nonresident region general elk licenses

Can you post a link? I found notebooks but all I can see for November 2022 is the agenda which doesn't list any proposals?
 
Found it. It said I didn't have access but when I clicked on NR licenses it opened up and then I was able to open a preview of the powerpoint.

Interesting.
 
That link should work.

If I'm reading this correctly It's crazy. Looks like they are grouping together what used to be a high PP unit with what was a four point General unit. If you do that why wouldn't everyone that drew a region go hut the high PP area.

For an example it looks like they are grouping Area 60 that is general with 61 and 62 that are 14 point units.

Am I missing something.
 
Finally - The hunting pressure in some areas has gotten out of hand. Imo, this will really help. The only negative is some regions, specifically SE Wyoming, will get harder to draw.
 
WVHUNTER said:
That link should work.

If I'm reading this correctly It's crazy. Looks like they are grouping together what used to be a high PP unit with what was a four point General unit. If you do that why wouldn't everyone that drew a region go hut the high PP area.

For an example it looks like they are grouping Area 60 that is general with 61 and 62 that are 14 point units.

Am I missing something.
Click to expand...
The LQ areas will remain LQ. They are grouped similar to how the deer regions currently are. A general tag holder will not be able to hunt the LQ.
 
DaveD said:
The LQ areas will remain LQ. They are grouped similar to how the deer regions currently are. A general tag holder will not be able to hunt the LQ.
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I understand that. But what about Area 16,19 and 7. Will they be lumped together as a Region tag or will they stay just like they are now, separate LE units.
 
WVHUNTER said:
Okay, I think I understand that. But what about Area 16,19 and 7. Will they be lumped together as a Region tag or will they stay just like they are now, separate LE units.
Click to expand...
All LQ areas will remain LQ, not sure how else to say it? Areas like 16 and 7 will not be part of the general tag hunts. If you look at the map, everything shaded is a LQ area that will not be able to be hunted on the general tag, even though it happens to be in a general tag region. For instance in the Big Horn region, the general tag holder will only be able to hunt areas 36 and 37- just like it has been for many years. All other areas in the region will have to be applied for specifically.
 
mulecreek said:
Spoke with Brimeyer a few minutes ago and he is going to update the slide package for the presentation to include the current number of NR Gen hunters in each region for comparison.
Click to expand...
That would be something I'd like to see but I'm not sure how they know how many nr are hunting what areas since surveys are not mandatory
 
Bookhead said:
That would be something I'd like to see but I'm not sure how they know how many nr are hunting what areas since surveys are not mandatory
Click to expand...
He knows it wont be an exact number, but it should be directionally correct. I believe he is going to show 4-5 year averages and the mins and max for each of those years. He said the bulk of the proposed increases are going to show in the Eastern, Iron Mountain, Jackson and Pinedale Regions. I did a bit of work myself trying to sort out historical numbers from Harvest Reports. The numbers I come up with are most certainly not correct but they do point to a similar direction of what regions show proposed increases. He is getting his data from Tetra Tech as they compile the survey information.

From my experience with him, he does have a genuine concern for the resident hunters concerns and experience. I think resident opinions on this proposal are going to add value. Its a proposal, we need to tell him what we think of it.
 
mulecreek said:
He knows it wont be an exact number, but it should be directionally correct. I believe he is going to show 4-5 year averages and the mins and max for each of those years. He said the bulk of the proposed increases are going to show in the Eastern, Iron Mountain, Jackson and Pinedale Regions. I did a bit of work myself trying to sort out historical numbers from Harvest Reports. The numbers I come up with are most certainly not correct but they do point to a similar direction of what regions show proposed increases. He is getting his data from Tetra Tech as they compile the survey information.

From my experience with him, he does have a genuine concern for the resident hunters concerns and experience. I think resident opinions on this proposal are going to add value. Its a proposal, we need to tell him what we think of it.
Click to expand...
Understood. Should be interesting info and fairly accurate i would assume
 
mulecreek said:
Hunter survey information is the best available information.
Click to expand...
And that is a complete guess imo. Between myself, my son, and 4 friends we have had 11 general tags in the last 8 years. We have received exactly 1 survey. I have written letters, made calls, and spoken in person to complain. Their method of tracking anything is ridiculous for general areas.
 
Attached is the draft proposal with the 3 year averages of NR and res Gen elk hunters. If hunters reported hunting multiple units on their surveys they only used the one they hunted first for the number of hunters per region. The link for public comments will be up on the G&F website later this week.

Slide1.JPG
Slide2.JPG
Slide3.JPG
Slide4.JPG
Slide5.JPG
Slide6.JPG
Slide7.JPG
Slide8.JPG
Slide9.JPG
Slide10.JPG
 
My thoughts, out of 13 regions, only 11 have Gen units in them. Of those 11, 8 would have increases in NR hunters from the 3 year average, 2 would stay the same and 1 would be lower. My comments to the Commission were that they should not show any increases over the 3 year average particularly in the first year of this change. With the possible exception of the Eastern and IM regions that have so much private land that the vast majority of res hunters are not hunting in the first place. The regions that are dominated by public land should not see 1 license increased over the 3 year average, and that in fact this was sold to the TF as a way to reduce pressure on some regions that res hunters complain about over crowding ( i.e Sierra Madre, Snowy Range, Pinedale) and that this proposal did not reflect any of that but was actually the opposite.

All other folks that commented were Outfitters. They only stated that they thought moving to regions was a good idea. After the meeting a few of the Outfitters caught me and said that they agreed there should not be increases in NR gen licenses and that they would push back on that as well. They said they like quiet hunting as much as the DIY guy does. These were all Western Wyoming outfitters. We were all in agreement that a couple of the regions should be modified some due to Wilderness boundaries and the restrictions on NR hunters in Wilderness. ( mainly Pinedale and Jackson.

As usual Mr. Brimeyer was a class act and very helpful with information and answering questions.
 
mulecreek said:
My thoughts, out of 13 regions, only 11 have Gen units in them. Of those 11, 8 would have increases in NR hunters from the 3 year average, 2 would stay the same and 1 would be lower. My comments to the Commission were that they should not show any increases over the 3 year average particularly in the first year of this change. With the possible exception of the Eastern and IM regions that have so much private land that the vast majority of res hunters are not hunting in the first place. The regions that are dominated by public land should not see 1 license increased over the 3 year average, and that in fact this was sold to the TF as a way to reduce pressure on some regions that res hunters complain about over crowding ( i.e Sierra Madre, Snowy Range, Pinedale) and that this proposal did not reflect any of that but was actually the opposite.

All other folks that commented were Outfitters. They only stated that they thought moving to regions was a good idea. After the meeting a few of the Outfitters caught me and said that they agreed there should not be increases in NR gen licenses and that they would push back on that as well. They said they like quiet hunting as much as the DIY guy does. These were all Western Wyoming outfitters. We were all in agreement that a couple of the regions should be modified some due to Wilderness boundaries and the restrictions on NR hunters in Wilderness. ( mainly Pinedale and Jackson.

As usual Mr. Brimeyer was a class act and very helpful with information and answering questions.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you posting the info. I agree with your stance regarding increasing tags. I don't believe their numbers from past years are correct though. How can they possibly be if they don't survey everyone? Even if they did, many hunters hunt multiple regions. I have with my last 3 general tags. I just don't see their past data being very helpful. I think they are going to have to test it for a few years to really know the impact on pressure.
 
DaveD said:
I appreciate you posting the info. I agree with your stance regarding increasing tags. I don't believe their numbers from past years are correct though. How can they possibly be if they don't survey everyone? Even if they did, many hunters hunt multiple regions. I have with my last 3 general tags. I just don't see their past data being very helpful. I think they are going to have to test it for a few years to really know the impact on pressure.
Click to expand...
It's true it isn't 100% accurate but they know for sure that many people did in fact hunt those areas but probably more did that they didn't survey
 
DaveD said:
I appreciate you posting the info. I agree with your stance regarding increasing tags. I don't believe their numbers from past years are correct though. How can they possibly be if they don't survey everyone? Even if they did, many hunters hunt multiple regions. I have with my last 3 general tags. I just don't see their past data being very helpful. I think they are going to have to test it for a few years to really know the impact on pressure.
Click to expand...
I see it being helpful enough. You don't need to survey 100% of hunters to be able to interpolate a most likely outcome. That is what they do with the surveys. Yes it is not 100% accurate. But it doesn't need to be. Also, its the best available information they have so might as well use it.
 
Very helpful share of info. Thank you.

So if it's suggested that NR LQ licenses will be reduced YoY due to a lower NR split %, and NR general tag #'s are recommended to be roughly what they have been in years past (4,300-ish), then overall NR elk tags issued will be less vs previous years.

Is that correct logic?
 
copple2 said:
Very helpful share of info. Thank you.

So if it's suggested that NR LQ licenses will be reduced YoY due to a lower NR split %, and NR general tag #'s are recommended to be roughly what they have been in years past (4,300-ish), then overall NR elk tags issued will be less vs previous years.

Is that correct logic?
Click to expand...
It’s possible it could go that way. Could also result in higher NR Gen tags to offset the reduction in total tags. The logic there being that if NR LQ tags go down, then Res LQ tags go up and most of that increase would result in a corresponding decrease in res Gen pressure allowing for increased NR Gen tags. Hard to say how it would end up but I would assume the total would not go down.

This is part of the beauty of the current 7250 quota. That is already factored in. If NR LQ tags decreased, NR Gen tags would increase by the exact same amount.
 
mulecreek said:
It’s possible it could go that way. Could also result in higher NR Gen tags to offset the reduction in total tags. The logic there being that if NR LQ tags go down, then Res LQ tags go up and most of that increase would result in a corresponding decrease in res Gen pressure allowing for increased NR Gen tags. Hard to say how it would end up but I would assume the total would not go down.

This is part of the beauty of the current 7250 quota. That is already factored in. If NR LQ tags decreased, NR Gen tags would increase by the exact same amount.
Click to expand...
I can see that logic for sure. I was thrown off by the comment that the cap would be eliminated. But the numbers above weren't showing much of an increase to the current Gen tag levels.

I guess we'll learn in time.
 
SS! said:
Yep. I’m seriously thinking of moving back to WY in a couple years if some of these changes go through. Love it there too much!
Click to expand...
Why wait 2 years, how about now? I am looking for 2 electricians
 
So I don’t see how regional tags will really
Accomplish much? The idea is crowding but when you look at the data there is like 1 area that has more than 20% of the hunters as NR. The rest seem pretty reasonable and 20% or less are NR. Am I missing something? Even if you moved all them to 80/20 types
Of numbers you are really only talking about 6% or less change… I am afraid that this will actually increase pressure in areas more than it will make any notable decrease in pressure.

I would much rather keep status quo and let hunters selected areas that change the entire thing based on a 6% improvement…
 
SS! said:
Nothing wrong with rocktucky. What other place can you get a mix drink in the drive thru, some meth in the parking lot and taco time all within a mile of each other?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are probably several places across Wyoming (and many other states) where that combination is readily available.

ClearCreek
 
Wish I could have attended that meeting.

Was the question asked how setting the quota's in the regions was any less arbitrary than the 7250 cap?

If all they're doing is setting the quota's based on the number of tags the last 3-5 years under the 7250 cap, isn't that just as arbitrary?

What I was hearing from the task force is that they wanted to be able to control tags in the regions for hunter satisfaction and also for biological needs.

Not sure I'm seeing the science being used here. Pete Dube made the comment at the task force that it only makes sense to regionalize tags if we use science and hunter satisfaction to set the quota's. I agree with that. If its just the same old thing, why move away from 7250?
 
BuzzH said:
Wish I could have attended that meeting.

Was the question asked how setting the quota's in the regions was any less arbitrary than the 7250 cap?

If all they're doing is setting the quota's based on the number of tags the last 3-5 years under the 7250 cap, isn't that just as arbitrary?

What I was hearing from the task force is that they wanted to be able to control tags in the regions for hunter satisfaction and also for biological needs.

Not sure I'm seeing the science being used here. Pete Dube made the comment at the task force that it only makes sense to regionalize tags if we use science and hunter satisfaction to set the quota's. I agree with that. If its just the same old thing, why move away from 7250?
Click to expand...
You already know the answer to these questions. There is no science to justify killing more bulls in Gen units. There are no Gen units that currently have too high of a bull to cow ratio. Period. This was already debated and stated to the TF multiple times. It fell on deaf ears. You know first hand that no one on the TF gave two sh!ts about science. Dube didn’t when on the TF and sure doesn’t when he’s on the commission.

At this meeting only one question was asked of Brimeyer by a commission member and that was to verify that this plan took no tags away from residents. They ask no questions of me or any one else at the meeting. I stated my opinion that changing was completely not needed but since it appeared no one wanted to have that debate I then told them increases from past history were unwarranted. They were not there to debate the merits of changing from current but to hear a draft proposal if they did change.
 
BuzzH said:
First time an outfitter doesn't have their clients draw enough general tags, they'll be at the commission asking for a NR tag increase.
Click to expand...
With out a doubt... SO that I know, what is the future for this process? Is this going to be back to the TF or is this going to be a commission issue moving forward?

I have seen it time and time again in different states under different circumstances. Making something more limited or restrictive does not mean there will be any better quality or a decrease in pressure.

Like you mentioned, just because they regionalize tags does not mean there will be significantly less tags in any region. I believe there have been hunts in WY that went from general to limited and the number of limited tags were actually higher than the average number of hunters who hunted the area under the general... I don't know that to be fact but I believe someone had pointed this before...

If anything they go to regional tags and the end result is all regional areas end up with an increase in NR tags over time...

The data shared above shows that the crowding and hunter satisfaction is based mostly on resident pressure, in most cases the NR elk hunters were under 20% meaning that a person would see 4 resident hunters in the field for every NR... Not sure changing the system would make any meaningful impact on the satisfaction or hunt quality...

But it would definitely open the door for outfitters to push through more licenses...

Right now an increase in the NR quota would get backlash from all residents statewide. When they decide to increase the license quota in the Snowy range, only the hunters that hunt the range are likely to speak up...
 
Maybe senator Hicks needs to introduce a bill that would cap the number or nonresident general elk licenses to be like 4000 or lets say 3500.
 

Similar threads

M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
855
nfh
nfh
M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
804
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Wyoming Buck
Utah Monster Muley
06B0E348-C55B-48FB-99E8-EC928D6CAEB2.jpeg
My '23 Muley Pack Out.jpg
1679521383984.png
IMG_4394.png
High Country Stud
IMG_20200918_130454_511.jpg
318A25F6-461F-46CF-A86A-A9F626FC3B37.jpeg
511D7FA8-DF0E-48D4-94E7-6501767C249C.jpeg
1608161770248.jpeg
2E22A9C9-A2A5-4F26-B790-01A2008C06B3.jpeg

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