Wyoming tranferable tag bill

[Bluffgruff]

Anyone in Wyoming get the email from WWF?

Link to find and contact state senators:

Find Your Elected Officials

secure.everyaction.com

 

[Nick87]

I got the email as well this evening. Will reach out.

 

[cgasner1]

Aw shit here we go again

 

[ropeup79]

HB0019 which defines corner crossing as legal is up in the House tomorrow as well.

 

[grizzly63]

How did they sneak this up on you suddenly? Is this dirty politics or have I been sleeping? Do not apply there but see the ramifications.

 

[shb]

So help me out here, im not seeing the evil.

If a landowner is distributing the tags I can buy, or network one.

If the gnf is distributing the tags im forever in the random, and may never draw another.




Sounds like there's at least a chance to get one from a landowner, a much higher chance than the random.


Honest question.

 

[Bluffgruff]

So help me out here, im not seeing the evil.

If a landowner is distributing the tags I can buy, or network one.

If the gnf is distributing the tags im forever in the random, and may never draw another.




Sounds like there's at least a chance to get one from a landowner, a much higher chance than the random.


Honest question.

It isn't about an individual being able to get a tag, it's about what that ability to sell the tag at whatever price the landowner can get that causes the problem.

Here's WWF's take:

What Are Transferable Landowner Tags—and Why Wyoming Is Different - Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Work on wildlife, habitat, and outdoor recreation policy with in Lander, WY. All staff receive one week PTO for hunting/angling and many other benefits!

wyomingwildlife.org

In Colorado, transferable landowner tags have lead to landowners feeling like they own the game, treating them as a commodity, taking tags from the draw (20%), thereby decreasing draw odds for the public draw hunters, decreasing access because now the price the landowner can get for the tag hinges to a degree on exclusivity, and the tag may not be limited to that landowner's land, taking away animals from hunters on public land.

Basically it's giving the landowners the animals to sell, akin to livestock, when they do not own the animals. There is very little benefit to the animals, the habitat, or public, who own the resource. It's about greed, nothing more.

Reading the bill, no one even put their name on it, just that it came out of committee.

There are other points and nuances, but this is what came off the top of my head at 2am.

 

[Bob-WY]

Landowner tags come out of the pool of available tags. Many landowners dont apply cause they dont hunt. The more landowner tags given, the fewer tags available in the draw.

 

[TOGIE]

So help me out here, im not seeing the evil.

 

[Archer86]

This will probabaly break @Treeshark heart but it failed introduction vote.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

just heard about it today??

 

[BuzzH]

just heard about it today??

No, this has been brewing for the last 2 years. A small group of us met with Pearson last year over an informal dinner and told her this transferable license deal was a non starter. She pulled the bill last year, which was appreciated but from the tone of that meeting it was apparent she was going to try this year.

The thing that bothers me is that there are a lot of bills that are being addressed by the wrong committee. This bill was an ag committe bill, which should have been vetted through the TRW committee.

The committes need to stay in their lanes...

I would expect this to resurface next session, but a 25-6 vote does send a message...so who knows.

Best to stay vigilant in between now and then. For Wyoming Residents I would be talking with my reps/senators throughout this summer about this issue.

 

[Letthemgrow]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

No

 

[Oak]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

Not a WY resident, but if I were I would answer that those landowners can choose to participate in the Access Yes program if they are willing to open their lands for compensation.

 

[TheTone]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

Not a Wyoming resident either but I’d expect conditions like that would lead to the bill never being thought up in the first place

 

[BuzzH]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

Couple fold.

If a landowner is selling a high dollar tag, the buyer is going to want exclusive access to the land the tag seller has. If there isnt exclusive access that severely devalues the transferable tags.

Another problem is that even if you had a law or regulation NOW that guarantees public access, that could change at the drop of a hat.

Make no mistake, enough is never enough for those pushing these ideas. They are constantly looking for ways to get something that isn't theirs.

If you've dealt with shit like this long enough you'll see how easy it is for the public to get burned on these "deals".

Best way to avoid getting burned is to not budge an inch. I have been well past compromising for a long time, mainly because the compromise always seems lopsided and not in favor of wildlife, hunters, or access.

I'm a hard no on any transferable landowner tags.

 

[ropeup79]

A question for the Wyoming residents who are against a bill like this:

If being granted this opportunity meant the landowner had to open their property to public hunting, all public hunting, so if they were given a deer tag they could sell then the public could hunt everything on that land, upland birds, elk, pronghorn etc., would that be a significant enough trade off for you to consider being in favor of the idea?

No, I don’t even like that the current non-transferable landowner tags are valid on public land. They should only be valid on private. Ideally only on that specific private land.

 

[Bluffgruff]

No, this has been brewing for the last 2 years. A small group of us met with Pearson last year over an informal dinner and told her this transferable license deal was a non starter. She pulled the bill last year, which was appreciated but from the tone of that meeting it was apparent she was going to try this year.

The thing that bothers me is that there are a lot of bills that are being addressed by the wrong committee. This bill was an ag committe bill, which should have been vetted through the TRW committee.

The committes need to stay in their lanes...

I would expect this to resurface next session, but a 25-6 vote does send a message...so who knows.

Best to stay vigilant in between now and then. For Wyoming Residents I would be talking with my reps/senators throughout this summer about this issue.

Tell us more about Pearson? I'm curious where the push is coming from? Certain land owners? Certain constituencies?

 

[JM77]

No, I don’t even like that the current non-transferable landowner tags are valid on public land. They should only be valid on private. Ideally only on that specific private land.

I can assure you that LO licenses will being staying just as they are for sometime to come. The issue you mention surrounds the fact that some wildlife herds tend to have different home ranges at different times of the year. If those wildlife are not on the private lands during hunting season, it doesn't do a LO much good hunting animals that aren't on their property. When I tell that to those that think like you, they usually say "too bad", but that landowner still provides habitat, food and water for wildlife when they are on the property.

So how about you just thank the LO for helping keep that wildlife we all cherish abundant by supplying habitat, food and water and not worry about where he/she uses their two licenses within the hunt area. The honest truth about Wyoming's LO program, is it's not perfect, but it's one of the most conservative in the west.

Just to set the record straight, I'm 100% against transferable LO licenses.