Wyoming G&f looking at re-allocating number of non-resident elk tags

Utah guy here.

I read that today. I was amazed at how blatant the guide assoc pres was on the money end. Down here we get sold how great things are for habitat or conservation, are guides must be more pc.

Touchy subject, it is here to. In the end, it should be based on majority thought by locals. Not minority of the guides. Truth is, at least here, a bunch of our guides are now multi state, so that argument of bringing money in, isn't that affective. I hear a lot more about the guided wilderness, than elk allocation from those I know.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Another handout for the outfitters. Just wait, next they will be asking for outfitter sponsored tags just like New Mexico and Nevada. These are the same people who gave you the wilderness law. Be careful what you ask for. WYOGA and the puppet master Sy (SnS outfitters) will take and take until they get all the tags. They are leaches, just look at Rob's (NTO Outfitters) hypocritical article. Greedy turds.
 
Make your voice heard at the public meetings. Whether you are a res or non res you should not want this. It will do nothing other than put more hunters in the gen areas. The math is simple. More hunters will do nothing to make it a more enjoyable hunt. As a res I understand if a non res is frustrated that they can't draw every year. But just think about what you get when you do draw. More tags will change that and not for the better. And don't be fooled by the gen region idea. This is a round about way for Outfitters to get more gen tags and the possibility of getting 20% allocation of LQ tags.

I am confident we will get this squashed but not if the turnout at the public meetings is as low as it was at the Commission meetings. Call the Commissioners. They want to hear what you think. Most don't want a change, a few do and a couple don't know the difference between a Gen tag and a RP cow/calf tag. Talk to them. They will listen.
 
Get emails sent to the commission ASAP, attend the season setting meetings, and let your voice be heard.

I can assure you, if Wyoming Residents take the time to do those things, this WOGA brain child will be defeated handily.
 
^^^This is the truth^^^

Also, if you comment let the commission know that the bull to cow ratio's cannot take any more pressure in the general units.

Adding more general tags will severely impact herd dynamics as well as hunt quality.

I hope the biologists bring that point to the commission as well.
 
Buzz or mulecreek, are either of you able to post links/emails to the commission? It might be easier for some to just click, type and shoot. If I knew how I would, but can't figure it out. Thanks.
 
One guy spoke to the increased pressure on the gen units and stated that removing the wilderness restriction would help the pressure a bunch. I thought he was an outfitter as well.
My take away from watching the last two meetings is that the commission lacks a basic understanding of the Game Dept programs and processes.
 
>One guy spoke to the increased
>pressure on the gen units
>and stated that removing the
>wilderness restriction would help the
>pressure a bunch. I thought
>he was an outfitter as
>well.

He is not an outfitter. Just an average boot leather elk hunter. He is a handsome devil though.

>My take away from watching the
>last two meetings is that
>the commission lacks a basic
>understanding of the Game Dept
>programs and processes.

This appears to be true for some of the Commissioners. We need to help educate them.
 
I personally hate to see the number of tags increased in Wy for elk.
But I would like to see the amount of Limited Entry tags handed out a little more evenly to non resident hunters.
The unit I drew generally gives 42 tags for bull elk. Only 2 of those were available to non residents.

That just doesn't seem like anything near fair allocation.
That basically makes it a private hunt area for resident hunters. Now throw in the fact that almost half of the already small unit of elk area 51 is wilderness, and it is further divided into half again by type-2 or type-1, area boundaries, it's easy to see why it's less attractive for people to apply there.
At least it is still a low hunter density area. Though some spots saw lots of hunters at times. But in general, the ability to hunt large areas without rubbing elbows with lots of other hunters is what makes Wyoming a great hunting location.

Hopefully that continues.

If they make non resident elk hunters give up the choices with a general tag that would certainly be hard to swallow.
Maybe this is a good time to bring up the wilderness law again during these meetings this year?
Maybe some give could be had along with the potential takes being proposed?
If I lived closer I would like to sit in on some of these meetings. But, politics have seemed to be a little much in the meetings I attended in my state.
At least the Wyoming G+F want the public's opinion, unlike where I'm at.
Most meetings here are private and may or may not include any changes that actually try to manage or benefit wildlife.
Overall, there is plenty to be happy with in Wy.
 
Wyo gives 16% of LQ tags to nr?s. After all is said and done they actually get 18%. More than fair. Particularly in relation to other western states
 
Low population State hoss.

Large outfitter population in ratio the rest of the population.

Many outfitters are suggestful business people and being a good deal of business into the State. They represent a positive, noticeable economic resource to the State of Wyoming.

They are organized and know how to lobby as individuals and as a united group.

Many are large land owners and those that are not provide a good deal of income that flows into the landowners bank accounts.

Those large rancher that aren't outfitters also represent a great deal of political influence in Wyoming and they are often in business with the outfitters and want to cooperated with them as business partners.

It's different in Utah hoss because our economic dynamics are different. We have an enterly different set of cards here in tardville.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-17 AT 10:41PM (MST)[p]

Ha was that you?
Yea, we nr get a chit ton of tags in WY. We have nothing to complain about.

A quota of 42 isn't much and can get eaten up pretty easily.
51 type 2 had a quota of 40.
Nr share was 6
Lo pp split was 5, 2 were drawn
Lo random split was 1, 0 drawn
Nr quota was re compiled (4) and split for public draws.

Nr landowners drew 358 tags in the nr pp draw before the public gets a shot at them.
 
I'm already getting messages and calls over this issue since this story came out. I have a feeling these meetings could get ugly next year and feel for those in the G&F Dept because they don't want this and they will have to listen to a lot of disgruntled residents. As much as I have respect for the Commissioners, they were told that residents, in the past, have strongly opposed this and they still voted to have statewide meetings.

On another note, since this keeps coming up, the Wilderness Guide Law is in statute and the Commissioners can't change that. It is another product of the WYOGA lobby and the pull they had with legislators in the past. The key word is "past"...
 
From what I saw the Commission had no clue as to what the public wanted, and had no clue what to do with the presentation so they kicked the can down the road with public meetings.
 
I have watched the meetings.. We need to start sending emails and making phone calls. I started after watching the meetings.. There was a bookface post yesterday day about this same thing.. That blew up pretty good..
 
The guide requirement comment at the Comm Meeting was simply to try to point out the hypocrisy of WOGA when they claim Gen regions would help disperse non res hunting pressure. It was not intended to be acted upon.

You are correct WapitiBob, most of the Comms do not have a full understanding of how licenses are allocated or even the classifications of licenses. I also don't think most of them even read the white paper. However, there is support from several of the Comms regarding leaving things as they are. I got a lot of really good comments of support at one of the breaks from a majority of the Comms. There are a couple that want a change. That was obvious and one the will need to be lead to water. My take anyway.
 
>Low population State hoss.
>
>Large outfitter population in ratio the
>rest of the population.
>
>Many outfitters are suggestful business people
>and being a good deal
>of business into the State.
> They represent a positive,
>noticeable economic resource to the
>State of Wyoming.
>
>They are organized and know how
>to lobby as individuals and
>as a united group.
>
>Many are large land owners and
>those that are not provide
>a good deal of income
>that flows into the landowners
>bank accounts.
>
>Those large rancher that aren't outfitters
>also represent a great deal
>of political influence in Wyoming
>and they are often in
>business with the outfitters and
>want to cooperated with them
>as business partners.
>
>It's different in Utah hoss because
>our economic dynamics are different.
> We have an enterly
>different set of cards here
>in tardville.
>
>DC

Am I to believe that in this age of go hunt, onyx, gps, etc that if there were zero guides out of state hunting would cease?

That entire industry is based on a 1800's model in that knowledge was impossible to gain without them.

Private land outfitters are different IMO.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>Get emails sent to the commission
>ASAP, attend the season setting
>meetings, and let your voice
>be heard.
>
>I can assure you, if Wyoming
>Residents take the time to
>do those things, this WOGA
>brain child will be defeated
>handily.


Agreed!!!!!!!!
 
Coming from a non resident I am not in favor of this. I actually heard this rumor several months ago and didn't think much of it but I can tell you this is just the tip of the iceberg. Outfitter sponsored tags, landowner sponsored tags, and landowner tags available for transfer are ideas that have all been tossed around. I asked whose pool those tag allocations were coming out of.... anyone want to take a guess?
 
As I posted on one of the many mule deer discussions, the response from residents is very predictable. It's the same response if the elk herd is expanding, or declining in the case of mule deer.

And that response is "Don't restrict my hunting opportunities, and don't increase non-res tags."

Somewhere the biological status of the herd has to have a say. The sad reality is instead of listening to wildlife biologists, wildlife commissions frequently decide based on money and the most vocal group, either disgruntled residents or special interest.
 
>Somewhere the biological status of the
>herd has to have a
>say. The sad reality
>is instead of listening to
>wildlife biologists, wildlife commissions frequently
>decide based on money and
>the most vocal group, either
>disgruntled residents or special interest.
>

Again, nothing personal, but another misinformed and naive statement. I've been to enough Commission meetings in Wyoming to tell you the Wyo G&F Commission, while not perfect and sometimes not totally understanding of the issues, sides with the wildlife managers almost all the time. When they deviate, it's rarely in a substantive way. Recent deviations include changing season dates, antlered to APR, price of a preference point; you get the point.

The truth is, because what you alluded about elk is false, elk management is just fine in Wyoming. WYOGA is using elk numbers as a smoke screen, because current management is focusing on those areas above objective with antlerless licenses, as is the correct method. What does license allocations in LQ areas or adding more bull elk hunters in general areas have to do with controlling herd size?

One thing just as predictable as a residents response, is the response from an uninformed nonresident.
 
>The guide requirement comment at the
>Comm Meeting was simply to
>try to point out the
>hypocrisy of WOGA when they
>claim Gen regions would help
>disperse non res hunting pressure.
> It was not intended
>to be acted upon.
>

Steve

That wasn't directed at your meeting comments, which by the were spot on. In fact, while the Commissioners can't act on the statute, getting this issue in front of them could start the ball rolling to change it. It needs to keep coming up, as the more folks understand it, the more it is opposed.
 
>As I posted on one of
>the many mule deer discussions,
>the response from residents is
>very predictable. It's the
>same response if the elk
>herd is expanding, or declining
>in the case of mule
>deer.
>
>And that response is "Don't restrict
>my hunting opportunities, and don't
>increase non-res tags."

Joe2Kool,

Did Wyo res hunter scream like mashed cats when so many type 4 tags were converted to type 6 tags? Did they mount a fight against type 6 tags not being counted against the 7250 quota? Do you think that issuing 1500-2000 more NR gen tags is a good way to control elk populations? Do you know where the growth in the Wyo elk population have taken place? When you wrote your post did you have any idea what the current bull to cow ratio is in the various gen units? Are you currently advocating for your State of residence to take an additional 4% of resident tags and give them to Non res hunters? Do you know the total number of non resident elk licenses issued in Wyo in the past few years?

Answer these questions truthfully, then we can have an informed debate. Thanks for the input.
 
Couple things to think about as a NR that wants to hunt elk in general areas in WY.

1. Through a lot of hard work by the GF biologists, WY has arguably some of, if not the best, general elk hunting in the nation right now. The reason for that, is because of the 7250 cap and that resident pressure is spread out due to the number of areas we can hunt, as well as the number of LQ tags drawn by residents/nonresidents.

2. The quality of the elk and experience a NR or R can expect from the general areas, as well as the variety of areas you can hunt...make that tag very desirable. I can tell you that I don't whine much when I don't draw LQ areas and having that general elk tag in my pocket aint a bad thing. I hunt with guys from Laramie here that have NEVER even applied for a LQ elk hunt from 1969-present. That speaks to the quality of the elk hunting in general units.

3. As JM77 pointed out, there is no biological reason to give NR more tags. Simply put, there is ONE general unit in WY where bull to cow ratio's are high...the rest are not.

Since there is no biological reason, combined with the fact that adding additional hunters to general areas is going to decrease bull to cow ratios, decrease hunter experience, and decrease over-all bull quality, I just see NO reason to increase general elk tags.

If WOGA wants to increase the number of general elk tags within the 7250 cap, they could always ask the commission to cut 6% of the LQ tags going to NR's by adopting 90-10.

That's the only acceptable option I've even remotely willing to talk about to increase NR general tags within the cap. Anything else is going to be opposed with a "HARD NO".
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-17 AT 09:46AM (MST)[p]He's from TN what do you expect. He's clueless so I wouldn't even waste my time responding to his slanted ways. Hunting Wyoming once all of a sudden makes him an expert on all things here.
 
I feel there is a very logical argument made. I also think WY residents would be wise to put this issue to bed, if not it will just keep coming back. It seems like an adjustable cap would be wiser. If there are more elk, why not increase more tags? If there ends up being fewer elk, then decrease the NR cap. Also it seems like a move to a regional system like deer would be a good things for all involved. It gives better control and greater predictability over the hunt pressure.

Forcing nonresidents to pick areas could really change pressure dynamics. Sorry but when a general elk tag is taking a couple points to draw for a NR, I am going to focus on the best units to find elk. Leaving marginal and lower quality units behind/out of consideration. On the flip side if I could draw a low quality area with no points then I will not be clamoring into the top OTC units.

If the residents were smart they would look to a system that allows the number of NR capped tags to fluctuate with populations. When elk populations are up, a few more tags, when populations go down then offer less.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-17 AT 03:12PM (MST)[p]>I feel there is a very
>logical argument made. I also
>think WY residents would be
>wise to put this issue
>to bed, if not it
>will just keep coming
>back. It seems like an
>adjustable cap would be wiser.
>If there are more elk,
>why not increase more tags?
>If there ends up being
>fewer elk, then decrease the
>NR cap. Also it seems
>like a move to a
>regional system like deer would
>be a good things for
>all involved. It gives better
>control and greater predictability over
>the hunt pressure.
>
>Forcing nonresidents to pick areas could
>really change pressure dynamics. Sorry
>but when a general elk
>tag is taking a couple
>points to draw for a
>NR, I am going to
>focus on the best units
>to find elk. Leaving marginal
>and lower quality units behind/out
>of consideration. On the flip
>side if I could draw
>a low quality area with
>no points then I will
>not be clamoring into the
>top OTC units.
>
>If the residents were smart they
>would look to a system
>that allows the number of
>NR capped tags to fluctuate
>with populations. When elk populations
>are up, a few more
>tags, when populations go down
>then offer less.

Go back and read the posts by myself, BuzzH and mulecreek. It's the bull tags they want more of, how do you manage populations shooting bulls?

What is so hard to understand about this?
 
>>I feel there is a very
>>logical argument made. I also
>>think WY residents would be
>>wise to put this issue
>>to bed, if not it
>>will just keep coming
>>back. It seems like an
>>adjustable cap would be wiser.
>>If there are more elk,
>>why not increase more tags?
>>If there ends up being
>>fewer elk, then decrease the
>>NR cap. Also it seems
>>like a move to a
>>regional system like deer would
>>be a good things for
>>all involved. It gives better
>>control and greater predictability over
>>the hunt pressure.
>>
>>Forcing nonresidents to pick areas could
>>really change pressure dynamics. Sorry
>>but when a general elk
>>tag is taking a couple
>>points to draw for a
>>NR, I am going to
>>focus on the best units
>>to find elk. Leaving marginal
>>and lower quality units behind/out
>>of consideration. On the flip
>>side if I could draw
>>a low quality area with
>>no points then I will
>>not be clamoring into the
>>top OTC units.
>>
>>If the residents were smart they
>>would look to a system
>>that allows the number of
>>NR capped tags to fluctuate
>>with populations. When elk populations
>>are up, a few more
>>tags, when populations go down
>>then offer less.
>
>Go back and read the post
>by myself, BuzzH and mulecreek.
>It's the bull tags they
>want more of, how do
>you manage populations shooting bulls?
>
>
>What is so hard to understand
>about this?

So since bull tags does not manage populations you should hunt the crap out of them.... It seems pretty simple, if there are more elk then more elk tags, fewer elk, then have fewer elk tags. Not that hard to figure out. If the elk populations fluctuate then so too should the tag allocations. If the Bull to Cow ratio is low in an area kill more cows or kill fewer bulls.

But breaking the state into regions for NR and then having NR pick a region and managing those regions individually seems like a much better plan than what you have now.
 
>I feel there is a very
>logical argument made. I also
>think WY residents would be
>wise to put this issue
>to bed, if not it
>will just keep coming
>back. It seems like an
>adjustable cap would be wiser.
>If there are more elk,
>why not increase more tags?
>If there ends up being
>fewer elk, then decrease the
>NR cap. Also it seems
>like a move to a
>regional system like deer would
>be a good things for
>all involved. It gives better
>control and greater predictability over
>the hunt pressure.
>
>Forcing nonresidents to pick areas could
>really change pressure dynamics. Sorry
>but when a general elk
>tag is taking a couple
>points to draw for a
>NR, I am going to
>focus on the best units
>to find elk. Leaving marginal
>and lower quality units behind/out
>of consideration. On the flip
>side if I could draw
>a low quality area with
>no points then I will
>not be clamoring into the
>top OTC units.
>
>If the residents were smart they
>would look to a system
>that allows the number of
>NR capped tags to fluctuate
>with populations. When elk populations
>are up, a few more
>tags, when populations go down
>then offer less.

Or we could leave the allocation system the way it is. A system that has worked well. A system that has resulted the best Gen/OTC elk hunting in the West, expanding elk populations, relatively low hunter density, above average trophy quality and the ability for the G&F to charge $1300 for an elk tag and still have more demand than supply. Defiantly sounds like a change is needed.

I can just see it now. First we get NR Gen elk regions. Everyone is happy. Then in a year or two we get WOGA asking the Commission to increase the tags yet again in a certain region. Then a year or two down the road when the bull to cow ratio is out of whack we can read a Manifesto from an Outfitter about how the herd is in Crisis and the only solution is to make that region LQ for residents. In between we might even see that same outfitter ask for a reduction in the number of NR region tags. This of course will be after he has booked full for the next 4 years. Yep, that scenario sounds very familiar.
 
You're right MC. I don't know the answers to the questions above. My point was the article discusses the wants of the residents (no additional restrictions for us) and the outfitters (give us more tags for NR's), but I didn't get a clear indication of what the wildlife biologists thought. Maybe I just missed it.

I have seen state wildlife commissions side with vocal minorities and disregard the health of the herd and the biologist's recommendations. I hope the commission keeps the health of herd at the top of the priority list.

Hey JM, nothing personal taken. Just sharing my 1st amendment right, and I'm not even charging for it!

Hey Groves, from what I have seen on here, there are lots of people that can waste a lot of time! Just check the recent posts related to Region G&H mule deer. I believe I saw your name on some of those. :D :D

But I'll say one thing, you guys better hope I don't get a NR tag. :D Gonna buy all the GPS coordinates I can, date the map June 30th, bring in an airplane and a hundred of my TN Hillbilly buddies and surround...never mind. I won't go there...

Just razzing guys. Don't take it personal!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-17 AT 01:17PM (MST)[p]"Or we could leave the allocation system the way it is. A system that has worked well. A system that has resulted the best Gen/OTC elk hunting in the West, expanding elk populations, relatively low hunter density, above average trophy quality and the ability for the G&F to charge $1300 for an elk tag and still have more demand than supply."

yep
 
I can just see it now. First we get NR Gen elk regions. Everyone is happy. Then in a year or two we get WOGA asking the Commission to increase the tags yet again in a certain region. Then a year or two down the road when the bull to cow ratio is out of whack we can read a Manifesto from an Outfitter about how the herd is in Crisis and the only solution is to make that region LQ for residents. In between we might even see that same outfitter ask for a reduction in the number of NR region tags. This of course will be after he has booked full for the next 4 years. Yep, that scenario sounds very familiar.


Steve you hit the nail on the head here!

You guys have all made great points.
 
I'm sure no one is waiting for me to weigh in on this but from the comfort of my chair at the office it looks like the residents AND non-residents alike will eventually be losers if this gets pushed through.

We're all in this together and I'm willing to have my voice heard.

Thanks for informing us.

Zeke

#livelikezac
 
I'd say any increase in the # of tags available should also come with an increase in the price....

If the demand for these tags is so high, simple economics says prices should increase.

And I'd only be ok with this proposal if the extra revenue generated by the price/quantity increase was earmarked for public access projects like Walkin areas and the purchase of access easements for inaccessible public lands. It could be a win-win for residents and non residents alike.
 
Zeke I really do feel the same way as you do on this.

For far to long imo WYOGA has worked its magic and got much of what they wanted...

It in turn has a lot of times pitted Res and Non Res hunters against one another with a smoke screen.

You know the saying... If the inmates are fighting amongst their selves, there will never be a mutiny.
 
I sent emails to commissioners expressing my opposition. Mr Anselmi actually responded. As an NR that impressed me. My own state WB doesn't do that.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Hossblur Mr Anselmi has always been one to be very good to responding to my emails in the past, but you are right that is very impressive he also takes the time to do the same with the non residents! Thanks for taking to time to email them
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-17 AT 08:07PM (MST)[p]>not that this forum needs
>another controversial thread.....at least this
>one is about elk &
>not muleys....from Casper Star Tribune:
>
>
>http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_7b9b528a-2bd3-56ba-b5af-f3e781419e4b.html
>
>Has anyone heard about the 120
>page "white paper" referenced in
>the article?
>
>The outfitters are, or course, driving
>the bus.
>
>Don

To answer your question about "white paper" report Don.

Yes I have, yes I have read it and yes it is a very interesting read!

One of the things that actually jumped off the paper at me was when WYOGA not only testified that more tags should be allocated for non residents (no superise there) but also went as far as saying residents opinions on this matter should not even be considered. I will have to look it back up but I will get the exact quote for you on here.

One other thing that I recall was WYOGA stating resident opposition to the tag allocation they wanted was only based on greed by the residents.
 
I'm a nonresident and I'm opposed to the proposed increase in NR elk tags for two reasons:

1. Hunt "quality" is high on my personal list when I spend a lot of personal time (vacation) and money to go on a hunt. The increase in NR tags could results in many more NRs in the field (I'm asssuming in the general elk units), resulting in crowding and poor hunting quality.

2. The more I read about the WYOGA and understand their motives the more I'm opposed to anything they present. I'm sure there are some good outfitters and guides but overall they are not friendly to DIY public land hunters.


BUT, I'm a data/numbers guy, and I think a case could be made using historical data to show that more elk hunting opportunities could be made available in WY. I'm not saying it needs to be more opportunity for NRs (it could go to residents), but overall I think the current trend supports additional tags. I wont go into detail but if you look at the last ten years of data from the WY G&F (available on their website) on number of elk licenses, number of hunters, harvest, etc., and pair that up with field reports of "excellent" hunting (even BuzzH says so and I totally agree based on my limited experience), then why not more opportunity??
 
>I'm a nonresident and I'm opposed
>to the proposed increase in
>NR elk tags for two
>reasons:
>
>1. Hunt "quality" is high on
>my personal list when I
>spend a lot of personal
>time (vacation) and money to
>go on a hunt. The
>increase in NR tags could
>results in many more NRs
>in the field (I'm asssuming
>in the general elk units),
>resulting in crowding and poor
>hunting quality.
>
>2. The more I read about
>the WYOGA and understand their
>motives the more I'm opposed
>to anything they present. I'm
>sure there are some good
>outfitters and guides but overall
>they are not friendly to
>DIY public land hunters.
>
>
>BUT, I'm a data/numbers guy, and
>I think a case could
>be made using historical data
>to show that more elk
>hunting opportunities could be made
>available in WY. I'm not
>saying it needs to be
>more opportunity for NRs (it
>could go to residents), but
>overall I think the current
>trend supports additional tags. I
>wont go into detail but
>if you look at the
>last ten years of data
>from the WY G&F (available
>on their website) on number
>of elk licenses, number of
>hunters, harvest, etc., and pair
>that up with field reports
>of "excellent" hunting (even BuzzH
>says so and I totally
>agree based on my limited
>experience), then why not more
>opportunity??

Maybe you should show your data and numbers to the Wyo G&F and ask them? SMH

It amazes me, being a resident, that dealing with over objective elk herds means we should issue more bull tags to solve the problem. Or even "the hunting is great in this area, so let's issue more licenses". This is exactly what WYOGA wants. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. Trust me G&F squeezes the most opportunity in most every area around the state already.
 
>Zeke I really do feel the
>same way as you do
>on this.
>
>For far to long imo WYOGA
>has worked its magic and
>got much of what they
>wanted...
>
>It in turn has a lot
>of times pitted Res and
>Non Res hunters against one
>another with a smoke screen.
>
>
>You know the saying... If
>the inmates are fighting amongst
>their selves, there will never
>be a mutiny.

Watching this play out up there is like a time machine. It DID HAPPEN in Utah. To the point the a special interest group, $fw was able to sit leadership on the WB.

Next thing you know, there ain't enough of us for a mutiny.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>>I'm a nonresident and I'm opposed
>>to the proposed increase in
>>NR elk tags for two
>>reasons:
>>
>>1. Hunt "quality" is high on
>>my personal list when I
>>spend a lot of personal
>>time (vacation) and money to
>>go on a hunt. The
>>increase in NR tags could
>>results in many more NRs
>>in the field (I'm asssuming
>>in the general elk units),
>>resulting in crowding and poor
>>hunting quality.
>>
>>2. The more I read about
>>the WYOGA and understand their
>>motives the more I'm opposed
>>to anything they present. I'm
>>sure there are some good
>>outfitters and guides but overall
>>they are not friendly to
>>DIY public land hunters.
>>
>>
>>BUT, I'm a data/numbers guy, and
>>I think a case could
>>be made using historical data
>>to show that more elk
>>hunting opportunities could be made
>>available in WY. I'm not
>>saying it needs to be
>>more opportunity for NRs (it
>>could go to residents), but
>>overall I think the current
>>trend supports additional tags. I
>>wont go into detail but
>>if you look at the
>>last ten years of data
>>from the WY G&F (available
>>on their website) on number
>>of elk licenses, number of
>>hunters, harvest, etc., and pair
>>that up with field reports
>>of "excellent" hunting (even BuzzH
>>says so and I totally
>>agree based on my limited
>>experience), then why not more
>>opportunity??
>
>Maybe you should show your data
>and numbers to the Wyo
>G&F and ask them? SMH
>
>
>It amazes me, being a resident,
>that dealing with over objective
>elk herds means we should
>issue more bull tags to
>solve the problem. Or
>even "the hunting is great
>in this area, so let's
>issue more licenses". This is
>exactly what WYOGA wants. Sorry,
>but that's not going to
>happen. Trust me G&F squeezes
>the most opportunity in most
>every area around the state
>already.

Its not my data Jeff, its already the G&Fs data so no need for me to show it to them. And go back and read my post at the beginning, I'm opposed to the increase. Period. I've stated my reasons. We are on the same side. I just wanted people to know there is data that COULD be used to support an increase in elk tags.

And many would disagree with you that the state squeezes out every opportunity for big game across the state. Strictly from an "opportunity" standpoint there are many places where more tags could be allocated. Yes it could hurt trophy standards or cause crowding issues, but from a big game population standard it wouldnt hurt a bit to increase tags. One huge example is antelope. I want to state again...I'm not actually in favor of an increase ANYWHERE in the state, keep it the way it is.
 
The problem with increasing "opportunity" is you reduce the herd size trying to reach a "sustained yield" point, the bull/cow ratio heads to 10/100, and when you're finally there, you no longer have a quality hunt. If I was a resident I'd be wanting ratios nearing 40/100, herds at or above objectives, and once there we can talk about addl NR licenses.
 
>The problem with increasing "opportunity" is
>you reduce the herd size
>trying to reach a "sustained
>yield" point, the bull/cow ratio
>heads to 10/100, and when
>you're finally there, you no
>longer have a quality hunt.
>If I was a resident
>I'd be wanting ratios
>nearing 40/100, herds at or
>above objectives, and once there
>we can talk about addl
>NR licenses.

Bob, I agree in most cases this is exactly what happens. And it sucks. Looks at other states where there is massive opportunity, I'm thinking CO and ID general/OTC elk units. Just too much opportunity and the herd and ratios take a beating. Hunt quality is poor. You couldnt give me those tags for free, not worth my time to be honest.

Just to throw something out there to ponder...it appears there actually has been an increase in elk tags and hunters in WY over the last ten years. Yes, more opportunity. I'm including residents here obviously. Bull harvest numbers has increased. Success rates overall for LQ and in general units has remained consistent if not improved by a couple percent. So it appears the elk herd is doing very well despite the increase in tags over the years.

But again, I'm not personally in favor of an increase in NR elk tags.
 
Huntfishall

That is pretty much the same numbers that are represented in G and H also.

Well of course until last winter came it will surely go down this year...

I think that points towards the game and fish doing a good job in the past say 10 years for both elk and deer. Even though during that same time period we also had yet another obstacle to deal with (wolves)

So in comes Rob and his WYOGA buddies and want to swing everything into THIER favor. Not your favor (Non Res.hunter), nor my favor (Res Hunter), nor the deer or elk favor.

Their favor! I am very glad there are enough like minded sportsmen res and non res alike to make sure that does not happen!!
 
first of all , im speaking from the perspective of a non-resident.
why mess with a system that isnt broken? our wildlife "management" here in oregon is a joke. it is purely a revenue generating machine with no regards for the wildlife, habitat or satisfaction of the hunting population.
i apply for 4 species every year in wyoming and im happy to pay the preference points because i know eventually i will be rewarded with a quality hunt.
the problem with making large sweeping changes is that it can be very difficult, if not impossible to undo the damage after its been in place for a while.
we need to manage for the good for the majority, not the vocal and influential minority.
i hope wyoming residents make their voices heard on this matter.
 
>>The problem with increasing "opportunity" is
>>you reduce the herd size
>>trying to reach a "sustained
>>yield" point, the bull/cow ratio
>>heads to 10/100, and when
>>you're finally there, you no
>>longer have a quality hunt.
>>If I was a resident
>>I'd be wanting ratios
>>nearing 40/100, herds at or
>>above objectives, and once there
>>we can talk about addl
>>NR licenses.
>
>Bob, I agree in most cases
>this is exactly what happens.
>And it sucks. Looks at
>other states where there is
>massive opportunity, I'm thinking CO
>and ID general/OTC elk units.
>Just too much opportunity and
>the herd and ratios take
>a beating. Hunt quality is
>poor. You couldnt give me
>those tags for free, not
>worth my time to be
>honest.
>
>Just to throw something out there
>to ponder...it appears there actually
>has been an increase in
>elk tags and hunters in
>WY over the last ten
>years. Yes, more opportunity. I'm
>including residents here obviously. Bull
>harvest numbers has increased. Success
>rates overall for LQ and
>in general units has remained
>consistent if not improved by
>a couple percent. So it
>appears the elk herd is
>doing very well despite the
>increase in tags over the
>years.
>
>But again, I'm not personally in
>favor of an increase in
>NR elk tags.

Glad you that you shared your position Ryan, which I agree with. But, oh yeah, we could look at the data and increase licenses some more, even if it depletes the herd. Still SMH...
 
Wapiti we are going to make our voices heard loud and clear! I would also urge you non residents that also feel the same way to make sure your voices are also heard by the commissioners! Surely that pulls a lot of weight with them too.
 
Sent my email to all the commissioners. Got a few responses and had a good conversation with Mike Schmid. He also thinks the wilderness law needs to be changed.

I urge everyone to take but a few minutes and write the commissioners. They value your input and need our support.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-17 AT 06:19PM (MST)[p]>>>The problem with increasing "opportunity" is
>>>you reduce the herd size
>>>trying to reach a "sustained
>>>yield" point, the bull/cow ratio
>>>heads to 10/100, and when
>>>you're finally there, you no
>>>longer have a quality hunt.
>>>If I was a resident
>>>I'd be wanting ratios
>>>nearing 40/100, herds at or
>>>above objectives, and once there
>>>we can talk about addl
>>>NR licenses.
>>
>>Bob, I agree in most cases
>>this is exactly what happens.
>>And it sucks. Looks at
>>other states where there is
>>massive opportunity, I'm thinking CO
>>and ID general/OTC elk units.
>>Just too much opportunity and
>>the herd and ratios take
>>a beating. Hunt quality is
>>poor. You couldnt give me
>>those tags for free, not
>>worth my time to be
>>honest.
>>
>>Just to throw something out there
>>to ponder...it appears there actually
>>has been an increase in
>>elk tags and hunters in
>>WY over the last ten
>>years. Yes, more opportunity. I'm
>>including residents here obviously. Bull
>>harvest numbers has increased. Success
>>rates overall for LQ and
>>in general units has remained
>>consistent if not improved by
>>a couple percent. So it
>>appears the elk herd is
>>doing very well despite the
>>increase in tags over the
>>years.
>>
>>But again, I'm not personally in
>>favor of an increase in
>>NR elk tags.
>
>Glad you that you shared your
>position Ryan, which I agree
>with. But, oh yeah, we
>could look at the data
>and increase licenses some more,
>even if it depletes the
>herd. Still SMH...

Nope, not if it hurts the herds. That's my position as I stated.

But the data shows resident general licenses are clearly increasing. That's fact unless the G&F numbers are incorrect. I guess as more and more residents (current or new transplants) want additional general elk tags in future years that will be ok....wait...that will ?deplete the herd????? Oh darn...better cap those resident general elk tags at current distribution numbers otherwise any additional tags will deplete the herd, or cause the bull/cow ratio to go to crap. Just using the same logic stated in this thread.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-17 AT 09:33PM (MST)[p]>Nope, not if it hurts the
>herds. That's my position as
>I stated.
>
>But the data shows resident general
>licenses are clearly increasing. That's
>fact unless the G&F numbers
>are incorrect. I guess as
>more and more residents (current
>or new transplants) want additional
>general elk tags in future
>years that will be ok....wait...that
>will ?deplete the herd????? Oh
>darn...better cap those resident general
>elk tags at current distribution
>numbers otherwise any additional tags
>will deplete the herd, or
>cause the bull/cow ratio to
>go to crap. Just using
>the same logic stated in
>this thread.

Maybe instead of just looking at the license data, you should look at the harvest data too.

So what if more resident general tags are being purchased, its another reason to not allow 2K more NR's on top of the increased resident tags.

This is just all for discussion, because nothing in this proposal is going to pass the commission. WOGA is fooling nobody, its an idea to boost their bottom line at the expense of the quality and quantity of bulls as well as the over-all hunt quality for both R and NR hunters. If they want to make the claim that elk need be controlled then they can open up their leases to let people shoot cows for free.

We don't need 2k more NR's shooting bulls in general units in Wyoming just so outfitters can cash checks.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-17
>AT 09:33?PM (MST)
>
>>Nope, not if it hurts the
>>herds. That's my position as
>>I stated.
>>
>>But the data shows resident general
>>licenses are clearly increasing. That's
>>fact unless the G&F numbers
>>are incorrect. I guess as
>>more and more residents (current
>>or new transplants) want additional
>>general elk tags in future
>>years that will be ok....wait...that
>>will ?deplete the herd????? Oh
>>darn...better cap those resident general
>>elk tags at current distribution
>>numbers otherwise any additional tags
>>will deplete the herd, or
>>cause the bull/cow ratio to
>>go to crap. Just using
>>the same logic stated in
>>this thread.
>
>Maybe instead of just looking at
>the license data, you should
>look at the harvest data
>too.
>
>So what if more resident general
>tags are being purchased, its
>another reason to not allow
>2K more NR's on top
>of the increased resident tags.
>
>
>This is just all for discussion,
>because nothing in this proposal
>is going to pass the
>commission. WOGA is fooling nobody,
>its an idea to boost
>their bottom line at the
>expense of the quality and
>quantity of bulls as well
>as the over-all hunt quality
>for both R and NR
>hunters. If they want to
>make the claim that elk
>need be controlled then they
>can open up their leases
>to let people shoot cows
>for free.
>
>We don't need 2k more NR's
>shooting bulls in general units
>in Wyoming just so outfitters
>can cash checks.

Yep I've looked at the harvest data too. Harvest overall has increased, and total bull harvest has increased. Success rate is consistent through the years. All in conjunction with the increase in tags and hunters over the years. And the hunting is still great, the best general elk hunt in the Rockies hands down. Congrats to Wyoming, it's kinda impressive compared to the other states.

If it's not clear what I'm trying to point out, well here it is: instead of just using the argument ?the herd will be depleted? or ?the bulk to cow ratio will go to crap?, use the other reasons to convince the G&F to NOT increase the NR tags. Buzz, you clearly pointed out those reasons.
 
As a non-resident I believe that the license allocation up until now for non-residents has been more than fair. The outfitters do not need any more licenses for clients.
I'm with jm77, BuzzH, grosventre and the other residents on this.

If you need another non-resident's little voice to weigh in with the commission just let me know how to help.
 
Tknez
i certainly will and i hope other non-res do too!
also, i for one would like to see the wilderness law for non-res changed. seems illegal to exclude individuals from public lands based on their residency.
 
>Tknez
>i certainly will and i hope
>other non-res do too!
>also, i for one would like
>to see the wilderness law
>for non-res changed. seems
>illegal to exclude individuals from
>public lands based on their
>residency.


I also disagree with the NR wilderness restriction, but it's been ruled in the courts that the state can do just that when a guy took them to court and lost.
 
Sjhgray abolsoutly we would love you voice being heard! Refer to post 8 by mule creek on how to do just that!

Yup guys I think the wilderness law is just about one of the most ridiculous things ever put into law with our wildlife. Just a little teaser here, but that is a hot button to go after. I do know it will be an uphill fight for sure but for sure a fight that needs to be had!
 
>Sjhgray abolsoutly we would love you
>voice being heard! Refer
>to post 8 by mule
>creek on how to do
>just that!
>
>Yup guys I think the wilderness
>law is just about one
>of the most ridiculous things
>ever put into law with
>our wildlife. Just a little
>teaser here, but that is
>a hot button to go
>after. I do know it
>will be an uphill fight
>for sure but for sure
>a fight that needs to
>be had!

First step is to find a legislator to introduce a bill to overturn the wilderness bill.

Then the bill would have to voted out of committee.

Then................

Well you get the picture.


ClearCreek
 
>>Sjhgray abolsoutly we would love you
>>voice being heard! Refer
>>to post 8 by mule
>>creek on how to do
>>just that!
>>
>>Yup guys I think the wilderness
>>law is just about one
>>of the most ridiculous things
>>ever put into law with
>>our wildlife. Just a little
>>teaser here, but that is
>>a hot button to go
>>after. I do know it
>>will be an uphill fight
>>for sure but for sure
>>a fight that needs to
>>be had!
>
>First step is to find a
>legislator to introduce a bill
>to overturn the wilderness bill.
>
>
>Then the bill would have to
>voted out of committee.
>
>Then................
>
>Well you get the picture.
>
>
>ClearCreek

Overturning the wilderness restriction would need a lot of residents to get behind it and I can't see that ever happening.
 
Yup I understand that clear creek and it is worth the fight I believe!

Top gun you may be surprised about that. I actually do not know of anyone personally that I have talked to personally that likes it.

We will see but worth the fight for sure I think
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-17 AT 09:08AM (MST)[p]I will throw in on the wilderness law! Stupid law backed by WYOGA. Overturning it would be tough, but I think it could be done. If nothing else it shows WYOGA residents/NR are willing to stand together against their self serving policies/laws.
 
I'm in. Already voiced my opinion to commissioners on this. If there is something more formal/organized let me know and I'd be glad to help. As a side note I actually agree with residents on MOST issues...
 
>Yup I understand that clear creek
>and it is worth the
>fight I believe!
>
>Top gun you may be surprised
>about that. I actually do
>not know of anyone personally
>that I have talked to
>personally that likes it.
>
>We will see but worth the
>fight for sure I think
>


tknez:

Give it your best go. Fight hard, very hard!

ClearCreek
 
I'm with you guys on this. First you need to find a legislator to sponsor or know someone in TWR to get it in as an interim topic.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-23-17 AT 01:40AM (MST)[p]Here is a link to the White Paper referenced in the September meeting.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzToc_2hBQJ-SHJuTmlrMFVvODg

of interest:

Several retired Game and Fish employees were interviewed to obtain their perspectives regarding prior efforts to modify the nonresident elk license allocation. Those employees (Terry Cleveland, Harry Harju, Kent Schmidlin, Doug Crowe, and Walt Gasson) recounted the issues they encountered and offered some cautions and advice.
Summaries of the interviews are provided as Appendices 5 and 6.
The most salient points from those interviews are summarized below:
1. Historically, resident hunters have strongly opposed to the idea of increasing nonresident elk quotas. Public meetings often became very contentious when those proposals were presented.
2. Any effort to increase nonresident elk quotas will fail without support from resident hunters.
3. Nonresidents are most interested in hunting bulls. Therefore, an increase in the nonresident elk quota will place more pressure on the bull segment. The Department should carefully evaluate whether this will be sustainable, especially in light of increasing populations of large carnivores in the State.
4. The Department should also consider potential impacts on bull quality.
5. The Department should evaluate where nonresident hunters are hunting. An increase in nonresident quotas will likely place more hunters in public land areas resulting in disproportionate increases in crowding.
6. Elk are dramatically impacting mule deer habitat. The need to manage elk populations at current objectives is a more important issue than just dealing with nonresident quotas.
 
Thanks for posting Wapiti. Interesting read, especially #2 and #6 of your summary.

Game Commissions (in general) have a tough time balancing all the competing wants of various groups with the need of the herd.

According to the charts, elk population has been holding around 100,000 elk, with an annual harvest of 20,000+. 20% harvest seems high to me. (Disclaimer: :D I am not a game biologist. I am not a WY res. I am not claiming to be knowledgeable of the subject. And 20% harvest may be typical for any species. But I wouldn't have thought it would be that high.)
 
They sure as heck aren't killing 20% of the elk that are in the unit we hunt every year. I'd bet that it's not even 1% when I can see hundreds of animals in various herds and the quotas are so low even for cows if every tag was filled!
 
Pretty sure I'm reading the charts correctly. But here they are just in case.

71816wyelkharvest.jpg


73433wyelkpopulation.jpg
 
Looks like the charts show what you're saying, but I can guarantee it is nowhere near 20% where we hunt every year. If I continually see several herds of 100 to 300 animals like I do just from one glassing spot that would mean people would have to kill over 100 just from those herds alone to make 20% and there is no way that is happening and why the numbers are increasing quite a bit each year for the last 10 years or so there.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-24-17 AT 09:47AM (MST)[p]>If I draw a tag, can
>I come glass with you??
> :D
>
>Merry Christmas TG!

Merry Christmas to you too! Here is one picture of a herd in 2013 that went by me one morning when I was out scouting where I mentioned and there were close to 400 elk in this herd. This is just the start of the procession that had to have been over 1/4 mile long like this.

175742013hunts094.jpg
 
Not really on subject but the pictures made me thing about it.

I came through Teton park and into Jackson a week ago today and there were only 13 elk on the refuge. I've seen thousands the first of Dec before.

Granted there isn't a lot of snow down low yet, but I only saw about 100 elk in the park on the way down. up high the snow level is well above average so they aren't there.

The few hunters I talked to on the way up said hunting had sucked. may not have been a good year to have a 70's tag.













Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I heard that low elk count on the Refuge, so there must not be enough snow up higher to move them down or they would be there by the thousands like you mentioned. I'll bet the same is happening with the Bison because they won't go any further than they have to as the weather worsens.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_6664.jpeg
Bull Elk
IMG_7703.jpeg
B5C906B9-B2AF-4A00-A357-81FE588D5394.jpeg
FB_IMG_1623871455424.jpg
Cat11.jpg
61C667D4-C8D0-4870-9E93-11BEA76E7DD8.jpeg
1704251345590.jpeg
IMG_6670.jpeg
F845AA9A-5366-40F9-BE52-BCDB305BFF3D.jpeg
BE4853E8-5919-445A-85AD-99AC5EAB99B1.png
IMG_4972.mov

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom