Wyoming HB 00600: Dang those "grass-gobbling elk"

[go_deep]

Several Midwestern and Eastern State do not allow for wildlife damages to be paid unless you allow hunting to the public in an attempt to reduce the herd size that is creating the damage. I have brought this up numerous times at G&F meetings and in submitted public comments, and will continue to do so.
It's an easy solution, need 10 elk dead to stop the damage, let people come in on an HMA style program and kill them.

 

[TSAMP]

Several Midwestern and Eastern State do not allow for wildlife damages to be paid unless you allow hunting to the public in an attempt to reduce the herd size that is creating the damage. I have brought this up numerous times at G&F meetings and in submitted public comments, and will continue to do so.
It's an easy solution, need 10 elk dead to stop the damage, let people come in on an HMA style program and kill them.

I am generally against this thought process at a high level, i dont want strangers on my land. However if you really consider it, I have a hard time imaging a land owner in a given area that does not have relationships established with a hunter, or know of someone who does. Such as Son in law, friend of friend, etc that they could allow access without opening up to the general public and still accomplish a goal of reducing populations and minimize damages.

I think the issue comes with tag allocation. Does the removal of the 12 elk I have on my place align with the goals for the area? If not,that is where compensation can become a consideration.

Then you have the portion, hopefully the minority who would prefer to get the tags to sell to the public for maximum profit off the sale of the resource, rather than allow an acquaintance access for next to zero profit.


My guess is this is an issue for a niche market, most big ranches already figured out how to profit off wildlife by inviting in outfitters. These remaining folks are likely the hobby farmers or are in the areas that have difficult tag access, which makes the above hold true.

 

[KHNC]

Sell elk hunts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesnt this require an Outfitter License in Wyoming? If so, do you suppose the ranchers have time to guide hunters in addition to all of the typical fall ranch work? If the dont require a license , then i can see how it would be beneficial.

 

[go_deep]

I am generally against this thought process at a high level, i dont want strangers on my land. However if you really consider it, I have a hard time imaging a land owner in a given area that does not have relationships established with a hunter, or know of someone who does. Such as Son in law, friend of friend, etc that they could allow access without opening up to the general public and still accomplish a goal of reducing populations and minimize damages.

I think the issue comes with tag allocation. Does the removal of the 12 elk I have on my place align with the goals for the area? If not,that is where compensation can become a consideration.

Then you have the portion, hopefully the minority who would prefer to get the tags to sell to the public for maximum profit off the sale of the resource, rather than allow an acquaintance access for next to zero profit.


My guess is this is an issue for a niche market, most big ranches already figured out how to profit off wildlife by inviting in outfitters. These remaining folks are likely the hobby farmers or are in the areas that have difficult tag access, which makes the above hold true.

If you want a strangers money, then you get to let a stranger hunt. Otherwise gather up a posse of know people and take care of it yourself, legally.

These areas have thousands of antlerless licenses and many of them can be bought leftover over the counter well into the season.

 

[fatlander]

Doesnt this require an Outfitter License in Wyoming? If so, do you suppose the ranchers have time to guide hunters in addition to all of the typical fall ranch work? If the dont require a license , then i can see how it would be beneficial.

They can charge a trespass fee without a license?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TSAMP]

If you want a strangers money, then you get to let a stranger hunt. Otherwise gather up a posse of know people and take care of it yourself, legally.

These areas have thousands of antlerless licenses and many of them can be bought leftover over the counter well into the season.

Only the ones with big racks eat my grass..

 

[sndmn11]

I think an adequate portion of the payment should be for 10' fences to genuinely keep our the wildlife.

There's zebras where I hunt. Elk, deer, phorns, bears, don't get in.

 

[jbelz]

Interesting to read what didn't make it in (https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2024/HB0060)

"Landowners, lessees and agents claiming damages for extraordinary damage to rangeland shall only be eligible for compensation under this subsection if they allow unrestricted hunting on their property for the species for which damages are claimed." Failed

 

[fatlander]

Interesting to read what didn't make it in (https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2024/HB0060)

"Landowners, lessees and agents claiming damages for extraordinary damage to rangeland shall only be eligible for compensation under this subsection if they allow unrestricted hunting on their property for the species for which damages are claimed." Failed

Well yeah, they gots to have their cake and eat it too.

The animals belong the public trust when they’re a problem, and the public should pay for the damages. They belong to the land owner when they’ve got big antlers that are worth a lot money and their bald headed girlfriends being alive and happy is what keeps them on the their land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LostArra]

Does anyone think Wagonhound is whining about the elk eating their grass?
Maybe they are. I don't know.
They seem to make cattle and elk hunting work together for a profit.

It's my understanding that they led the push for the recent Type 2 tags so their trophies didn't get busted up before they got hunted/killed. If they were behind the grass subsidy I would think it would still have legs.

 

[jbelz]

Well yeah, they gots to have their cake and eat it too.

The animals belong the public trust when they’re a problem, and the public should pay for the damages. They belong to the land owner when they’ve got big antlers that are worth a lot money and their bald headed girlfriends being alive and happy is what keeps them on the their land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The verbiage that did make it in was "reasonable" hunting. Waiting to hear what "reasonable" means. (rhetorical)

 

[ddowning]

Imagine if Missouri, Alabama, Iowa, etc reimbursed their farmers for what whitetail, rabbits, turkey, ducks, geese eat.
This is another rancher welfare handout.
Why you ask?
Because from the governor on down, the politicians in Wyoming are all ranchers.

Whitetail are big money in iowa. Places where farmers allow hunting have good populations. Many absentee landowners hunting farms are poorly managed. They think does are bait when in reality, bucks avoid over populated areas due to competition for food and space. During the rut there is no buck movement because there is a hot doe every hundred yards.

These same people refuse to shoot does and whine about how small the share crop check is. If this shit starts happening around the country, it is going to create massive problems for deer numbers. Even trying to hunt for farmers that allow access, the deer realize quickly where they are being hunted and where they aren't. You have to kill a lot really fast before they figure it out in order to make a dent.