Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

[mhabiger]

I dont hunt out of state and am admittedly very ignorant of regulations outside of my home state. What is the non resident tag allocation in places like the midwest or the moose allocation split in Maine or alligator in florida?

For whitetail deer, Kansas and Iowa have draws for nonresidents. Kansas, for instance, issues around 22k tags for 27k apps. Missouri, Arkansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan are all OTC with no cap. Turkey in KS, MO and AR are OTC with no cap. So bunch of good populations that can support it. Access isnt as great compared to the public lands in the West. Although KS does good with WIHA programs and MO and AR have fair amount of public land in parts of the state.

I grew up in MN and recall looking at the moose odds as a kid and realizing I'd likely die before ever getting to hunt one...at which point I became real interested in hunting Alaska

 

[Laramie]

Solid question

That is easily answered with a little Google work. No 2 states are the same and comparing Nebraska, Maine, Or Florida has no bearing on Wyoming because animal populations and resident populations of each state are drastically different. 90/10 isn't unfair in any way, period. The part that is at minimum questionable, is making a drastic change to the people who have invested considerably in preference points who wouldn't have a chance to draw. It sounds like the two force has a solution that will slightly address the issue. If they go to 50% pp and 50% random, at least people like myself will have some chance to draw.

 

[Cowbell]

For the average NR hunter, the changes will not be significant...sure the guys that have been holding points for the couple 2-3 areas like 124 elk, 100 elk, 128 mule deer, 60 pronghorn etc...yeah they will have a longer wait.

That's the price you pay for only applying for the "perceived" best units in any state. Don't feel sorry for them at all...they could have hunted multiple quality tags for all species a couple times.

Point creep is going to remain even if NR allocations were doubled...just this year, 25% increase in NR elk applications in Wyoming. THAT is what's driving point creep wayyyy more than allocation splits.

I've never once said that NR's wouldn't be impacted in LQ areas...and frankly, I don't care. Wyoming residents want similar allocations to what residents receive in states like ID, MT, NM, AZ, etc. and that's not unrealistic or unreasonable in any way.

However, if the guy in question is going to flaunt a spread sheet, it should be factual and its nothing close to factual.

I did the same thing...and the fiscal part of 90-10 is nothing to worry about, the revenue loss will be less than $2 million total.

NR's are still going to be hunting Wyoming at much higher percentages, and much more often, than damn near any other State they apply for, even under 90-10.

I've applied for 19 years for every species but mountain goat, and still have not drawn a single tag. I know nobody that has applied for DEA in Wyoming for 19 years and hasn't drawn, most multiples of each in quality areas. Area's that are likely better than all but a handful of NV's best units.

The level of NR whining and complaining doesn't equate to the actual impact...not even close.

Buzz,
Why shouldn't Wyoming also discuss opening up wilderness areas to NR and allowing landowner tags to transferable to match other states as well. Both of these issues greatly effect me. I lease sizable private country that I can't draw a general tag for. Pretty frustrating.

 

[Laramie]

Buzz,
Why shouldn't Wyoming also discuss opening up wilderness areas to NR and allowing landowner tags to transferable to match other states as well. Both of these issues greatly effect me. I lease sizable private country that I can't draw a general tag for. Pretty frustrating.

The wilderness rule isn't changing. Transferable tags would be absolutely horrible for the vast majority of residents and non residents. Those only benefit the few willing to pay big money yearly. Not going to happen if the voice of most hunters are heard.

 

[4rcgoat]

That is easily answered with a little Google work. No 2 states are the same and comparing Nebraska, Maine, Or Florida has no bearing on Wyoming because animal populations and resident populations of each state are drastically different. 90/10 isn't unfair in any way, period. The part that is at minimum questionable, is making a drastic change to the people who have invested considerably in preference points who wouldn't have a chance to draw. It sounds like the two force has a solution that will slightly address the issue. If they go to 50% pp and 50% random, at least people like myself will have some chance to draw.

I dont think anything about the 90/10 is unfair,not in the least. And although I do find the wilderness rule ridiculous, im certainly not going rally for its removal......i have some compassion, but im no fool. Just thought it was a solid question.

 

[mhabiger]

Just took a gander at the public comments for today's meeting. Good mix of resident/nonresident comments but one gem stood out...

stop murdering american wildlife. hunters are sadists,perverts and believe its still l860 and want o murder and kill which is perniciouisand evil. we are not on earth to be predators.

While we might not agree on much in this thread, we can probably all disagree with that commenters sentiment!

 

[Cowbell]

The wilderness rule isn't changing. Transferable tags would be absolutely horrible for the vast majority of residents and non residents. Those only benefit the few willing to pay big money yearly. Not going to happen if the voice of most hunters are heard.

How would transferable landowner tags negatively effect other hunters? I would argue it would actually help public land hunting.

 

[Laramie]

How would transferable landowner tags negatively effect other hunters? I would argue it would actually help public land hunting.

Transferrable tags go for big money. The average hunter isn't going to pay 3k+ for those tags. Transferrable tags also remove tags from the general applicant pool giving less opportunity to regular DIY hunters. There are plenty of opportunities for the guys who want to pay big money in Utah, New Mexico, etc.

 

[jmez]

Doubtful...WOGA tried a few years back and got handed a pretty healthy defeat by the Commission and Resident hunters.

No way it will be decreased either...we have the best general elk hunting in the West, by a wide margin.

No reason to adjust it either up or down.

Resident hunters will be the ones pushing it when the general units get flooded with with NR hunters.

 

[Bighorner]

That is easily answered with a little Google work. No 2 states are the same and comparing Nebraska, Maine, Or Florida has no bearing on Wyoming because animal populations and resident populations of each state are drastically different. 90/10 isn't unfair in any way, period. The part that is at minimum questionable, is making a drastic change to the people who have invested considerably in preference points who wouldn't have a chance to draw. It sounds like the two force has a solution that will slightly address the issue. If they go to 50% pp and 50% random, at least people like myself will have some chance to draw.

It wasn't a simple google search for me. Allocation by R/NR is somewhat buried in most cases. I completely agree that preference points are a joke for both residents and non residents when it comes to hard to draw tags. I did find that SD has 2 mountain goat tags avaible (to residents only) and there are 3200 people with 2 (max) perfence points. In that case preference points are worthless. I do know in wyoming someone purchasing their first sheep point, as a resident, is about 100 years away from getting to the max point pool. I completely agree that preference points need to start to get phased out. Even at the rate of an additional few percent increase to a random draw stretched out over the next 20 year. I'm sitting on 12 points for sheep and dont expect to get to the max point pool in my lifetime.

 

[String&stick]

How would transferable landowner tags negatively effect other hunters? I would argue it would actually help public land hunting.

Also I would say with non transferable tags, not every landowner applies to receive a tag. Maybe they don't hunt, maybe they get 1 elk tag when they qualify for 2 etc. . .

With transferable and monetized land owner tags, every land owner will take their max allocation in order to sell them and profit. . . It's the best business decision. And when that happens the overall impact is less tags to be drawn, thus impacting the public land hunter that cannot afford to pay 2-15k for a land owner tag.

For further info see new Mexico as case study #1.

 

[307]

Resident hunters will be the ones pushing it when the general units get flooded with with NR hunters.

Won't there be the same # of hunters in the general units?

NR will lose tags in LQ areas, but residents will gain the same # of tags. Those residents who would have been hunting general are now LQ and the NR who would have been hunting LQ are now general.

No overall change in #'s in either the LQ or general units, just a different distribution of residents and NR.

Using percentages in this discussion is done for dramatic effect on the NR side. It's somewhat misleading. If you look at tag #'s, it tells a different story.

 

[Laramie]

Won't there be the same # of hunters in the general units?

NR will lose tags in LQ areas, but residents will gain the same # of tags. Those residents who would have been hunting general are now LQ and the NR who would have been hunting LQ are now general.

No overall change in #'s in either the LQ or general units, just a different distribution of residents and NR.

Using percentages in this discussion is done for dramatic effect on the NR side. It's somewhat misleading. If you look at tag #'s, it tells a different story.

If looking at the state as a whole, you are likely correct. Unfortunately that's not how it will work. Most people in Wyoming hunt fairly close to home. For instance, most people in Laramie and Cheyenne hunt the SE portion of the state because it's a closer drive. A large % of them don't apply for LQ to begin with. A few more residents will get area 7, 11, or 16 tags but I don't believe it will even come close to balancing out. Those areas also see a higher proportion of non-resident general tag hunters for a variety of reasons. Mainly due to proximity to the people flying into Denver or driving in from the east. Those areas are going to see much higher hunting pressure lowering the overall quality of the hunt imo.

 

[Wags]

Also I would say with non transferable tags, not every landowner applies to receive a tag. Maybe they don't hunt, maybe they get 1 elk tag when they qualify for 2 etc. . .

With transferable and monetized land owner tags, every land owner will take their max allocation in order to sell them and profit. . . It's the best business decision. And when that happens the overall impact is less tags to be drawn, thus impacting the public land hunter that cannot afford to pay 2-15k for a land owner tag.

For further info see new Mexico as case study #1.

Yup, happens in CO as well. I've sold a few of my vouchers when I got transferred and wasn't able to make the hunt. Most of the goat tags pulled in my area are by landowners who don't hunt but sell them off as income. Like you said, I cant blame them for doing it, but it definitely pulls tags away from actual hunters looking to get drawn.

 

[307]

If looking at the state as a whole, you are likely correct. Unfortunately that's not how it will work. Most people in Wyoming hunt fairly close to home. For instance, most people in Laramie and Cheyenne hunt the SE portion of the state because it's a closer drive. A large % of them don't apply for LQ to begin with. A few more residents will get area 7, 11, or 16 tags but I don't believe it will even come close to balancing out. Those areas also see a higher proportion of non-resident general tag hunters for a variety of reasons. Mainly due to proximity to the people flying into Denver or driving in from the east. Those areas are going to see much higher hunting pressure lowering the overall quality of the hunt imo.

You mean to tell me that we can get more resident LQ tags AND keep the front rangers in one area so that the rest of the state's general areas improve in hunt quality???

Cool!

 

[Wags]

You mean to tell me that we can get more resident LQ tags AND keep the front rangers in one area so that the rest of the state's general areas improve in hunt quality???

Cool!

How does an increase of Resident tags in an area improve hunt quality? Or another way of phrasing it would be, how do NR hunters decrease hunt quality?

 

[307]

How does an increase of Resident tags in an area improve hunt quality? Or another way of phrasing it would be, how do NR hunters decrease hunt quality?

If, as Laramie suggests, the SE corner of WY is going to see a significant increase in NR general area hunters, it follows that there will be less overall hunters (R and NR) in the other general areas of the state, thus improving hunt quality by decreased crowding.

 

[Laramie]

If, as Laramie suggests, the SE corner of WY is going to see a significant increase in NR general area hunters, it follows that there will be less overall hunters (R and NR) in the other general areas of the state, thus improving hunt quality by decreased crowding.

I believe this will be accurate. WG&F may have to regionalize the general tags similar to deer to spread hunters out. I guess time will tell.

 

[Wags]

If, as Laramie suggests, the SE corner of WY is going to see a significant increase in NR general area hunters, it follows that there will be less overall hunters (R and NR) in the other general areas of the state, thus improving hunt quality by decreased crowding.

Unless you hunt that area of the state. Thankfully I do not. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Rat]

There is nothing that says that all of the general areas will remain general as time goes on. Some of them could be converted to LQ. I suppose the same goes for the LQ units.