HB0104

[ColoradoOak]

Sounds like this bill has some support and is gaining traction. It would allow a successful applicant for a full priced big or trophy game animal to return the license and reserve the same license for the following year. An amendment to the bill allows the state to charge an administrative fee equal to the cost of the original license, to make it revenue neutral.

I assume that, given the amendment, any reserved license will reduced the quota available the following year, thus reducing opportunities for other hunters in the draw? If that was not the case there would be no concern about reduced revenue.

I could see many guys taking advantage of the opportunity to have an additional year to plan a big hunt like sheep. Thoughts?

 

[elkantlers]

If they reissue the returned tag to the next person on the list it would make them money.

I like this alot. You never know when something out of your control will put the kibosh on a hunt.

 

[jm77]

This a good bill that could be in trouble if another amendment is made to it.

The G&F IMO made up the shortfall based on adjusting the quotas the next year. They do not do that now with sheep & moose, why would they do it with deer, elk, & antelope that have higher quotas ? Because they don't want to deal with this.

Buzz came up with the idea to charge the applicant again the following year and eliminate shortfall, which is the reason this bill moves forward. Another possible amendment to allow hunters to reserve a tag after the season opens will surely kill this bill.

 

[Zeke]

I like the thought of a "safety net" which this bill provides but I hate the idea of guys putting off the hunt just to plan and make it easier on themselves especially if it screws with the quotas the following year!
Zeke

 

[BuzzH]

Oak,

There is already a law in place to allow moose, sheep, and goat tags to be postponed. It has to be for a medical reason, requiring a doctors note (for lack of a better word). JM77 can correct me here If I'm wrong.

This bill would basically do the same thing only with elk, deer, and antelope. It will also apply only to type-1 or type-2 LQ tags, no general area NR or R tags. It makes sense as there are some dea areas that are tough to draw as a sheep tag.

The administrative fee was my idea, but Representative Freeman is who came up with the official language.

Also, there was discussion within the committee hearing to allow the GF commission to add the postponed tags to the next season, not taking any tags from the next years quota (depending on biologist recommendations).

In other words, if it was going to be a tag or two on an area that issued 50 tags and the biologists don't see a problem, then they just issue the same 50 tags and let the postponed tags in as well.

Of course all this has to be done PRIOR to the first day of the hunting season specified in regulation.

I heard there is talk of wanting to allow hunters to do this AFTER the season opens if they haven't hunted the tag.

If that language gets added, IMO, the bill dies.

But, over-all the spirit of the bill as currently written is pretty good.

 

[Zeke]

Thanks Buzz.
That helped answer my questions about the bill.
Sounds like a keeper unless it's amended beyond acceptable parameters.
Zeke

 

[ColoradoOak]

Thanks for the explanation. The bill does not stipulate that a "good reason" is needed, such a medical issue. And since it did not specify species, I assumed it would be for all species and supersede the existing language for moose, sheep and goat.

A quote from Freeman in the following article made me believe this was affecting sheep as well, and there is nothing in the bill about needing a special reason to reserve a license.

The amendment was the reason why Rep. John Freeman, D-Green River, ended up voting in favor of the bill, he said.

"Let's say you have a sheep permit. You get sick and have a holdover," he said. "Then this year, if they are only doing 10 sheep, if one is already spoken for, you only have nine licenses available."

The sheep example illustrates how the department could lose money, especially when population numbers vary.

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_8bc608d4-73fa-553b-8f8c-395afca75ae3.html

 

[ihuntelk]

Chapter 44 section 22 of the WGFD regulations has the current language for Trophy Game Species. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/imgs/QRDocs/REGULATIONS_CH44.pdf

This bill adds Big-game to the existing law and will allow for Natural Disasters, Military Deployment and those who can get a Doctor's affidavit that they are "restricted from hunting activity". They also have to fill out a Disabled Hunter Certification form. It doesn't allow for someone that drew too many tags or a big project at work won't allow them to make the hunt. It's pretty stringent. Hopefully the License Review Board will have some flexibility to work with sportsmen if an incapacitating injury happens after the start of the season, if the person hasn't hunted. The license review board will review each petition. I'm guessing pronghorn drawn as a 2nd choice, won't make it through the review board. Hopefully some common sense among sportsmen before applying won't make this too cumbersome.
Looked good in the House, hopefully it will pass the Senate.
-Cade

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not 100% sure if he's right.

 

[ColoradoOak]

I should correct myself. It does say "unable to use for good cause as provided by regulations." Wondering if that means that each reservation application will be reviewed by the license review board?

"...any person who is issued and purchases a limited quota, full price big or trophy game animal license for any species and sex of animal and is unable to use for good cause as provided by regulations that license for the year in which issued, may reserve a license for the particular species and sex of big or trophy game animal designated on the unused license for use during the immediately succeeding calendar year....

 

[grizzly]

Do they issue a new tag to an alternate for the original year?

In Utah there were a bunch of animal-rights lovers that thought Utah shouldn't hunt Sandhill Cranes so they started applying and drawing tags and then not using them, thus preserving that specific bird from getting shot.

Theoretically you could get a bunch of hippies drawing tags and continually turning them in or postponing them and if an alternate was not given that tag for that year, they could keep their points year after year and continue to draw tags without hunting them.

Grizzly

 

[SouthernWyo]

This is probably a good common sense bill that won't ruffle too many feathers if handled correctly. I'm a little biased, back in 2000 I turned back a moose tag when I broke my leg in early August. At that time, it worked for me without negative impacts to the resource. Of course moose populations weren't in the tank at that time and quotas were up.

I'm not sure that something like an antelope tag with 30 - 50%+ drawing odds should qualify, but I'm sure that someone eventually will try. "Hopefully some common sense among sportsmen before applying won't make this too cumbersome." A great sentiment, unfortunately, in this day and age, I don't have any faith in this.

"Hopefully the License Review Board will have some flexibility to work with sportsmen if an incapacitating injury happens after the start of the season, if the person hasn't hunted." This probably takes it a little too far, a little too ambiguous, a little to subjective. As was stated earlier, this needs to be restricted to something that occurs before the beginning of the season or it's going to be abused (see above.) If you've waited half the season and then can't hunt the remainder for whatever reason, well, sometimes life ain't fair.

Glad that this is revenue neutral, would be nice to make it revenue positive, hopefully it will at least cover the added administrative costs that will be experienced.

 

[WapitiBob]

Sounds like a good Bill.

 

[nfh]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-15 AT 04:53PM (MST)[p]>Oak,
>
>There is already a law in
>place to allow moose, sheep,
>and goat tags to be
>postponed. It has to be
>for a medical reason, requiring
>a doctors note (for lack
>of a better word). JM77
>can correct me here If
>I'm wrong.
>
>This bill would basically do the
>same thing only with elk,
>deer, and antelope. It will
>also apply only to type-1
>or type-2 LQ tags, no
>general area NR or R
>tags. It makes sense as
>there are some dea areas
>that are tough to draw
>as a sheep tag.
>
>The administrative fee was my idea,
>but Representative Freeman is who
>came up with the official
>language.
>
>Also, there was discussion within the
>committee hearing to allow the
>GF commission to add the
>postponed tags to the next
>season, not taking any tags
>from the next years quota
>(depending on biologist recommendations).
>
>In other words, if it was
>going to be a tag
>or two on an area
>that issued 50 tags and
>the biologists don't see a
>problem, then they just issue
>the same 50 tags and
>let the postponed tags in
>as well.
>
>Of course all this has to
>be done PRIOR to the
>first day of the hunting
>season specified in regulation.
>
>I heard there is talk of
>wanting to allow hunters to
>do this AFTER the season
>opens if they haven't hunted
>the tag.
>
>If that language gets added, IMO,
>the bill dies.
>
>But, over-all the spirit of the
>bill as currently written is
>pretty good.



How do you prove that you havent hunted during the season and end up getting hurt so you lie to get your medical excuse ? Basically what action will be taken to prove someone isnt cheating the system