Wyoming outfitter, landowner, DIY battle!

[Bighorner]

I don’t think the “non resident hunter elimination club” even reads comments from hunters who aren’t residents. They know how we feel and are only interested in comments they can use to support their agenda when working with the state.

If you are not willing to put in the time on allocation between two parties of nonresidents, it will get decided with out your input. The only thing less productive than doing nothing is bitching about it. The threas was literary a NR call to action on a non resident issue. I was only passing on information directly relative and factual that the average person wasn't aware of. Have a good weekend!

 

[Bighorner]

Currently landowner tags are unlimited for both resident and nonresidents and taken off the top of the quotas prior to the draw. Obviously it's great that landowner tags are available to those that own private land in Wyo but also some of these tags are in high demand units that takes public resident and nonres hunters a lifetime to draw. In several elk units there are currently 0 tags issued to nonres since they are all offered to landowners prior to the draw. As mentioned by Bighorner it would be good if there is a cap on landowner tags.

What is even spookier is outfitters also want to do the same thing with tags available for clients signing contracts prior to the draw!

I could not agree more on this issue. Just because we do not see eye to eye on somethings dose not make one side of the table inherently evil. I plan to really push for caps. It's on the table, now is the time to push for change.

If you want a very straight forward way to boost avaible tags for everyone R/NR this is a darn good way to get them.

 

[Mojave]

We are at a tipping point of change.

Demand outstrips supply.

Non-residents will lose the most. This is inevitable, and FAIR.

Wildlife must pay it's own way. This has always been the case. We need to give ranchers a reason not to turn their land into 1000 soccer mom homes or industrial parks.

Them getting tags, and maybe even selling tags helps push for conservation.

I know the guy living in a 1200 square foot 3/2 home he is making $2500 payments on in Bozeman doesn't give a crap about that. They want their tag, and they want the private land experience on public land.

Hunting socialism is bad for everyone. Because it disincentivizes conservation, by not incentivizing keeping these large tracks of land for wildlife.

 

[Jimss]

I had time to listen to most of today's Task Force meeting. Around 1/2 of it was talking about landowner tags. Currently both resident and nonres landowner tags are issued in unlimited numbers prior to the public draw...or until those tags run out. In several high demand elk units all nonres random tags are issued to nonres landowners prior to the public draw (unit 111 type 1 elk is a fine example). There are 0 random tags issued in 111-1 for elk each and every year because nonres landowners receive these tags prior to the drawing.

The Task Force discussed capping both res and nonres landowner tags depending upon how much private land, crop damage, etc. It was mentioned several times that the current system isn't working how it originally was designed when first established. Currently it's possible for res/nonres to purchase 160 acres of land that meets the requirements and the landowner can purchase landowner tags each and every year. It's possible that wealthy hunters could purchase 160 acre tracts that qualify so they can hunt high demand units every year. Unit 124 elk was mentioned by one of the TF members. My guess is units 100 and 124 are other units where res and nonres public hunters receive few random tags that go directly to res and nonres "landowners".

One other discussion that took up a chunk of time was Type X tags. Most of the members seemed suspicious and uncertain about the vagueness of the description for these tags. They would be separate from Type 1 or 2 tags. There were not many specifics but had something to do with landowners, trespass fees, expensive priced hunts, etc. They raised a lot of red flags by several of the Task Force members but their questions were left unanswered. I'm pretty sure I know exactly who will benefit from these tags and they are testing the waters before laying down specifics! I would definitely ask a lot of questions about Type X tags if I were a DIY/OYO res/nonres hunter because TYPE X quotas could potentially come directly out of the limited public pool of type 1 or 2 tags available to Wyo res/nonres hunters.

I certainly hope DIY/OYO res and nonres hunters stand together on some of these tag issues! I'm certain that outfitters are trying every strategy in the book to gain tags in their favor.

 

[Jimss]

I heard Type X tags are like a wolf in sheep's clothing from a Wyo guy on another website! Yep it's the landowners and outfitters joining forces to rob both res and nonres public draw tags! Stay tuned and ready to submit TF comments!

 

[Bighorner]

We are at a tipping point of change.

Demand outstrips supply.

Non-residents will lose the most. This is inevitable, and FAIR.

Wildlife must pay it's own way. This has always been the case. We need to give ranchers a reason not to turn their land into 1000 soccer mom homes or industrial parks.

Them getting tags, and maybe even selling tags helps push for conservation.

I know the guy living in a 1200 square foot 3/2 home he is making $2500 payments on in Bozeman doesn't give a crap about that. They want their tag, and they want the private land experience on public land.

Hunting socialism is bad for everyone. Because it disincentivizes conservation, by not incentivizing keeping these large tracks of land for wildlife.

I respectfully disagree. Turning hunting into a soley capatilstic venture is far worse. There is money to be made by leasing private land. That is the right of the land owner and it is lucrative. There is no need to sweeten the pot with transferable land owner tags. The wildlife is by law held in trust for the public. With equal ownership under the law I should be able to sell my resident random draw elk tag to the highest bidder right?


There are too many elk in a lot of cases. The whole idea there are only elk because I the landowner allow them dosent really hold water. Yes you can graze the land to death and run it into the ground, but that's not great for cows either. If a place is going to sell out to get subdivided it is going to with or without LO tags transferable or not.

On the flip side that 160 acres is worth a whole lot more than 159 in the eyes of a non resident looking to purchase property solely as an avenue to short cut tags. If you think that 160 acres is suitable year round habitats you are likely mistaken, or mule deer for that matter. The idea that landowners can corner the elk tag market is wrong for a lot of reasons. That wildlife is held in trust.

I can appreciate the initial reason for LO tags, but the system is being gamed at this point. This is push back to a broken system. And in my mind it is a justified push back to people taking advantage of a loop hole.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sounds like I better work extra hard so I can buy some hunting land in WY! God Bless America!

 

[Indian Summer]

If you are not willing to put in the time on allocation between two parties of nonresidents, it will get decided with out your input. The only thing less productive than doing nothing is bitching about it. The threas was literary a NR call to action on a non resident issue. I was only passing on information directly relative and factual that the average person wasn't aware of. Have a good weekend!

Correct but your public comments should be directed to the proper state agencies….fish and game, not to the people who are only gathering comments to get rid of us.

 

[tdhanses]

I respectfully disagree. Turning hunting into a soley capatilstic venture is far worse. There is money to be made by leasing private land. That is the right of the land owner and it is lucrative. There is no need to sweeten the pot with transferable land owner tags. The wildlife is by law held in trust for the public. With equal ownership under the law I should be able to sell my resident random draw elk tag to the highest bidder right?


There are too many elk in a lot of cases. The whole idea there are only elk because I the landowner allow them dosent really hold water. Yes you can graze the land to death and run it into the ground, but that's not great for cows either. If a place is going to sell out to get subdivided it is going to with or without LO tags transferable or not.

On the flip side that 160 acres is worth a whole lot more than 159 in the eyes of a non resident looking to purchase property solely as an avenue to short cut tags. If you think that 160 acres is suitable year round habitats you are likely mistaken, or mule deer for that matter. The idea that landowners can corner the elk tag market is wrong for a lot of reasons. That wildlife is held in trust.

I can appreciate the initial reason for LO tags, but the system is being gamed at this point. This is push back to a broken system. And in my mind it is a justified push back to people taking advantage of a loop hole.

Just think if every rancher put up a high fence to keep wildlife off their land, no more wildlife damages to pay out and landowner tags could be done away with.

 

[Mojave]

I grew up in Wyoming and I have lived in every western state except for Oregon, Idaho, Colorado and Utah.

Every state balances their own personal game commission desires with that of the resident and non-resident public, and the lobby groups. It will never be fair or balanced to every individuals optics.

I play the points game every year in Wyoming, Arizona and Utah. I apply for tags in non-points states as well as here in New Mexico.

I'd love to have 10 good tags a year. This year I will have 3. A great year by most accounts for application season.

I won't hunt private land in 2022, but I did in 2020 and I will again. I'll also hunt overseas again a couple years.

Hunters hating hunters that have more financial means than them doesn't solve anything.

 

[Jimss]

The big question is….should states try to make it an equal playing field for high demand tags?

Just because a hunter has lots of $ does it mean they should have the opportunity to hunt each and every year by purchasing tags while others spend years and years on the sidelines waiting to draw one of these same tags in the public draw?

 

[Mojave]

It doesn’t bother me.

 

[Jimss]

Obviously those with $ to burn are all in favor of such a process. It's a loss of opportunity for the average Joe hunter on a budget. This takes tags away from everyone else. My stance is that I believe in a system where everyone has the same chance of drawing tags rather than merely offering a chunk of tags to those that are wealthy or can afford purchasing tags or paying for high $ guided hunts.

If the playing field is equal, everyone has the same chance to draw tags. Once tags are drawn hunters can choose to hunt DIY/OYO or pay for a guided hunt. Mohave, please explain why you believe wealthy hunters should be able to purchase tags every year while the majority of hunters across the country sit on the side-lines waiting to draw tags?

 

[Mojave]

Mohave, please explain why you believe wealthy hunters should be able to purchase tags every year while the majority of hunters across the country sit on the side-lines waiting to draw tags?

Jim,

Here is my 2 Tanzanian Schillingi!

I believe large landowners should be able to sell vouchers/tags/hunts on the lands that they own (but not lease from the state or federal government). As this incentivizes keeping large swaths of private land from being turned into track housing. Wildlife must pay it's own way, and this is a way for wildlife to do that. Compare Colorado or Arizona or New Mexico, Montana or Wyoming. Though the areas around Taos, Santa Fe, Jackson, Bozeman Missoula are getting destroyed by developments.

I do not believe that outfitters should have special draws, or an outfitter allocation of tags for public land hunts. This is in my mind a violation of the North American model of wildlife being held in a trust.

I do not like the idea that Wyoming and Alaska having species or zones that require a guide for non-residents. This is a states rights issue, even though it is on public land. Though it heavily panders to the outfitters, as a child my father was the undersheriff of Fremont County and spent most of his falls looking for lost non-resident hunts as the commander of the search and rescue group in the 1970's. I can see both sides, modern interventions like satellite communications really shuts down the argument.

Wealth buys things. Not sure if you are familiar with this or not. When I was a poor enlisted kid in the Navy, I was single and saved my money and went on a Namibian safari. A few years later married with kids I struggled to be able to afford our life, let alone something like a safari or even out of state tags. But I kicked my own ass and worked hard and fought my way up the rat race to make more money. So now I apply for more out of state tags, do a few private land hunt every couple years and travel overseas to hunt when Ican. Everything is kind of relative, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes, work twice as much as I get paid for, and often do not own my calendar at work at all. Family vacations regularly get pushed to the way side for work.

Govenor's tags are one of those things that really pisses people off. The auction tags at the Western Hunting Expo are another. Because it allows people that have bigger bank accounts to go to the front of the line.

If you realize the conservation dollars that commissioners tags, raffle tags, Govenor's tags generate it becomes an easier pill to swallow.

If you then consider that thousands of acres are set aside by private land owners for wildlife (they don't live 100% of their life on those private lands), it acts as a sanctuary for wildlife. Try to think of it as conservation real estate and that is what it is. Yes it is bulls for billionaires, but it also preserves that real estate from being developed.

Wildlife pays it's own way by incentivizing big ticket conservation tags (Govenor's, commissioners, raffles etc) and private land hunting.

My own views are swayed by growing up in Wyoming and then spending half a lifetime of living overseas with the military and seeing what happens when wildlife doesn't pay its own way (Australia, Italy, Greece) versus where it is used as a way to fund conservation (The USA, Spain, Canada, Southern Africa, Germany).

This year I spent or will spend pretty close to $2000 on points programs and licenses. None of this will result in an actual tag in 2022. Take that $2000 and put it toward a private land hunt or a African safari and it makes a lot more sense. The $2000 I spent does not guarantee anything other than another $2000 or more in 2023 for the same crap in one hand and hope in the other mentality of Western Hunting.

Let me as you this? What would you rather have points or a hunt?

Would you rather see that 50,000 acre swath of land turned into concrete and 2500 square foot homes?

 

[wapitibob]

Jimss, Would you please share which High demand units have no NR tags because they all go to land owners first?

Jim must have missed the question; It happened a number of years ago, once, but currently there are no areas where LO tags eliminate NR draw tags. They do have an impact though.

 

[Bighorner]

Jim,

Here is my 2 Tanzanian Schillingi!

I believe large landowners should be able to sell vouchers/tags/hunts on the lands that they own (but not lease from the state or federal government). As this incentivizes keeping large swaths of private land from being turned into track housing. Wildlife must pay it's own way, and this is a way for wildlife to do that. Compare Colorado or Arizona or New Mexico, Montana or Wyoming. Though the areas around Taos, Santa Fe, Jackson, Bozeman Missoula are getting destroyed by developments.

I do not believe that outfitters should have special draws, or an outfitter allocation of tags for public land hunts. This is in my mind a violation of the North American model of wildlife being held in a trust.

I do not like the idea that Wyoming and Alaska having species or zones that require a guide for non-residents. This is a states rights issue, even though it is on public land. Though it heavily panders to the outfitters, as a child my father was the undersheriff of Fremont County and spent most of his falls looking for lost non-resident hunts as the commander of the search and rescue group in the 1970's. I can see both sides, modern interventions like satellite communications really shuts down the argument.

Wealth buys things. Not sure if you are familiar with this or not. When I was a poor enlisted kid in the Navy, I was single and saved my money and went on a Namibian safari. A few years later married with kids I struggled to be able to afford our life, let alone something like a safari or even out of state tags. But I kicked my own ass and worked hard and fought my way up the rat race to make more money. So now I apply for more out of state tags, do a few private land hunt every couple years and travel overseas to hunt when Ican. Everything is kind of relative, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes, work twice as much as I get paid for, and often do not own my calendar at work at all. Family vacations regularly get pushed to the way side for work.

Govenor's tags are one of those things that really pisses people off. The auction tags at the Western Hunting Expo are another. Because it allows people that have bigger bank accounts to go to the front of the line.

If you realize the conservation dollars that commissioners tags, raffle tags, Govenor's tags generate it becomes an easier pill to swallow.

If you then consider that thousands of acres are set aside by private land owners for wildlife (they don't live 100% of their life on those private lands), it acts as a sanctuary for wildlife. Try to think of it as conservation real estate and that is what it is. Yes it is bulls for billionaires, but it also preserves that real estate from being developed.

Wildlife pays it's own way by incentivizing big ticket conservation tags (Govenor's, commissioners, raffles etc) and private land hunting.

My own views are swayed by growing up in Wyoming and then spending half a lifetime of living overseas with the military and seeing what happens when wildlife doesn't pay its own way (Australia, Italy, Greece) versus where it is used as a way to fund conservation (The USA, Spain, Canada, Southern Africa, Germany).

This year I spent or will spend pretty close to $2000 on points programs and licenses. None of this will result in an actual tag in 2022. Take that $2000 and put it toward a private land hunt or a African safari and it makes a lot more sense. The $2000 I spent does not guarantee anything other than another $2000 or more in 2023 for the same crap in one hand and hope in the other mentality of Western Hunting.

Let me as you this? What would you rather have points or a hunt?

Would you rather see that 50,000 acre swath of land turned into concrete and 2500 square foot homes?

You have some valid points, but for that arguement to hold water the minum acreage for an LO elk tag needs to go way up. 160 acres is not enough habitat. If you consider every quarter section with a set of buildings on pretty soon you dont have the sanctuary areas you talking about. You need to start talking about minum acreage on the order of sections.

 

[Mojave]

The key is to keep entact the large portions of private lands. We should no reward small land owners. I would say it should depend on what it is. 160 acres of timber is not the same as a 160 acres of sage brush.

 

[Wags]

I'm a NR Landowner in Wyoming. My family has owned land in Wyoming & Colorado for over 30 years. Most of my vacation time ever year is spent there working on the land, hunting, fishing, and so on. I grew up spending my spring, summers and fall breaks on our place working and hunting. I now pay taxes on my land, upkeep & spend money in those communities. I have invested in the habitat on the properties to make them better for wildlife by having a well drilled, building a pond, mowing, planting, etc.... All out of my own sweat and Overtime money. To think that my family would not be able to get a tag to hunt deer or antelope after all of that seems unreasonable. Not all of the NR Landowners are rich guys trying to steal opportunities or landlock people out of areas. A lot of us are just normal people who invested in properties for our families to have a place to go and experience the things we love outside of the state we live in and worked extremely hard to get to a place to be able to own our own property.

One thing to mention on that is what it takes to get a NR Landowner tag. You cant simply go a 5 acre plot and suddenly reach that status. You need a number of continuous acreage to be eligible. The amount of acreage differs from state to state and by species. As an example, I own 400 acres in Wyoming but I cannot get a NR Elk tag because I do not own enough acreage to qualify or meet the usage requirement. The financial investment it takes to reach the threshold to be able to gain a tag is extremely high and should not be undersold. Imagine working your butt of, sacrificing & living very bare bones for years to buy a piece of land just to be told you can't hunt it.....

That said I do not agree with the Outfitter set aside tags. IMO, that'll turn into a bidding war on "tags." The prices of those hunts will go through the roof and the only ones that gain are the Outfitters.

I also don't agree with the Landowner Vouchers that I get and can sell In Colorado. It's a similar version of what Wyoming in presenting. I hope Wyoming never goes to that system.

 

[Z Barebow]

Jim,

Here is my 2 Tanzanian Schillingi!

I believe large landowners should be able to sell vouchers/tags/hunts on the lands that they own (but not lease from the state or federal government). As this incentivizes keeping large swaths of private land from being turned into track housing. Wildlife must pay it's own way, and this is a way for wildlife to do that. Compare Colorado or Arizona or New Mexico, Montana or Wyoming. Though the areas around Taos, Santa Fe, Jackson, Bozeman Missoula are getting destroyed by developments.

Would you rather see that 50,000 acre swath of land turned into concrete and 2500 square foot homes?

So you are telling me the current LO program in NM has NOT worked to stop development? Check.

Looking forward to explanation as to how a new Wyo LO program would yield different results.

 

[elkocd]

I'm a NR Landowner in Wyoming. My family has owned land in Wyoming & Colorado for over 30 years. Most of my vacation time ever year is spent there working on the land, hunting, fishing, and so on. I grew up spending my spring, summers and fall breaks on our place working and hunting. I now pay taxes on my land, upkeep & spend money in those communities. I have invested in the habitat on the properties to make them better for wildlife by having a well drilled, building a pond, mowing, planting, etc.... All out of my own sweat and Overtime money. To think that my family would not be able to get a tag to hunt deer or antelope after all of that seems unreasonable. Not all of the NR Landowners are rich guys trying to steal opportunities or landlock people out of areas. A lot of us are just normal people who invested in properties for our families to have a place to go and experience the things we love outside of the state we live in and worked extremely hard to get to a place to be able to own our own property.

One thing to mention on that is what it takes to get a NR Landowner tag. You cant simply go a 5 acre plot and suddenly reach that status. You need a number of continuous acreage to be eligible. The amount of acreage differs from state to state and by species. As an example, I own 400 acres in Wyoming but I cannot get a NR Elk tag because I do not own enough acreage to qualify or meet the usage requirement. The financial investment it takes to reach the threshold to be able to gain a tag is extremely high and should not be undersold. Imagine working your butt of, sacrificing & living very bare bones for years to buy a piece of land just to be told you can't hunt it.....

That said I do not agree with the Outfitter set aside tags. IMO, that'll turn into a bidding war on "tags." The prices of those hunts will go through the roof and the only ones that gain are the Outfitters.

I also don't agree with the Landowner Vouchers that I get and can sell In Colorado. It's a similar version of what Wyoming in presenting. I hope Wyoming never goes to that system.

You own 400 acres in WY and that is all the land you would hunt given a landowner tag? I don't think anyone has issue with landowners getting tags to hunt their own land. I think most have issues with landowners getting unit wide tags in areas that take away tags from everyone else. I'm not all that familiar with WY LO tags, but I think non transferable LO tags that can only be used on the land they have been issued for would be a pretty easy sell to everyone.