Residents looking for preference on leftover licenses

It's a legitimate concern, as there is no reason that Residents shouldn't have another try at the 80% of licenses reserved for Residents in the first place.

I have always thought its ridiculous that the tags left from the initial Resident draw just automatically drop to the NR initial draw.

I signed the petition.
 
I hope you Wyomingites are successful here.

Your NR cap is your NR cap. One should be able to trust your agency to abide by it through all draws and leftover/reissue processes all the way to opening day.

Residents shouldn't have to watch their agencies like hawks to find the creative ways agencies find to sell a tag at 10-40x price when there is a willing resident hunter readily available.
 
It's a legitimate concern, as there is no reason that Residents shouldn't have another try at the 80% of licenses reserved for Residents in the first place.

I have always thought its ridiculous that the tags left from the initial Resident draw just automatically drop to the NR initial draw.

I signed the petition.
Buzz -Tongue in cheek maybe but is there any non-resident tag that you don’t think should go to a resident? Re-stated, do NR deserve to get any tags?

If you think yes, what factors are in favor of it?

If no, why does WY then do it against resident wishes?

I think many would like to hear your brass tacks opinion on whether NR hunting should be encouraged or ended. It will add perspective to your opinion on literally every thread ever started that includes a R-vs-NR component.
 
Buzz -Tongue in cheek maybe but is there any non-resident tag that you don’t think should go to a resident? Re-stated, do NR deserve to get any tags?

If you think yes, what factors are in favor of it?

If no, why does WY then do it against resident wishes?

I think many would like to hear your brass tacks opinion on whether NR hunting should be encouraged or ended. It will add perspective to your opinion on literally every thread ever started that includes a R-vs-NR component.
We aren't talking about NR's tags, its the 80% that are allocated for Residents.

NR's deserve the 10% of the big 5 they're allocated.

NR's deserve the 20% of deer and pronghorn tags they're allocated.

NR's deserve 16% of full priced LQ elk tags and 7,250 total that are allocated.

The rest are reserved for Residents, and many Residents are starting to favor a second draw for Residents only instead of those tags dropping to NR's in the initial draw.

I don't see the problem with Residents wanting to have 2 cracks at the 80% they're supposed to get.

If it were up to me, I would allow Residents to apply in both the Resident and Non Resident side of the draw and accumulate preference points in both draws as well (with the corresponding NR fees applying for both points and tag fees).

If a Resident wants to apply in both draws and pay the associated point fees and license fees...I see no valid reason to not let them. More money for the Department and gives residents 2 shots at tags and also allows residents to accumulate points in the NR side of the draw.

This would also allow Residents to share points with NR family and friends and allow R and NR's to apply as a party together.
 
We aren't talking about NR's tags, its the 80% that are allocated for Residents.

NR's deserve the 10% of the big 5 they're allocated.

NR's deserve the 20% of deer and pronghorn tags they're allocated.

NR's deserve 16% of full priced LQ elk tags and 7,250 total that are allocated.

The rest are reserved for Residents, and many Residents are starting to favor a second draw for Residents only instead of those tags dropping to NR's in the initial draw.

I don't see the problem with Residents wanting to have 2 cracks at the 80% they're supposed to get.

If it were up to me, I would allow Residents to apply in both the Resident and Non Resident side of the draw and accumulate preference points in both draws as well (with the corresponding NR fees applying for both points and tag fees).

If a Resident wants to apply in both draws and pay the associated point fees and license fees...I see no valid reason to not let them. More money for the Department and gives residents 2 shots at tags and also allows residents to accumulate points in the NR side of the draw.

This would also allow Residents to share points with NR family and friends and allow R and NR's to apply as a party together.
Fair enough, I get that distinction on the leftover “resident” tags, these are not the initially allocated NR tags. So really its no issue keeping them in R pool, at least at first. But perhaps at some cutoff point, those still become available to all, if unclaimed as season approaches.

You also, and always do, respect current law which allocates certain percentages to each group. I don’t know if I interpret that as you “agreeing” with the law, or not advocating against that allocation in the future, which I believe you probably might, but thats your right. I know you respect and follow what it is today.

Regarding allowing R to apply for NR tags at NR prices makes me think that perhaps you ultimately think it would be fine or possibly preferable if all tags could be sold to R so long as budget was maintained. Again, not trying to put words in your mouth if that’s not so (of course correct me if needed) but I think a stable, reasonable NR participation should be maintained, period, for other communal, cultural, conservation model reasons, what-have you - not just replaced with higher paying R. Of course “Reasonable” can and will be debated by reasonable people.

I was not aware (or hadn’t thought of) the complexities of R and NR applying together. I think it’s unfortunate and should be fixed as another way to eliminate some more of the us -vs - them aspect of things.
 
I guess I don’t understand? I thought leftover R tags go into the leftover draw that’s available for NR and R to draw on a random basis? How would these tags automatically drop into the NR pool only?
 
I guess I don’t understand? I thought leftover R tags go into the leftover draw that’s available for NR and R to draw on a random basis? How would these tags automatically drop into the NR pool only?
After the initial drawing for residents, any leftovers roll into NR quotas for the NR initial draw. The current leftover drawing for deer and antelope is what is leftover from the NR initial draw. Many residents don't want the rollover, they want a second chance at resident leftovers.
 
Why are they not using up the quota during the first draw?
Is it because how the draw works, or are the hunts not that desirable?
 
Many reasons they do not get applied for. I know I apply for areas that I have a good chance to draw, for all 3 choices. Some choose to only apply for the best areas, all 3 choices. That leaves marginal areas for access and perhaps trophy quality left over from the resident draw.
In years past residents could pretty much count on being able to apply for and draw a leftover license if they didn't draw a 1,2 or 3rd choice in the initial draw.
Now , with increases interest in hunting by NRs in general those licenses get rolled into the NR draw and pretty much taken by NRs in their draw. Also, reduced license numbers make it harder to draw our preferred areas in many cases.
Some, for sure just want a chance to draw a second license before the NR draw, I wouldn't mind that either. Regulations allow for a 2nd full price license and some residents would like their quota held for them through the draws, initial and leftover, then put either into a leftover draw for all or sold OTC to all.
 
Fair enough, I get that distinction on the leftover “resident” tags, these are not the initially allocated NR tags. So really its no issue keeping them in R pool, at least at first. But perhaps at some cutoff point, those still become available to all, if unclaimed as season approaches.

You also, and always do, respect current law which allocates certain percentages to each group. I don’t know if I interpret that as you “agreeing” with the law, or not advocating against that allocation in the future, which I believe you probably might, but thats your right. I know you respect and follow what it is today.

Regarding allowing R to apply for NR tags at NR prices makes me think that perhaps you ultimately think it would be fine or possibly preferable if all tags could be sold to R so long as budget was maintained. Again, not trying to put words in your mouth if that’s not so (of course correct me if needed) but I think a stable, reasonable NR participation should be maintained, period, for other communal, cultural, conservation model reasons, what-have you - not just replaced with higher paying R. Of course “Reasonable” can and will be debated by reasonable people.

I was not aware (or hadn’t thought of) the complexities of R and NR applying together. I think it’s unfortunate and should be fixed as another way to eliminate some more of the us -vs - them aspect of things.
We aren't talking about NR's tags, its the 80% that are allocated for Residents.

NR's deserve the 10% of the big 5 they're allocated.

NR's deserve the 20% of deer and pronghorn tags they're allocated.

NR's deserve 16% of full priced LQ elk tags and 7,250 total that are allocated.

The rest are reserved for Residents, and many Residents are starting to favor a second draw for Residents only instead of those tags dropping to NR's in the initial draw.

I don't see the problem with Residents wanting to have 2 cracks at the 80% they're supposed to get.

If it were up to me, I would allow Residents to apply in both the Resident and Non Resident side of the draw and accumulate preference points in both draws as well (with the corresponding NR fees applying for both points and tag fees).

If a Resident wants to apply in both draws and pay the associated point fees and license fees...I see no valid reason to not let them. More money for the Department and gives residents 2 shots at tags and also allows residents to accumulate points in the NR side of the draw.

This would also allow Residents to share points with NR family and friends and allow R and NR's to apply as a party together.
So let’s say all the leftover tags from the R draw go to R’s. How does G&F make up the lost revenue $ of the NR fees that would have been realized if they went into the NR draw? Or do they bother?
 
After the initial drawing for residents, any leftovers roll into NR quotas for the NR initial draw. The current leftover drawing for deer and antelope is what is leftover from the NR initial draw. Many residents don't want the rollover, they want a second chance at resident leftovers.
This is not how I understood it to work? I thought the initial elk draw was done say it had 100 tags and so 84 go to residents. If there were leftovers from that number then those tags go into the leftover draw in the summer which is a random draw for residents and NR? Otherwise there would never be leftover bull tags in the summer draw?
 
The NR elk draw is before the other draws , Rs are drawn first for deer and pronghorn , those under allocated licenses then get put into the NR draw for deer and pronghorn where most are allocated to NRs.
Yes, elk licenses not drawn by NRs go into the leftover draw, you just made our argument for us in essence.
 
It's a legitimate concern, as there is no reason that Residents shouldn't have another try at the 80% of licenses reserved for Residents in the first place.

I have always thought its ridiculous that the tags left from the initial Resident draw just automatically drop to the NR initial draw.

I signed the petition.
You think it’s bad that residents didn’t want a tag so it was then sent to a pool of tags made available for those who do want it? Cool.
 
I understand that state residents have every right to take priority in hunting and fishing opportunities, but I had to chuckle when I read “the coveted leftover cow/calf tags”. I get it, but any resident could have drawn those tags if they applied for them in the initial draw, right? If I can’t have this I will covet that? I agree that nonresidents should not be taking 64% of all leftover tags, but if some of those tags were really being “coveted” then wouldn’t the nonresidents be taking a greater percentage of those, not less (60% of coveted leftover tags versus 64% of all leftover tags)?
 
You think it’s bad that residents didn’t want a tag so it was then sent to a pool of tags made available for those who do want it? Cool.
I get it, but any resident could have drawn those tags if they applied for them in the initial draw, right?
You do understand that any leftover tags were not taken by either residents or nonresidents in the initial draw, right?

Cool.
 
Look no further that the Utah trailcam ban to see how whiny he,Travis, truly is.....
you mean the ban that doesn't affect me because I don't use trail cameras? You must not be able to read or your ability to comprehend is in question. (based upon your response here I'm going with the latter). I get left over tags that residents don't want. hooray.
 
Your response shows a total lack of understanding about what residents are addressing with this issue.

Your jealousy of Wyoming residents is also noted.
your jealousy of the NR picking up left over tags is noted. LOL. can I wipe your tears with one of the left over tags I bought?
 
you mean the ban that doesn't affect me because I don't use trail cameras? You must not be able to read or your ability to comprehend is in question. (based upon your response here I'm going with the latter). I get left over tags that residents don't want. hooray.

Doesn't effect you yet you complained, whined, about it over and over again. If it wasn't a big deal why so many posts? Seems like you complain and whine about a lot on here. Life that boring?
 
your jealousy of the NR picking up left over tags is noted. LOL. can I wipe your tears with one of the left over tags I bought?
No, I just buy tags, every year, OTC, that you might get once or twice a decade to handle my tears...

Stings doesn't it?
 
Doesn't effect you yet you complained, whined, about it over and over again. If it wasn't a big deal why so many posts? Seems like you complain and whine about a lot on here. Life that boring?
Maybe because hunters stomp out the rights of other hunters more than any activist group ever has. And it all has to do with greedy A holes just like you and others on this post. Weird.
 
Maybe because hunters stomp out the rights of other hunters more than any activist group ever has. And it all has to do with greedy A holes just like you and others on this post. Weird.
What rights might they be?

The only "right" you have is to sing the blues...
 
I think me and the Utahns should be relieved if the Task Force commission ends and all that happened was 90/10 on Big 5 and a few modest nuances (like this) on D-E-A.

WY could go full Utahn with strict 90/10 NR discrimination across the board. Then where would the Utahns hunt?

The wilderness rule and the WY Sheep/Moose money grab remain black eyes. At least a few more NRs will be buying points with eyes wide open now. Encourage your our own state to reciprocate – maybe Utah should be 95/5 on Big 4 to reciprocate for what 90/10 + WY wilderness rule really equates to.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Based on high game:human ratio and the wilderness rule, there is a fair argument to be made that WY is ahead now and the each state needs to find a way to “keep up”.
 
I think me and the Utahns should be relieved if the Task Force commission ends and all that happened was 90/10 on Big 5 and a few modest nuances (like this) on D-E-A.

WY could go full Utahn with strict 90/10 NR discrimination across the board. Then where would the Utahns hunt?

The wilderness rule and the WY Sheep/Moose money grab remain black eyes. At least a few more NRs will be buying points with eyes wide open now. Encourage your our own state to reciprocate – maybe Utah should be 95/5 on Big 4 to reciprocate for what 90/10 + WY wilderness rule really equates to.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Based on high game:human ratio and the wilderness rule, there is a fair argument to be made that WY is ahead now and the each state needs to find a way to “keep up”.

If you don't like Wyoming stay in Utah. Simple really....
 
What rights might they be?

The only "right" you have is to sing the blues...
It might be time for us NR's to explore other options. Like work to have Pittman-Robertson amended once again so that the funds are used for what they were originally intended for back in 1937. Our local representatives will listen to us, unlike the WY elected officials. Crazy, that we us NR's; are footing part of the bill for BuzzH to shoot Booners every year on the cheap. I may start a PAC in my upcoming retirement to assure that guys like BuzzH don't get to suck on the teet for free.
 
It might be time for us NR's to explore other options. Like work to have Pittman-Robertson amended once again so that the funds are used for what they were originally intended for back in 1937. Our local representatives will listen to us, unlike the WY elected officials.
You really don't think Buzz or any Wy res here is going to be troubled by this fantasy of yours, do you?

Besides, not many booners being taken on leftovers, which most guys want for freezer filling.
 
I think me and the Utahns should be relieved if the Task Force commission ends and all that happened was 90/10 on Big 5 and a few modest nuances (like this) on D-E-A.

WY could go full Utahn with strict 90/10 NR discrimination across the board. Then where would the Utahns hunt?

The wilderness rule and the WY Sheep/Moose money grab remain black eyes. At least a few more NRs will be buying points with eyes wide open now. Encourage your our own state to reciprocate – maybe Utah should be 95/5 on Big 4 to reciprocate for what 90/10 + WY wilderness rule really equates to.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Based on high game:human ratio and the wilderness rule, there is a fair argument to be made that WY is ahead now and the each state needs to find a way to “keep up”.
*utard
*D-E-P (antelope are in Africa)
*utard
*Are black eyes bad? You mention them but want clarification if you mean that negative or ?
*who cares if Utah goes 95/5?
 
You really don't think Buzz or any Wy res here is going to be troubled by this fantasy of yours, do you?

Besides, not many booners being taken on leftovers, which most guys want for freezer filling.
not sure and dont care if any Wy res are troubled. Its just about putting forth my efforts where they can make a difference. As opposed to posting here thinking I can change BuzzH's mind.

as for the Booners, it is more of a comment on what we are really fighting about. We went from arguing about 90/10 for the big 5 to leftover licenses in about 6 months. Next thing is R's will be saying NR's are catching too many carp, the opportunity needs to go to R's and NR carp should go to a lottery.
 
not sure and dont care if any Wy res are troubled. Its just about putting forth my efforts where they can make a difference. As opposed to posting here thinking I can change BuzzH's mind.

as for the Booners, it is more of a comment on what we are really fighting about. We went from arguing about 90/10 for the big 5 to leftover licenses in about 6 months. Next thing is R's will be saying NR's are catching too many carp, the opportunity needs to go to R's and NR carp should go to a lottery.
Nah, next thing is outfitter only draws and 90/10 for DEA.
 
I understand residents wanting their chance at the tags they are allocated. How would the draw work regarding this issue? Residents get a second chance draw at the tags and then any resident tags go to the leftover draw or is there also a second chance NR draw using the surplus tags from residents before they go leftover?
 
Don't agree at all. That would just bump up the quota for the next year. Leftovers should be hunted the year they are issued.
And yes, 90/10 for the Big 5 passed.
Just think of the big buck you could put on the wall if you just let him grow another year. The breeding he will do to make more big bucks. Or maybe not…
 
Using your logic, why would you ever shoot a buck?
Why would you shoot a small deer every year? What is a small deer to you? Maybe quotas are lowered for various reasons and not raised. I don’t know. It stands to reason that if I’m watching a 4 point deer on my property and I don’t shoot him this year he may be a five point deer or bigger next year right? I mean it seems like big antlers are what most on this forum is chasing.
 
Why would you shoot a small deer every year? What is a small deer to you? Maybe quotas are lowered for various reasons and not raised. I don’t know. It stands to reason that if I’m watching a 4 point deer on my property and I don’t shoot him this year he may be a five point deer or bigger next year right? I mean it seems like big antlers are what most on this forum is chasing.
Right, here are some leftover tags I've filled, small?:

IMG951718.jpg


IMG_3989.jpg


IMG_4498.jpg


IMG_0800.jpg
 
Why would you shoot a small deer every year? What is a small deer to you? Maybe quotas are lowered for various reasons and not raised. I don’t know. It stands to reason that if I’m watching a 4 point deer on my property and I don’t shoot him this year he may be a five point deer or bigger next year right? I mean it seems like big antlers are what most on this forum is chasing.
What about that mule deer in your avatar? Why did you shoot that?

Far from big...just curious.
 
Why are you assuming I am shooting small deer? Or any deer for that matter? Why are you assuming a buck shot on a leftover tag will automatically be small?
Just throwing your logic back at you. “Why would you ever shoot a buck?” Why would you assume I would never shoot a buck?
 
Almost as weird as constantly showing everybody how great of a hunter I am by posting every decent big game animal ones ever taken. Like I previously pointed out, this forum is full of people obsessed with the biggest baddest animal one can kill, but ok.
 
Almost as weird as constantly showing everybody how great of a hunter I am by posting every decent big game animal ones ever taken. Like I previously pointed out, this forum is full of people obsessed with the biggest baddest animal one can kill, but ok.
Not really...I usually shoot at least two of these each year, usually at least one a leftover tag:

21407.jpg


IMG_20211207_143656066_HDR.jpg


Year before last:

12008.jpg


IMG_20201214_091132911.jpg


IMG_20201210_153402480_BURST001.jpg
 

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