Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[WYelker]

They’ll sell about 300 fewer nr LQ tags under the proposed elimination of the 7250 cap. The 16% remains in place under the proposal. That 16% is per hunt area as currently implemented.

Proof? I don't buy that at all. I still want to know how they calculate the 84/16% when there are general tags... What is 16% of the general tag?

 

[Hunt West]

total quota minus LQ = Gen licenses. 84% of gen licenses go to res, nr get 16%. Nr don’t draw their full quota of LQ licenses so they backfill with more special gen to allocate the full 7250. Keeping the 16% and removing the 7250 will eliminate the special gen backfill. How they’ll keep the 16% in a region is something I haven’t seen them explain. Allocating on an area by area basis as they do now won’t allow licenses to be shifted to outfitter friendly areas from what I can see so they’d have to change that.

The roughly 300 LQ that they would be losing are the ones that are being converted to special general tags. Like you said, I haven’t seen any proposal numbers but I’d bet if the 7250 is removed that the total region general elk licenses would more than make up for the 300.

 

[WYelker]

total quota minus LQ = Gen licenses. 84% of gen licenses go to res, nr get 16%. Nr don’t draw their full quota of LQ licenses so they backfill with more special gen to allocate the full 7250. Keeping the 16% and removing the 7250 will eliminate the special gen backfill. How they’ll keep the 16% in a region is something I haven’t seen them explain. Allocating on an area by area basis as they do now won’t allow licenses to be shifted to outfitter friendly areas from what I can see so they’d have to change that.

So do you know what number of type X tags they are going to allocate? I get that just eliminating the cap and allowing the LQ to follow the 84/16 might result in few tags for NR, but that ignores the General Regional elk quotas, that also ignore the idea that this new Type X tag is not counted. Is it possible they add 30,000 type X tags? I don't trust this at all

 

[Deleted member 16014]

The type-x thing is not from or associated with the department's assessment from their elk white paper/etc., just an example of the stuff you end up with on a meeting agenda when you give wyoga markers and a coloring page. Likely will go nowhere, but it's hard to keep up. Crank apparently likes it, which is unfortunate.

 

[WapitiBob]

total quota minus LQ = Gen licenses. 84% of gen licenses go to res, nr get 16%. Nr don’t draw their full quota of LQ licenses so they backfill with more special gen to allocate the full 7250. Keeping the 16% and removing the 7250 will eliminate the special gen backfill. How they’ll keep the 16% in a region is something I haven’t seen them explain.

Obviously I wasn't thinking straight when I wrote this. I need to get off the sauce.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Elk management in MT was a political mess when I left a decade ago and by all appearances is a dumpster fire today, so I'm not sure what they have proven. If there's a specific example you have in mind where the remedy was good for elk and regular sportsmen you'll have to point me in that direction. I'm always glad to learn.

Here is the proposal I linked to:

Possible Proposal to Game and Fish Commission-Type X Elk licenses

The Department should begin issuing Any Elk licenses valid on only private land in areas or regions
where Elk are above objective. These licenses would be like Antelope Type 2 licenses currently being
issued in Northeastern Wyoming. For purposes of this discussion, these Any Elk private land only
licenses will be referred to as Type X licenses (“Type X”).

1. Type X licenses would be issued at the discretion of the Commission and Department in a
competitive draw.

2. Quota for Type X licenses would be set high as necessary to control burgeoning elk populations
such as that occurring in eastern Wyoming and the Iron Mountain area.

3. Mandate that a person drawing a Type X license also must apply for and receive a Type 4 cow
calf elk license which could only be used on private lands.

4. Type X licenses would not be subject to the current 84/16 split between resident and
nonresident hunters.

5. Add requirement to license application that Applicant must list the landowner or outfitter that
the Applicant has made arrangements with for access to hunt on the licenses.

Identified Pros and Cons of the Proposal
1. Pros
a. This license type would give the Commission and Department an effective management tool
to address exploding elk populations. This tool allows the wildlife experts at Game and Fish
to exercise their discretion to balance harvest as needed on a case-by-case basis throughout
the state.
b. This license type would give landowners an opportunity to generate income via trespass
fees or leases with landowners who possess Type X licenses.
c. This license type could reduce hunting pressure on limited public lands in areas of high
private land ownership.
d. This license type has the potential to move elk off private lands and onto public lands where
the elk would be accessible to public land hunters.
e. This license type will provide additional hunter opportunity to both non-residents and those
residents willing to pay access fees or outfitter fees to hunt on private land
f. This license type will reduce competition between mule deer and overpopulations of Elk.
2. Cons:
a. Continued bias from resident hunters towards nonresident hunters and outfitters and
landowners who do not allow free public access.

Look at that! Only one con! (sarcasm)

My comment was 100% sarcasm A nod to Hank “conversation starter” Worsech in his remarks on the recent HT podcast in which he cherry-picks one over-objective MT elk unit (based sparse data) with a high bull:cow ratio, and limited public access, explaining that in order to get the population under control it was necessary to issue more private land either-sex tags. He says all this in a calm, matter-of-fact tone, despite him and anyone listening to him being fully aware the issue has next-to-nothing to do with reducing the elk population, and everything to do with an easier path for selling bull hunts.

Maybe 60 years ago the WY “type X” proposal could fool a few stakeholders, but in the Information Age it takes little to see the MOGA/WYOGA cut-and-paste job.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

My comment was 100% sarcasm A nod to Hank “conversation starter” Worsech in his remarks on the recent HT podcast in which he cherry-picks one over-objective MT elk unit (based sparse data) with a high bull:cow ratio, and limited public access, explaining that in order to get the population under control it was necessary to issue more private land either-sex tags. He says all this in a calm, matter-of-fact tone, despite him and anyone listening to him being fully aware the issue has next-to-nothing to do with reducing the elk population, and everything to do with an easier path for selling bull hunts.

Maybe 60 years ago the WY “type X” proposal could fool a few stakeholders, but in the Information Age it takes little to see the MOGA/WYOGA cut-and-paste job.

I gotcha buddy, I thought it had to be, then I second guessed myself.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

My comment was 100% sarcasm A nod to Hank “conversation starter” Worsech in his remarks on the recent HT podcast in which he cherry-picks one over-objective MT elk unit (based sparse data) with a high bull:cow ratio, and limited public access, explaining that in order to get the population under control it was necessary to issue more private land either-sex tags. He says all this in a calm, matter-of-fact tone, despite him and anyone listening to him being fully aware the issue has next-to-nothing to do with reducing the elk population, and everything to do with an easier path for selling bull hunts.

Maybe 60 years ago the WY “type X” proposal could fool a few stakeholders, but in the Information Age it takes little to see the MOGA/WYOGA cut-and-paste job.

Unfortunately they’ve already got one former commissioner on board, but hopefully it will die a quick death in open discussion.

 

[Archer86]

Anyone have any updates on this last meeting? I seen wyoga is trying to push to turn the special draw for nr into a outfitter only draw. So they would effectively take 40 percent of the nr tag quota. Anyone know if this is likely to get pushed through? Sounds like a bad idea


Just seen the thread in elk forum should have searched a little more

 

[Archer86]

You saw wrong, has nothing to do with special draw.

From the wyoga power point not sure how I saw wrong?

 

[wytex]

From the wyoga power point not sure how I saw wrong?

Yep, he be right on that.

 

[WapitiBob]

Yep, he be right on that.

Yep, I was looking at another discussion. My bad.

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

Is anyone watching the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce Meeting now? I submitted comments early when it first formed on but it has fallen off my radar in the past few months. What a change it has undergone! I've never seen a discussion with such lack of focus or clarity. Somehow it seems like the outfitters/landowners are now running the show and everyone is debating minutia with the goal of giving outfitters/landowners more tags with more flexibility on those tags. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!! Not much hope here for improvements for residents or DIY NR. I would like to comment, but I'm not even sure what to say -- they seem to have lost sight of their mission.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Is anyone watching the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce Meeting now? I submitted comments early when it first formed on but it has fallen off my radar in the past few months. What a change it has undergone! I've never seen a discussion with such lack of focus or clarity. Somehow it seems like the outfitters/landowners are now running the show and everyone is debating minutia with the goal of giving outfitters/landowners more tags with more flexibility on those tags. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!! Not much hope here for improvements for residents or DIY NR. I would like to comment, but I'm not even sure what to say -- they seem to have lost sight of their mission.

This morning's session was pretty wild. Alot of back and forth discussion, I thought Sy was going to run out of steam several times but he kept plowing on ahead. I think there was some decent push back by several members on the committee regarding the outfitter and landowner set asides. They concluded the morning session by stating they will be putting out the new proposals out after the meeting for public comment, so keep an eye out for the ability to have your voice heard.

I was listening at work, as such, wasn't able to give my vocal opinion about some of the discussion items. I will be supplying the committee with my comments when they open it up for public comment after the meetings adjourn this week. One main topic discussed this morning:

New pool for non-resident draw: The committee discussed getting rid of the special draw for D,E,&A. Instead, they proposed taking 40-50% of the non-resident tag allocations and putting them in an outfitter only pool. Applicants would have to obtain a number from an outfitter and supply this in their application to draw in this pool. One thing that drove me nuts while they were discussing this was the several outfitters on the committee were adamant that there couldn't be a compromise on this course of action, citing economic concerns to outfitters and small communities in the State. The compromise for pushing this new pool through was under the guise that Wyoming would help residents out by going to a 90-10 split for the D,E,A allocations between residents and non-residents. Several members on the committee made very decent points that a system like this would push Wyoming closer to the New Mexico model, where the DIY hunters suffer due to outfitter set asides. The words "welfare" and "it's not welfare" were stated by different committee members several times. Session just started back up for the afternoon, we'll see where the discussion goes.

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

This morning's session was pretty wild. Alot of back and forth discussion, I thought Sy was going to run out of steam several times but he kept plowing on ahead. I think there was some decent push back by several members on the committee regarding the outfitter and landowner set asides. They concluded the morning session by stating they will be putting out the new proposals out after the meeting for public comment, so keep an eye out for the ability to have your voice heard.

I was listening at work, as such, wasn't able to give my vocal opinion about some of the discussion items. I will be supplying the committee with my comments when they open it up for public comment after the meetings adjourn this week. One main topic discussed this morning:

New pool for non-resident draw: The committee discussed getting rid of the special draw for D,E,&A. Instead, they proposed taking 40-50% of the non-resident tag allocations and putting them in an outfitter only pool. Applicants would have to obtain a number from an outfitter and supply this in their application to draw in this pool. One thing that drove me nuts while they were discussing this was the several outfitters on the committee were adamant that there couldn't be a compromise on this course of action, citing economic concerns to outfitters and small communities in the State. The compromise for pushing this new pool through was under the guise that Wyoming would help residents out by going to a 90-10 split for the D,E,A allocations between residents and non-residents. Several members on the committee made very decent points that a system like this would push Wyoming closer to the New Mexico model, where the DIY hunters suffer due to outfitter set asides. The words "welfare" and "it's not welfare" were stated by different committee members several times. Session just started back up for the afternoon, we'll see where the discussion goes.

I too was listening while working, but you nicely summarized what I heard. It just seems like there's a lot of changes with significant additional confusion created for proposals that benefit a very small portion of hunters, in exchange for a "compromise" that amounts to very little for the average hunter.

 

[Wildabeest]

I too was listening while working, but you nicely summarized what I heard. It just seems like there's a lot of changes with significant additional confusion created for proposals that benefit a very small portion of hunters, in exchange for a "compromise" that amounts to very little for the average hunter.

“Compromise” = “I’m only going to punch you in the face 9 times instead of 10”. Looks like WY has been watching MT with great interest. I hope it doesn’t devolve into that shitshow.

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

“Compromise” = “I’m only going to punch you in the face 9 times instead of 10”. Looks like WY has been watching MT with great interest. I hope it doesn’t devolve into that shitshow.

They kept citing how NM and MT "valued" their outfitters and that WY should be doing the same.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I too was listening while working, but you nicely summarized what I heard. It just seems like there's a lot of changes with significant additional confusion created for proposals that benefit a very small portion of hunters, in exchange for a "compromise" that amounts to very little for the average hunter.

The whole "compromise" deal just grinds my gears. What compromise are we supposed to be making? These are the residents of Wyoming's wildlife, NOT Wyoming Guide Association's wildlife. Why does a private financially driven group somehow have the power to dictate what happens with Wyoming's wildlife instead of this State's residents and the general public's opinions on how they want our public resource managed. I call bs!

 

[RobertD]

Yikes.

 

[Alabama]

I didn't even see the type 1 antelope license limit when I sent in my comments. The last public input I saw was 1. NR regional elk tags and 2. Splitting whitetail and mule deer licenses.

I see where they recommended a statute change to differentiate mule deer and whitetails as separate species. I assume licenses will now be good for one species or the other if this is adopted by the commission?

Any update on the Gen elk region recommendations?

Will they recommend the type 1 antelope license to only 1 per hunter?

Where did the discussion end in regard to the outfitter draw?