WY NR Cap and Forcing NR Regions Comment Time

[WYelker]

So just saw on the WY Game and Fish page they are taking comments on the lifting of the NR cap and forcing all NR to pick a region to hunt.

You can provide your comment here:

Wyoming Game and Fish Department - Taskforce Proposal - 7,250 Cap NR Elk Licenses

The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce has developed a proposal to remove the 7,250 cap on nonresident elk licenses. Learn what the change would mean for hunters and tell us what you think.

wgfd.wyo.gov

As a resident I am strongly opposed to each of these moves. The NR cap appears to be working well, and no need to change it.

The second proposal is meant to help with perceived hunter crowding the problem is that even in the busiest units the NR hunter currently makes up like 20% of the total hunters. Even if we cut the NR hunters(which is not being proposed) in those areas in Half it would have virtually no impact on the crowding in the unit as 80% of the hunters are residents… This move would also likely force greater demand on lower pressure areas and areas where crowding has not been an issue it will become one.

I can understand the NR wanting to lift the Cap, but realize that this is only being proposed as the outfitters want more clients. It is their hope that they will get additional tags in areas with difficult access and lots of private land. This will not mean more opportunity for the average DIY general elk hunter in WY. Instead this move is meant to force more tags into the areas where the landowners and the outfitters will gain money/clients…

Pleas be sure to comment…

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

i say leave it the way it is,,,virtually any changes will not be for the d i y non- resident,,,all these changes and proposals seem to be outfitter welfare driven from what ive seen.

 

[22swiftmg]

Hahahaha

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Hahahaha

Welcome to Hunt Talk

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Pleas be sure to comment…

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

i say leave it the way it is,,,virtually any changes will not be for the d i y non- resident,,,all these changes and proposals seem to be outfitter welfare driven from what ive seen.

Hopefully you provide your thoughts on the comment link to G&F as well.

 

[Kiwi]

Provided feedback. Hope to hunt DIY elk with my son soon, any rule change makes me nervous that might not happen!

 

[WapitiBob]

proposed quotas are listed to confirm or aleviate any outfitter welfare angst

 

[Treeshark]

NR cap is based on very old population estimates, worth revisiting for sure.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

NR cap is based on very old population estimates, worth revisiting for sure.

Population counts and NR tag distribution has been revisited many times since the 7250 cap was put in place. There is a reason NR get 13,000+ tags a year.

 

[WYelker]

NR cap is based on very old population estimates, worth revisiting for sure.

Yes you are correct the population of residents has changed and the percent of resident participating in hunting has changed.

As mentioned there are 13,000 plus elk licenses outside the cap every year that go to NR…

 

[Archer86]

NR cap is based on very old population estimates, worth revisiting for sure.

elk population as good as everyone thinks it is is not that great in most general areas. the areas that are seeing big increases are either limited quota or mostly private areas. something they need to consider as well. the current nr cap is working just fine.
they need to leave it alone.

 

[Treeshark]

the areas that are seeing big increases are either limited quota or mostly private areas. something they need to consider as well.

I agree, additional levers should be looked into in those instances as well.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

yes,i put my commet into the game and fish site/thanks for the link.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Was there any discussion in the task force meetings on the biological management purpose that this would fulfill? Based on the proposed quotas it looks like they want to increase the general tags drastically in the eastern part of the state where it is mostly private. Most areas where there is heavy wilderness they want to increase general tags, over last three year average of the actual hunters in those units. As it applies to limited quota licenses, does this mean the allocation is just 16% of the actual tags available for those units?

 

[WYelker]

Was there any discussion in the task force meetings on the biological management purpose that this would fulfill? Based on the proposed quotas it looks like they want to increase the general tags drastically in the eastern part of the state where it is mostly private. Most areas where there is heavy wilderness they want to increase general tags, over last three year average of the actual hunters in those units. As it applies to limited quota licenses, does this mean the allocation is just 16% of the actual tags available for those units?

I did not see any of this discussion about the biological reason. It was all greed and social pressure. Simply put if they want to kill more elk on the private lands in the east part of the state to control population etc. they would only need cow calf licenses. But this was all about bull tags…. As you mentioned it seemed like the rest was simply about more hunters in the limited etc.

You are correct none of it was about biology…