MT federal Representatives, the organization of citizen working groups, etc...

I don't believe MT residents would embrace MOGA for public land hunter selfish gain of private public land hunting ground - especially especially Federal land.

I could be MT biased however, it shows even within Hunt Talk, the VAST majority of Public Land Hunter rally cry's are Montana based, inclusive of BHA.

Kinda disappointing to find a majority of Wyoming Public Land hunters are favorable for Wyoming sanctioned, outfitter predominate, "guide law" for Resident public land hunter advantage - especially on Federal land, compounded by our favored Wilderness Act areas.

Meh, an observation. Many may not like the shining light though have at it.

 

[Derek44]

I've lived a couple years in Wyoming. One notable aspect, there's a defined self serving, sovereign mentality.
Montana: The mass behind I-161, and all involved in State capitol activity, continuous comment flooding to State an MT federal Representatives, the organization of citizen working groups, etc...

I don't believe MT residents would embrace MOGA for public land hunter selfish gain of private public land hunting ground - especially especially Federal land.

I could be MT biased however, it shows even within Hunt Talk, the VAST majority of Public Land Hunter rally cry's are Montana based, inclusive of BHA.

Kinda disappointing to find a majority of Wyoming Public Land hunters are favorable for Wyoming sanctioned, outfitter predominate, "guide law" for Resident public land hunter advantage - especially on Federal land, compounded by our favored Wilderness Act areas.

Meh, an observation. Many may not like the shining light though have at it.

I don’t think it’s predominately favorable, I think it’s just like @Oak said……. Bigger fish to fry.

 

[WYelker]

Tell me, a resident of WY, why I should really give a damn about the rule? Why would I want to increase my competition in the wilderness areas? Even if I don’t agree with the rule and dislike it, it was made before I came here…

There truly is absolutely no real upside for me to worry about that rule much at all… I have spoken out strongly against the outfitter set aside, spoken against the random raising of the special tag price, worked against the CWD kill the bucks proposals, been to
Meeting fighting against movements in our state to force resident into pick a unit, fighting against changing the deer tags, and more. All things that are far more important and pressing than the wilderness rule.

Literally while I find the rule stupid, it has no downside at all and of all the different things facing hunting in WY it is very low almost nonexistent on my priorities list and from my experiences and conversations with other residents. It has never once been an issue we have discussed… meaning we just really do not care…

 

[Archer86]

I've lived a couple years in Wyoming. One notable aspect, there's a defined self serving, sovereign mentality.
Montana: The mass behind I-161, and all involved in State capitol activity, continuous comment flooding to State and MT federal Representatives, the organization of citizen working groups, etc...

I don't believe MT residents would embrace MOGA for public land hunter selfish gain of private public land hunting ground - especially especially Federal land.

I could be MT biased however, it shows even within Hunt Talk, the VAST majority of Public Land Hunter rally cry's are Montana based, inclusive of BHA.

Kinda disappointing to find a majority of Wyoming Public Land hunters are favorable for Wyoming sanctioned, outfitter predominate, "guide law" for Resident public land hunter advantage - especially on Federal land, compounded by our favored Wilderness Act areas.

Meh, an observation. Many may not like the shining light though have at it.

Lol....why don't you try and push it through I bet you are more then surprised how many montana residents would support it doesn't montana currently have some resident only fishing laws?

 

[huntin24/7]

I think it’s a dumb rule, but not going to lie, if I was a WY resident, I’d be all about the wilderness rule. I really hope things stay the same license wise for non res. WY has been very fair to non res for a long time. It’s pretty disgusting what the outfitting industry is trying to do in WY and basically all these western states.

 

[Sytes]

montana currently have some resident only fishing laws?

I'm not aware of such. If so, I and I'm confident all my friends would oppose it, if true. I know there are Tribal restrictions for us, non residents. Seems Wyoming experienced the perks of Tribal.

 

[Oak]

Some good quotes in here.

Speaking during public comments, Wyoming resident hunter Wyatt Wittkop answered earlier queries regarding why in the task force’s online comment section, resident hunters seemed upset over policy change proposals that would primarily affect non-residents.

“Because of altruism, looking out for someone else,” he said. “If you offered me a lollipop, but the consequences for accepting it were a kick to the nuts for my neighbor, I’d decline that lollipop.”

“I think you can put in public comment without using the F-word,” he said. “Sometimes when I see that, I don’t even read the comment.”

Outfitter missing the point.

“I’ve had a lot of hunters who were not wealthy,” he said. “They were middle-income or maybe upper-middle income people. They would love to come to Wyoming to hunt, but it was difficult for them to draw tags.”

F-Bombs, Cut Fences, Trespassing: Animosity At Boiling Point Between Landowners & Hunters

At Friday's Wyoming Wildlife Task Force meeting, members said landowners and hunters aren't happy with each other. Members mentioned "great animosity" between the two groups.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[WYelker]

Some good quotes in here.



Outfitter missing the point.

F-Bombs, Cut Fences, Trespassing: Animosity At Boiling Point Between Landowners & Hunters

At Friday's Wyoming Wildlife Task Force meeting, members said landowners and hunters aren't happy with each other. Members mentioned "great animosity" between the two groups.

cowboystatedaily.com

It is an interesting time here… I really think the outfitters and the landowners saw the task force as a quick path to transferable land owner tags and guaranteed tags. They really were dumb founded when they got no traction on creating more outfitter well fare and client only pool…

I love how the politician is a politician even in this…. Hunters bad, cut fence, destroy gates, but of course we allow hundreds to hunt deer…

The F-word thing seems petty and childish. This is a subject very important to alot of people and sometimes strong words are needed to relay a strong message…

 

[Deleted member 16014]

The final meeting is Wednesday. I found the following summary of TF recommendations and their status helpful. Summary of Finalized Recommendations