Hmmm. How about 85/15 instead of 90/10?
"Once those two tag give-aways are done away with, just have a 90-10 split on NR and R tags for sheep, oryx, and ibex. For elk, deer, and antelope go with an 85-15 split for R and NR."
This is huge news for residents of NM. While I think the tag allocation to NR for antelope, elk and deer is way too greedy in NM, the allocation for bighorn, oryx and ibex was way too generous. With the Terk rule being overturned, those exotics and bighorn species are now subject to the same...
www.hunttalk.com
I agree with most everything you are stating Buzz in that post (which took 30 seconds to find on a google search SlightlySober), especially the transferable landowner tags, but it seems like you are somewhat complaining about the R/NR tag splits?
Scrolling down a bit further, I find kind of ironic, is another post from a Buzz guy there that says he fought for non-residents in Wyoming on the 90/10 split in 2014 and said it was not fair to the DIY Non-res to move the goalpost. Thoughts?
"I fought that bill in Wyoming and will continue to fight for NR's in Wyoming. These constant shifting of goal posts is not fair to anyone but a handful of Residents each year as a "best" case.
Its time for Resident hunters of each state to take off the blinders and think about the ramifications that their greed is having on long term applicants and their DIY NR counterparts. Its pretty tough for me to ask for support from NR's of Wyoming on important wildlife issues that happen here, then do nothing when their opportunities are being threatened via Resident greed.
I wont sell out DIY NR hunters to improve my odds as a Resident...wont do it."
Look, you can keep up with the out of context, "gotcha" BS from 2014 all you want.
The context of the NM discussion was the following:
New Mexico moved the goalpost AFTER the application deadline for sheep, ibex, and oryx. There was no question R's were getting a screw job with some years more than 50% of their sheep tags going to NR's. That needed to change, and did. I would have been fine with NM refunding all the application fee's they took from NR's, with interest, after they did the bait and switch. The 85/15 split on DEA in New Mexico I recommended would have increased significantly the number of tags for all species to R and NR hunters. This was under the assumption that NM would revamp their landowner and outfitter pools.
Considering the mess that NM still is, in regard to LO and Outfitter pools, I bailed on applying there. Tag fees are fine.
As to Wyoming, yes, I did oppose the bill in 2014, for a couple reasons. The main reason being there was not a way to compensate the Wyoming Game and Fish for lost revenue from 90/10. That needed to be written into the bill, and has been since. Secondly, in 2014, the interest in hunting in the West was about 25-30% less than now. Meaning, that NR draw odds across the West were much better then, than now. Same with Resident draw odds. However, in the last 7-8 years, draw odds for Residents of Wyoming that apply in other states has tanked...big-time. Meaning, that Wyoming Residents should be afforded better draw odds here. Also, the amount of Residents applying for tags in Wyoming has increased substantially as well for sheep, moose, goat, bison, elk, deer, pronghorn. Also, in the case of nearly all species across the board, the number of licenses issued has decreased as well...moose, sheep, deer, and even pronghorn.
As such, with increased Resident demand, fewer available tags, and decreased draw odds in other States, it only makes one thing, and that is sense for Residents to receive a higher allocation of LQ tags.
Things change, we don't live in a vacuum and I'm afforded the right to change my mind based on current conditions. Things have changed substantially since 2014...if only obviously.
