West River
Member
- Messages
- 20
On the Game and Fish website home page there is a place where they are looking for comment on the removal of the 7250 cap.
Link?On the Game and Fish website home page there is a place where they are looking for comment on the removal of the 7250 cap.
I found that interesting too.I find it funny that in most of the proposed NR regions the quotas basically equal the average NR hunter numbers shown on the power point slides.
However the few NR regions that will see a quota increase over those NR numbers are mainly private and most likely hunted with outfitters.
This is not about anything except for a tag grab for the outfitters and landowners. The regional cap was brought up as a fix to the perceived crowding in certain units. But as mentioned this does not really affect crowding at all… I am also very afraid it will mean that several of the more desirable regions will see massive point creep (think region g for deer) and the end result will be even higher demand on the lower demand units etc.I find it funny that in most of the proposed NR regions the quotas basically equal the average NR hunter numbers shown on the power point slides.
However the few NR regions that will see a quota increase over those NR numbers are mainly private and most likely hunted with outfitters. I wonder why that is. ?
So you are telling me in the units they are raising non res tag # that they believe that raise will help outfitters kill elk on private land? There seems to be other areas that state they are "over objective" but are not receiving an tag # increase. ?? I do feel like some areas will have point creep and others will drop below the current 4 point. There are quite a few LE units that have similar private land issues. Curious to see where this goes in the coming couple years.Not sure why anyone would find that surprising or interesting. The desire to do thus very thing has been talked about openly by the TF, G&F, outfitters and landowners for years. The desire to kill more elk on private land where they are over objective has been the goal all along.
A stated goal of this was to get more NR gen hunters in Eastern Gen units. I don't think the G&F gives two FF's if they are guided or not they just would like to see more elk killed. The outfitters and many landowners do care and that is why they advocated for it.So you are telling me in the units they are raising non res tag # that they believe that raise will help outfitters kill elk on private land? There seems to be other areas that state they are "over objective" but are not receiving an tag # increase. ?? I do feel like some areas will have point creep and others will drop below the current 4 point. There are quite a few LE units that have similar private land issues. Curious to see where this goes in the coming couple years.
I appreciate your insight on the matter. I will make an effort to get more involved and knowledgeable.A stated goal of this was to get more NR gen hunters in Eastern Gen units. I don't think the G&F gives two FF's if they are guided or not they just would like to see more elk killed. The outfitters and many landowners do care and that is why they advocated for it.
There is also a stated goal by some outfitters to allow for more NR gen elk hunters in wilderness areas so that it is easier for their repeat clients to draw. Not all outfitters are for this. Several have stated their objection to more NR gen elk hunters in the units they run in. I think the G&F is 50/50 on this idea. I think they probably feel like some of these units could stand more hunters and some cannot. I also think the G&F is being realistic and knows that if the first draft of this proposal came out showing big increases in regions that are dominated by public land the residents would throw a fit and push back would be huge. I think some savvy outfitters know this as well and are fine with the first draft. They know that it will be much easier to push for increases a year or two after this is implemented during season setting Commission meetings where the publics attention is often lacking.
There is also a stated goal of reducing NR gen elk hunter pressure in some regions. Primarily the Snowys and SM. To a lesser degree the Greys River. The proposal does not show a significant difference from historical numbers. Not certain why this is. One thought I had is that maybe they start with a baseline and reduce a little each year going forward to see if those changes make a difference is hunters satisfaction.
In the end, I am not supportive of making any change. I think it is easy to make the argument that over the last 40 years the only real success in big game management in Wyo has been with elk. We have less deer over that time. We have less moose, bighorns and antelope. We have way more elk than we did 40 years ago. Quality is also sky high over that time. These are not 100% due to the 7250 cap but its also not 0% due to the 7250 cap. That being said, I am also trying to be realistic. The view of the TF was that this change had to be made. No amount of reasoning and logic was going to change that view. I feel the current Commission views it much the same. I think fighting against this change is worthwhile and I will continue to do so but if I'm being honest I don't think I'm going to be successful. My opposition has absolutely nothing to do with point creep or anyone's ability to draw a tag.
I appreciate your insight on the matter. I will make an effort to get more involved and knowledgeable.
You bring up a great point that many will not consider and that has happened repeatedly in other states. As a statewide cap every resident statewide has an interest in the number and the caps effect. Increasing the a significant amount would be met with statewide resistance. But when they have regional units, it will be much easier to increase the NR quotas as the only people upset will be those who hunt that area. This is the real deal breaker for me. As split this up it will be much easier for them add licenses over time in different regions, a little at time here and there and soon what used to be 7250 NR tags, will become 8,000 tags, with the new tags added to hard access areas, then they will add in a couple years another thousand tags with 400 in this region, 200 in another, 100 in this one etc. All of which will be exponentially harder to lobby against and rally against as residents.A stated goal of this was to get more NR gen hunters in Eastern Gen units. I don't think the G&F gives two FF's if they are guided or not they just would like to see more elk killed. The outfitters and many landowners do care and that is why they advocated for it.
There is also a stated goal by some outfitters to allow for more NR gen elk hunters in wilderness areas so that it is easier for their repeat clients to draw. Not all outfitters are for this. Several have stated their objection to more NR gen elk hunters in the units they run in. I think the G&F is 50/50 on this idea. I think they probably feel like some of these units could stand more hunters and some cannot. I also think the G&F is being realistic and knows that if the first draft of this proposal came out showing big increases in regions that are dominated by public land the residents would throw a fit and push back would be huge. I think some savvy outfitters know this as well and are fine with the first draft. They know that it will be much easier to push for increases a year or two after this is implemented during season setting Commission meetings where the publics attention is often lacking.
There is also a stated goal of reducing NR gen elk hunter pressure in some regions. Primarily the Snowys and SM. To a lesser degree the Greys River. The proposal does not show a significant difference from historical numbers. Not certain why this is. One thought I had is that maybe they start with a baseline and reduce a little each year going forward to see if those changes make a difference is hunters satisfaction.
In the end, I am not supportive of making any change. I think it is easy to make the argument that over the last 40 years the only real success in big game management in Wyo has been with elk. We have less deer over that time. We have less moose, bighorns and antelope. We have way more elk than we did 40 years ago. Quality is also sky high over that time. These are not 100% due to the 7250 cap but its also not 0% due to the 7250 cap. That being said, I am also trying to be realistic. The view of the TF was that this change had to be made. No amount of reasoning and logic was going to change that view. I feel the current Commission views it much the same. I think fighting against this change is worthwhile and I will continue to do so but if I'm being honest I don't think I'm going to be successful. My opposition has absolutely nothing to do with point creep or anyone's ability to draw a tag.
I agree with all of this. I also know the G&F knows this as well. Hell even Nesvick stated "the current system does not constrain us at all." I do struggle with why the G&F is going along with the thought. It makes little sense to me. They stand to gain little. I have not totally bought in to the belief that many have that they are just greedy and want as much license revenue as possible, to the detriment of herds or resident hunters. That description does not fit the folks at the G&F that I speak with. I think this is one reason why the regions that are dominated by public land show little increase over historical.@mulecreek Thanks for all your involvement on this issue Steve. I think the idea that this change will kill more elk in eastern Wy is a smokescreen. The G&F already has the tools in LQ licenses to affect change in elk numbers. Inaccessible public and most importantly private lands is the main reason elk herds are out of control. WYOGA has pushed this change for many years in order to increase nr general tags to increase their client base. We all know that the increase on hunting bull elk will do nothing to control over objective herds in any areas. The G&F has issued thousands of elk tags to manage these elk herds to no avail. Removing the 7250 cap will cause higher hunter densities and less quality hunting in some general areas.
I would bet every area that has over objective elk numbers already has hundreds of type 6 or 7 tags.Just a thought. In the units/regions that seem to have private/limited access and over objective elk numbers where landowners/outfitters are wanting more elk harvested.
Couldn’t the G&F create/increase more type 6/7 elk tags in the units instead of trying to create a bunch of regions? This would provide more opportunities for elk to be harvested and wouldn’t require setting up NR elk regions.
I feel you are correct. I wonder just how many bull tags they would need to sell in order to decrease the populations in those areas?I would bet every area that has over objective elk numbers already has hundreds of type 6 or 7 tags.
So the outfitters/landowners just want more bulls tags for their clients and aren’t really that concerned with over objective herds. That’s just the angle they are using for now.I would bet every area that has over objective elk numbers already has hundreds of type 6 or 7 tags.
BINGO!!! However I do feel the real way around this is further investment into the Access YES program and eventually getting the Access YES program to a point where the vast majority of landowners can see a big upside.So the outfitters/landowners just want more bulls tags for their clients and aren’t really that concerned with over objective herds. That’s just the angle they are using for now.
I always thought if the landowners/outfitters were so concerned with over objective herds why not lower the cost of their cow hunts and I’m sure they could get more clients.
Damage claims are not given to any landowner that doesn't allow significant hunting on their property. Just another of the many claims you make related to Wyoming hunting that is false.It’s pretty tough for me to swallow that landowners have any complaints or are issued any $ damage claims if they fail to offer public hunters access to their private land.
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.