Landowner tags

[nontypical]

I think it's time the landowner tag allocation system was changed in Wyoming.

At the present time, 160 acres will get you a landowner tag for deer, elk, or antelope; providing that you can prove a certain amount of usage by whatever species throughout the year. These tags come out of the total tag numbers for residents and nonresidents. This can be a major problem in units with low tag numbers, because the landowner tag numbers remain relatively the same.

Let's look at deer unit 101. This is also antelope unit 58. It's also roughly half of elk unit 124. Last year, deer tags in 101 were allotted at 25; antelope tags in 58 were 30; and bull tags in 124 stood at 40.

Now, I'm not exactly sure of the total number of landowner tags for each species in each unit, but I do know that they are a significant percentage of the overall tags. Exact numbers could be easily attainable, but for the sake of this thread, let's just say that 124 elk landowner tags are 10; deer(unit 101) and antelope( unit 58) are somewhere around 6. It's my belief that these numbers are actually higher.

Are you guys satisfied with landowners getting 25% of available tags in these units with low tag allocations? All of these units have terrible draw odds of around 5% or lower( antelope odds are better..around 10% or so).

I believe a landowner should be able to hunt these critters ON THEIR OWN LAND. But unit-wide??? For 160 acres????

This law has created a few loopholes which were not thought about when the law was created. In one instance, a fellow has created a "corporation" where you can become a member for a fee and be guaranteed an elk or antelope tag in a well known trophy unit for both. Those tags are then distributed among membership( how this is done, I have no idea, I just know it's happening).

Also, folks are buying land( 160 acre parcels) for the sole reason of being able to skirt the drawings and be guaranteed tags.

What say you? Should Wyoming increase the amount of land ownership to qualify for these tags? Should LO tags only be good for YOUR land??

I think the answer is BOTH. Wyoming needs to increase the amount of land by at least double( maybe more). I also think a LO tag should be good for only THAT property.

Transfer of those tags is also an issue, but for the sake of keeping this thread short, I'll save that for another time.

Thanks

 

[mulecreek]

I have no problem with the 160 acre minimum particularly when you have to prove animal use days in addition to the acreage minimum. I would support a change making the tag only valid on the owned land rather than unit wide. However, in the end I think limiting the ability to transfer ownership is the best feature of the Wyoming system. This will stop more games than anything.

Regardless of how many acres is required, there will always be someone with deep enough pockets to buy what they need.

I still feel that Wyoming has so much available land and good hunting opportunities that people can take advantage of every year. I tend to not get too twisted up over the so called "Trophy Units" and my inability to draw those tags. By the way, I am sitting in 124 right now and we have bulls all over the place. Most are still packing, although I did notice yesterday a couple have dropped. Only another month and a half and they are fair game.

 

[jm77]

There is a hitch in making a landowner hunt their own property. There are a significant number of ranches and properties that serve as wintering areas for big game, however during hunting season, little or no animals are on the property.

By the way, landowner tags are regulated by the G&F Commission. The Dept has the authority to change the system in place. I wouldn't expect that to happen anytime soon. Any changes most likely will come in the form of legislation, which won't stand much of a chance.

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

I agree something needs to be done. Example area 102 deer south of rock springs current creek there is land right along main road that gets landowner elk tags 2 I believe. I drive past that land summer fall spring and winter I have never seen 1 elk on that land no matter what time of year. So animal use days is a crock. So if they were made to hunt only there property I'm sure they wouldn't apply for LO TAGS and that would be 2 more in the draw which is the way it should be IMO!!

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

I also feel landowners should be held responsible to make improvements to the land they get tags for that helps the wildlife that is supposedly using that land. Weather it be food/water source or cover or combo of any there of.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 05:32PM (MST)[p]As a NR I probably have no right to even talk about landowner tags, BUT I'll just chime in with a couple comments. First the negative is that I think the 160 acre qualification should be more like at least a 640 acre minimum. Second, I think there should be some kind of a limit or % of LO tags such that if there are very limited tags in a unit if they get a tag one year they should have to sit out a year or two to give others a chance at drawing the ones they automatically get every year. The great thing about the Wyoming system is that the tags are not transferable and I hope that never changes.

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 00:04AM (MST)[p]

3 antelope tags for 58, 1 nr lo tag for 124. I don't have the res lo elk tags in front of me. Fedup must have those looking at his post.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 08:02PM (MST)[p]Back to this thread again, I forgot I wanted to ask the OP about his corporation statement. It's my understanding that a tag is only good for the owner of the property or a close relative. Even if a corporation was formed how could tags be given to anyone other than direct owners of the property. It's also my understanding that landowner tags can completely exhaust tag totals in some units such that there are no tags available in the draws. Is that correct?

 

[WapitiBob]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 08:29PM (MST)[p]There is no limit on LO tags. LO tags have completely depleted the draw tags in a unit on only one occasion the last time I asked, but yes, it can happen.

 

[feduptwo]

Board members of a corporation that owns deeded property are eligible for a landowner tags. I know people that own livestock corporations. Its common knowledge that some of these corporations put people on their board of directors (that aren't family) to get landowner tags.
Anadarko gives the landowner tags that are eligible to employees in Sweetwater County. (I don't know how they do this) as I'm sure Anadarko doesn't put the said name employee on their board.

I agree with Non-typical you should be able to hunt your property not the whole unit. 124 had 12 landowner tags last year 1/2 of these tags came from smaller property that arguably didn't have the animal use days.
JM77 is right that nothing will change. I imagine most of the commissioners are landowners and Wyoming is all about the Status Quo

 

[feduptwo]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-16-16 AT 09:03PM (MST)[p]Double drop muley

A 160 acre portion of current creek ranch was subdivided and sold. So now there is 4 landowner tags. They get deer and elk tags. They also asked for antelope & the G&F challenged the animal use days but they have evidence for 2016 that proved they were eligible for antelope tags also.

 

[TOPGUN]

If that corporation deal is being allowed it dang sure should be changed!

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

Feduptwo, I was thinking current creek was subdivided into 3rds so that would be 6 elk and 6 deer? Is this not correct? All I know the sections that the county road gos through I hardly ever see the critters there and the section south of county road I don't recall ever seeing any critters on it at all. I heard it was a couple of NR that own that section and they built a little shed on the land for a hunt camp. The law sucks!!!

 

[jm77]

I think a possible change that might fly is to proportion tags to landowners based on the percent of deeded ground in the area. If 25% of the area is private, then only that percent of tags could go into the landowner drawing.

 

[TOPGUN]

>I think a possible change that
>might fly is to proportion
>tags to landowners based on
>the percent of deeded ground
>in the area. If 25%
>of the area is private,
>then only that percent of
>tags could go into the
>landowner drawing.

That sounds like a reasonable solution Jeff!

 

[nfh]

So I have 170 acres of riverbottom that I hunt general if I don't get my type 3 tag. They have type 3 tags where I have 170 acres. So could a landowner get a type 3 tag being it is a General area. I have no plan to do this but.wandering how much.a landowner can play this system. If all the landowners are allowed to do ths near me then the landowners could really grab a chunk of the 50 type 3 tags they give out

 

[jm77]

>So I have 170 acres of
>riverbottom that I hunt general
>if I don't get my
>type 3 tag. They have
>type 3 tags where I
>have 170 acres. So could
>a landowner get a type
>3 tag being it is
>a General area. I have
>no plan to do this
>but.wandering how much.a landowner can
>play this system. If all
>the landowners are allowed to
>do ths near me then
>the landowners could really grab
>a chunk of the 50
>type 3 tags they give
>out

Michael, the answer is no. With a general season available to hunt the species, there are no type 3 reserved for a landowner drawing.

 

[wyoflythrower]

I think proportional tags is a good idea.

Couple of points to consider though generally most of the water is located on private ground so keeping access to all game is very important

This program was intended to assist or repay landowners for damages and lost grazing ability for their own livestock and each landowner tag must be approved yearly by the local game warden and HQ in Cheyenne. I think these tags should only be awarded to landowners that are impacted this way so only actual ranchers not rich landowners or corporations.

I don't think this is a problem in 95% of the state but is a big problem in deer areas 101,102 and elk in 124,30,31,32

 

[nfh]

>>So I have 170 acres of
>>riverbottom that I hunt general
>>if I don't get my
>>type 3 tag. They have
>>type 3 tags where I
>>have 170 acres. So could
>>a landowner get a type
>>3 tag being it is
>>a General area. I have
>>no plan to do this
>>but.wandering how much.a landowner can
>>play this system. If all
>>the landowners are allowed to
>>do ths near me then
>>the landowners could really grab
>>a chunk of the 50
>>type 3 tags they give
>>out
>
>Michael, the answer is no. With
>a general season available to
>hunt the species, there are
>no type 3 reserved for
>a landowner drawing.


Thanks for the info Jim. Im glad to here I cant play.the system and take the easy route of getting a tag like that.

 

[nontypical]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 03:50PM (MST)[p]Big game usage during winter months is already compensated to LO by G&F. Whether or not that compensation is enough is another subject open to debate. Some landowners actually don't mind( even like!!) big game critters eating some of their hay. To those LO, I offer my gratitude.

Rock Springs Grazing Association and Anadarko both allow unlimited hunting by the public without written permission. Both of these entities own large portions of land in SW Wy. For that reason, I do NOT have an issue with their LO tags. Right or wrong, the closing of these lands to the public would not be good. If we were to engage them in a fight over LO tags, they could close all of their land to hunting, which is a significant amount. My issue is with the aforementioned so-called "corporation", and what Fedup referred to as well. This law is subject to abuse and needs to be changed.



JM77 says change won't happen to this law. Unfortunately, he is right on the money. That is a major hangup with introducing a resident point system for deer, elk, and antelope. Many of those tags would get gobbled up in LO tags.

I intend to put a bug in the ear of my legislators about this. Probably won't go anywhere, but the seed needs to be planted. JMO.

Thanks for your responses.

 

[grosventrehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16 AT 06:28PM (MST)[p]It also helps to be buds with the gnf guy who surveys/counts animals on your property. I know of some landowners who get permits that DO NOT have the number of animals they claim on their property, but end up with a tag almost every year. Sometimes in wyoming it's who you know that matters the most. I know of a warden or two who say the biologists are not being honest on issues like this. Of course they won't speak out publicly since it would be a career killer.

 

[feduptwo]

I would also be happy with landowners having a transferrable tag if they choose to take only one tag per species instead of the two alloted.
For example if ACME livestock was eligible for 2 deer, 2 elk & 2 goat tags and they choose the transferrable option instead they would be given 1 deer, 1 elk, & 1 antelope. The trade off is they could sell the voucher. I know this isn't popular but why do I care if the landowners son in law kills a deer, elk, & antelope every year vs. some guy (maybe me) that could buy or trade for the tag. Save the slippery slope, pricing the poor man out of it argument it would be Net increase of tags in the draw that's all I care about.

I also like limiting landowner tags to a % of private lands as suggested above.

 

[feduptwo]

They could have sold two 160 acre allotments but I only know of the one Kelly owns. I do think they have plenty of animal use days on that ranch. You look at the actual boundary and there is lots of private. I've seen lots of elk on the ranch over the years.

 

[jm77]

>LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-16
>AT 06:28?PM (MST)
>
>It also helps to be buds
>with the gnf guy who
>surveys/counts animals on your property.
>I know of some landowners
>who get permits that DO
>NOT have the number of
>animals they claim on their
>property, but end up with
>a tag almost every year.
>Sometimes in wyoming it's who
>you know that matters the
>most. I know of a
>warden or two who say
>the biologists are not being
>honest on issues like this.
>Of course they won't speak
>out publicly since it would
>be a career killer.

I am really surprised GV that you of all people would write a post like this! It just so happens that the area WARDEN qualifies the landowner, not the biologist. They also use a strict method involving transects to confirm 2000 use days on the property. It is up to the warden to approve the licenses on a yearly basis.

I am really curious where this all came from. Southpawshooter?

 

[elks96]

>I would also be happy with
>landowners having a transferrable tag
>if they choose to take
>only one tag per species
>instead of the two alloted.
>
>For example if ACME livestock was
>eligible for 2 deer, 2
>elk & 2 goat tags
>and they choose the transferrable
>option instead they would be
>given 1 deer, 1 elk,
>& 1 antelope. The trade
>off is they could sell
>the voucher. I know
>this isn't popular but why
>do I care if the
>landowners son in law kills
>a deer, elk, & antelope
>every year vs. some guy
>(maybe me) that could buy
>or trade for the tag.
> Save the slippery slope,
>pricing the poor man out
>of it argument it would
>be Net increase of tags
>in the draw that's all
>I care about.
>
>I also like limiting landowner tags
>to a % of private
>lands as suggested above.

No matter the reason, never, ever, allow tags to become transferable in WY! This's has been the largest down fall of COLORADO! If the tags can be transfferer

 

[marburg]

Happened in 87 deer, 2014 I believe

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-18-16 AT 11:45AM (MST)[p]>No matter the reason, never, ever,
>allow tags to become transferable
>in WY! This's has been
>the largest down fall of
>COLORADO! If the tags can
>be transferred.


Agree 100%. It sounds like that corporation deal being mentioned is a real can of worms and something that I didn't realize is able to be done. I know the Carter family in Ten Sleep got nailed a few years ago when they divided up some of their land into 160s to different family members to get more tags. That was legal, but then they started using them illegally to tag game their NR hunters shot. The big bull that was tagged with a cow tag really got things going and ended up in Federal indictments against the Father and one son for Lacey Act violations.

 

[PleaseDear]

I would like to see them add Moose tags to the LO draw.

Cow or Bull would be fine by me.

+1 it is the Warden that confirms with the issue of tags.

This is just another one of those Have Nothing crying about those that Have...

It is not 100% LO-tag--drawing---9 out of 10 years is more like less than 100%.

You 2 maybe 3 could invest in hunt~able guidelines ground and be part of the system and rejoice instead of crying as you have nothing to show for your life so far??

Robb

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

PleaseDear No ones crying except damn landowners!!! Lets see jm77 stated theres a hitch with LO only hunting there land that the critters are there only some of the time such as winter. So the Lo should only be able to hunt there own land not whole unit. Guess what not much success in harvest hey!!! They say the law was intended for LO to get reimbursed for property damage. My ass!!! I go to the high country to hunt and the damn mountains are full of cattle and sheep. What does the sportsman get for the damage livestock does to the public land. Notta but ##### on the boots!!! If a public land hunter wants to get to an area that's land locked by private tuff luck cause LO Cry trespassing!!! So lets even the field LO hunt only there land and feed there livestock only on there land. Damn, don't sound so good to be a landowner now does it!!

 

[jm77]

>PleaseDear No ones crying except damn
>landowners!!! Lets see jm77 stated
>theres a hitch with LO
>only hunting there land that
>the critters are there only
>some of the time such
>as winter. So the Lo
>should only be able to
>hunt there own land not
>whole unit. Guess what not
>much success in harvest hey!!!
>They say the law was
>intended for LO to get
>reimbursed for property damage. My
>ass!!! I go to
>the high country to hunt
>and the damn mountains are
>full of cattle and sheep.
>What does the sportsman get
>for the damage livestock does
>to the public land. Notta
>but ##### on the boots!!!
>If a public land hunter
>wants to get to an
>area that's land locked by
>private tuff luck cause LO
>Cry trespassing!!! So lets even
>the field LO hunt only
>there land and feed there
>livestock only on there land.
>Damn, don't sound so good
>to be a landowner now
>does it!!

Say that again; who's crying?

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

No crying here wyo has some of the best hunt option available for public land just don't make since landowners are all want and no give except a few as non typical said about anadarko and so forth. Kuddos to them !!!

 

[bigjake]

I agree that the landowner system could be abused and that for landowners to receive tags, they should maintain/improve their ground such that it benefits the overall health of the game herds they receive tags for. However, the attitude that all or most landowners are selfish, wealthy land baron's interested in depredation compensation, while at the same time gobbling up as many tags as they can, isn't a fair generalization. That's why locally game wardens, working with landowners to determine use days with methods like pellet counts and visual documentation, provides a fair system for tag allocation. If a guy has 160 acres and elk use the feed, water, and cover on his ground for 2000 days, he qualifies. While a guy who has 10,000 acres with only 100 elk use days, does not qualify.

Many landowners I know are regular old working stiffs who saved for many years to have enough money to buy a piece of ground to enjoy camping, hunting, fishing, and "getting away from it all" with their children.

I know several of the landowners along Currant Creek and Trout Creek do not allow livestock grazing, with specific design to provide better feed and water for deer and elk herds. So, would we rather have that, or would it be better to take away the tag incentive and risk those same landowners allowing cattle to graze their ground to dust in order to profit from grazing rights? In a country with so little water, a partnership with sportsmen and the owners of much of that water, seems like something we would be interested in strengthening rather than punishing. And in an area with so much public land, where the animals can be pressured for 60 straight days, that private land can serve as a valuable safe zone for the game herds. Many landowners, who are not wealthy land baron's spend tens of thousands of dollars improving their irrigation systems, seeding native grasses, spraying for weeds, and making fence repairs to keep cattle out.

But, as others have mentioned, (regardless of the original intent of the LO program) if a landowner isn't maintaing his ground or improving it to help the overall health of the herd, the local game warden has the ability to asses that specific LO situation. Like anything else, each property should be looked at on it's own merits, rather than imposed upon because of abuse by others, or mis-information circulating in the public.

 

[TOPGUN]

Excellent post bigjake and one that I'm pretty well in full agreement with!

 

[feduptwo]

>No matter the reason, never, ever,
>allow tags to become transferable
>in WY! This's has been
>the largest down fall of
>COLORADO! If the tags can
>be transferred

Lets just say Colorado ended transferrable licenses and went to Wyoming system. You would experience a 1500% increase in landowner tags. Instead of hunters buying the tags you'd get Son-in-laws and grandchildren getting them. At the end of the day you would soon realize like I have that it doesn't matter who ended up with the tag. Trust me it could be worse, much worse. Our system is much worse than Colorado's. We just don't have the private property & the private property distribution that Colorado has or we'd be in a much worse situation.
Like I said if sportsmen could negotiate a net decrease in LO tags with the option of them being transferrable it would be a win/win. The problem isn't who is hunting its the amount of tags & the eligibility requirements

 

[jm77]

>>No matter the reason, never, ever,
>>allow tags to become transferable
>>in WY! This's has been
>>the largest down fall of
>>COLORADO! If the tags can
>>be transferred
>
>Lets just say Colorado ended transferrable
>licenses and went to Wyoming
>system. You would experience a
>1500% increase in landowner tags.
> Instead of hunters buying
>the tags you'd get Son-in-laws
>and grandchildren getting them.
>At the end of the
>day you would soon realize
>like I have that it
>doesn't matter who ended up
>with the tag.
>Trust me it could be
>worse, much worse. Our
>system is much worse than
>Colorado's. We just don't have
>the private property & the
>private property distribution that Colorado
>has or we'd be in
>a much worse situation.
>Like I said if sportsmen could
>negotiate a net decrease in
>LO tags with the option
>of them being transferrable it
>would be a win/win.
>The problem isn't who is
>hunting its the amount of
>tags & the eligibility requirements
>
>

First, I can't agree more with the notion of NEVER having a transferable landowner tag! Wyoming sportsman have already spoke out on that one.

That said Eric, I don't think many landowners who now take two of a species tag would forfeit both to have one that is transferable. What would happen is that those who don't take any tags, or maybe just one tag, would now get one just to sell and transfer. And they would have to be able to sell it or most wouldn't do it anyway.

There is a possibility that the numbers of landowner tags would rise, instead of drop. Either way, I don't see much of a drop in LO tag numbers.

 

[nfh]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 01:37AM (MST)[p]I do wish they would give me a landowner tag for hawk/falcons tag..is it normal to see 7-9 hawks on 170 acres and winter time brings 2 bald eagles and a golden eagle seems to be in and out... I use to have lot of rabbits and now I dont see any.. the pheasants get hit hard but seem to hold their own very well.. but man oh man I just cant get over how many falcon/hawks there is.


but as a landowner we take management into our own hands. My dad and I always get extra doe tags to keep them into check. We only shoot bigger bucks if we dont draw our late season whitetail tag in another area.
We get a lot of muleys coming in from the badlands. The muleys discovered farm-land is better to eat then sage brush. But we dont shoot any muleys. Mostly cause whitetails get my blood flowing for where muleys I just dont have that passion or drive to hunt them.. I always have a few foxes. When I notice a few I begin trapping and calling. But I always keep a couple around. They help keep rodents down. I cant keep up on the racoons. After a ton of trapping and hunting them they just seem to keep coming out of no where. There is a darn beaver that destroys every small tree other than russian olives but that is another issue I just have to deal with. also if we feel we didnt harvest enough does we do let people come and harvest them in the hay feild.. also if i see a buck with bad gentics and if i have my other tag i always know someone happy to harvest that buck.




but where im going with this is if a guy could show someone like my own little program to a game warden and whoever else then maybe award a tag to that landowner such as late season tag to insure I have time to harvest that nice buck and let the little ones grow. And maybe do something about those darn hawks like transplant them somewhere else... but that is just me asking for something out of line... but dont take that late tag out of the public drawing pool just to award one guy and take it away from a normal guy that has to play the drawing game. but invesgate that land to see if they could add a few extra tags for this example. we have bucks that just stay on our place and its just impossible to harvest come general season and the fact they become noc-turnal....

Just trying to see this at a different angle. But in the end my feelers are not hurt... I hunt other places more.. sorry for the babbling but i wanted to set the stage.

but things do change. The landowners to the east and west never allowed hunting. Their land held the true monster bucks. But one landowner died and his kids sold it to a big family that shoots every deer they see. All done legally but when you have 6 boys shooting small bucks that hurts the herd Then the other landowner cuts down every russian olive tree that really pushed the bucks to us... then EHD really affected things... but considering these factors then I feel the landowner maybe shouldnt get that special landowner tag due to EHD wiping things out...
But what game warden has time to invesgate every little landowner wanting that tag just for their land so this system would be a pain.. but yet again since most our game wardens hate whitetails maybe they would like it.