sf155 Senate Committee

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-13 AT 08:14PM (MST)[p]My email in opposition has been sent! Thanks for keep us updated BuzzH.

By definition this bill would include big horn sheep, mountain goat, elk, deer, antelope, grizzly, mountain lion, and black bear.
 
Thanks guys, much appreciated, whether you oppose or support these bills, we have to let our thoughts be known.
 
According to a post on Bowsite, the bill passed committee with an amendment dropping the 10%, leaving that to department discretion, and will be heard on the senate floor next week. BOW is submitting an amendment to have this apply to Elk, deer and antelope only.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-13 AT 12:16PM (MST)[p]If they dropped the 10% to leave it up to the G&F or "anyone's " discretion as far as that goes, then it should not even have a chance of passing! A Bill should specify EXACTLY what EVERY change SHALL be or it should never get to the floor for a vote.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-13
>AT 12:16?PM (MST)
>
>If they dropped the 10% to
>leave it up to the
>G&F or "anyone's " discretion
>as far as that goes,
>then it should not even
>have a chance of passing!
> A Bill should specify
>EXACTLY what EVERY change SHALL
>be or it should never
>get to the floor for
>a vote.

Very valid concern. Maybe a an area manager really likes bow hunters or gets a little side income from some bow hunters. Then all of the sudden his unit has 30% allocation... This does not seem like a good idea. I do not like the idea that the Depart/State has to cater to special interest groups. You do not see rifle hunters wanting the archery hunters to give up 10% of the type 9 tags? As an archery hunter I do not understand the reasoning at all.... WY is probably the very best archery state there is...
 
Just got back from the Senate Committee hearing, this bill passed out of the Senate committee on a 3-2 vote. Senators Burns and Barnard voted against it, Craft, Driskill, and Christensen in favor.

Please drop a quick note to Senator Burns and Barnard thanking them for seeing the downside to this bill.

Of course Bow Hunters of Wyoming along with their President testified in favor of it. Cheyenne Field Archers were also in favor, one other bowhunter testified for it.

Wyoming Sportsmen for Wildlife was opposed, Wyoming Outfitters and Guides recommended it be pushed back and discussed, and of course I testified against it as well.

It was quite entertaining watching the bill Sponsor introduce this bill to committee...clueless, nervous, and a joke.

Also, this bill was amended from 10% of the quota being reserved strictly for archery, to "a portion of tags reserved for archery only"

So, that means groups like Bow Hunters of Wyoming will be asking for MORE than 10% in many of the top units as well as more than 10% of moose and sheep tags (at least they potentially could as there is no defined "cap" with the amendment).

One of the selling points that Senator Hicks used, was something to the effect of "it will clear some of preference point back-log that many complain about for sheep and moose if we can issue more sheep and moose tags to archery hunters."

Thats funny considering he's the one sponsoring SF0085, the Resident Preference point bill for resident antelope, sheep, and elk. I guess on the one hand the Preference Point system is broken for moose/sheep, but its a great idea for deer, elk, and antelope. I doubt he'll respond to the email he's about to get where I ask him that question.

Oh, and the most impressive thing introduced by Hicks was his "graphs". Its a good thing I dont sit on that committee...I would have stood up and done an ass-wiping motion with these and threw them on the ground.

Hard to believe with all the stammering, stuttering, and supporting "data" that this one even passed the Senate Committee.

I'll let the data speak for itself...

IMG_2.jpg


IMG_0001.jpg
 
That's one helluva hi-tech powerpoint presentation!
With that kind of glitz and fluff it's easy to see how some of the sheeples fell for it! LMAO

It sounds like he admitted there's a logjam but yet he wants you residents to "enjoy" it too?????????? CLASSIC right there!

I know most will cheer but I'm going to cash in my points as quickly as I can and then Wyo can do without me and mine. It's been a good run!

God help us all.

Zeke

PS: with all the emailing that I've done, I've only received 1 response which said "we're too busy to respond.... blah blah blah.
 
Lol Zeke. That was a heck of a PowerPoint presentation.

Wyoming is bow hunter friendly and I hope it stays that way. I like the type 1 tags and I don't go back with a gun when I draw.
 
Zeke same boat for me with the one return auto email. I know being a NR means they don't answer to us.

DZ
 
Guys,

Keep sending those emails, many of the committee members have said they are "getting flooded with emails," from upset hunters...

It makes a difference, more than you think.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-13 AT 11:00PM (MST)[p] The diagram posted above makes sense to me. More tags with the same harvest due to lower success rates achieved with archery equipment.
Net gain in permits issued which is one of two ways to improve odds. At the game and fish meeting we went to in RS there was substantial support from the audience for some archery only permits.
This also spreads out pressure for some of the more popular LE units that issue large numbers of permits.
Opportunity for quality hunting opportunity is at a premium. I don't see a downside to issuing more tags with the same number of animals being harvested, essentially the same demand on resource.
The only part of this that is a bad idea to me is that we can already accomplish this with type 9 permits. I don't know that we need legislation to mandate it. If you mandate that 10% of permits be archery you can't raise the overall permit number without raising rifle tags also?

I created a spread sheet based on HA 102 with the current amount of tags issued. Potentially were talking about a net increase of 42 archery permits without increasing overall harvest of animals harvested in the unit. I have this spread sheet if anyone wants to see the math.

I'm saying oppose it as legislation but support it in the season setting meetings.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-01-13 AT 01:14AM (MST)[p]
I see nothing in the Bill that says they will add a single type 9 tag. They already make type 9 tags available.
Nothing in the Bill that says they will add more type 9 tags to maintain a units previous harvest level.
Nothing in the Bill that says they will add type 9 tags to 1 unit or 100.
Unfortunately, the final product is all assumption. Just a vague Bill dumped on the doorstep of the Dept and they'll be left to sort everything out.

As a NR, I have no problem moving tags from type 1 to type 9, it's a WY issue. But, I think you need to address the decrease in type 1 odds as a result. You also need to address the multitude of concerns that were brought up within minutes of this ridiculously vague legislation being proposed. And then they dropped the only concrete part of the Bill, the 10%.
 
FedUp - please email me your spreadsheet. I'd love to plug some other units into it. [email protected]

I met with Senator Hicks on Sunday night to discuss SF155 and SF085 (the Resident PP bill). We had more direct questions/comments than he had obviously considered. His basic reply was that we needed these bills and then WGFD could write some rules to clear up the concerns being raised. (yup, straight out of the horses......er, mouth)

I won't bore you with all the details of our conversation (1.5 hours) but I'll let you know what else is churning in his mind:

He ALSO asked about setting aside a portion of tags for YOUTH only. As a father of 4, my kids would be killing some big crap but I told him we didn't need tags set aside for youth because the Pioneer tag holders would then hold out their hand, then the Muzzy guys, then Native-Born Wyomingites, then...................
Where does it stop?

He also asked about letting kids buy a PP before they can hunt so they'll have some points when they apply the first year. My kids that are under 12 will have MAX when they turn 12, not sure about some of these kids that don't have Obsessive parents that hunt???

He thought that SF155 would help clear up some of the logjam in the moose/sheep PP game by allowing more tags with not much more harvest. I told him that I am a little late in the points game because I was a student at UWYO when they came out and I never applied because I couldn't take a week or 2 off of school to go (yes my logic was flawed at the time!!). I am a serious archer and will now be able to leapfrog over lots of folks with more points than me because I want to bowhunt my moose and my sheep! How fair is that to change the game 18 years into it? This will be the 3rd or 4th change.

I could go on and on, but I don't want to give myself another headache. My opinion is that not much thought have gone into any of these bills. I live in Carbon County and have been checking with sportsmen from Baggs, Hanna, Rawlins, Encampment and Saratoga. He has never consulted his constituents. I asked him to pull his bills, set up some meetings (I promised him I would fill the venue) and have some serious conversations about what ALL sportsmen want. He basically said it was now out of his hands and we would have to kill it in the House.

I would rather bowhunt than breathe but I believe this bill will cause a division between Wyo sportsmen. We have the BEST Resident hunting in the US. It allows opportunity for all. Why change it? Why allow it to be legislated? This is the scariest and slipperiest (is that a word? ) slope we could imagine being on. I look at what happens when sportsmen are unwilling to fight and the legislature starts passing bills. Look at Conservation and landowner tags in Utah. Look at Landowner tags in Colorado and New Mexico. Look at .......... The Public land DIY hunter IS THE MAJORITY. I refuse to take it in the shorts, even if it will benefit me over someone else. We all deserve the same opportunity.

-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com
 
Why the heck any state would allow the Legislature to create Game laws is beyond me but that's how some states work and you guys are stuck with it. We get ticked off at our Commission now and then but at least we don't (rarely) have to deal with the Legislature.
 
Trouble with the numbers on the graph is there is more wound and lost in archery than in rifle. How many archers have you heard return from a trip and say they "stuck one" but couldnt find it. Happens with rifle also but I dont believe as frequently
 
I'm a bowhunter so I won't bag on them too much but I think you're right Mr Stang. There will be a few lost. It's just too bad but it happens. This needs to be factored into the "graph" also.

Zeke
 
It passed the 1st reading in the Senate (Comm of whole) this afternoon. They did drop the 10% & will leave the percentage up to the G&F Commission. So, honestly, I don't see where this bill does anything if all if decisions are up to discretion of G&F on how many tags will be issued & how they are distributed.

The Senate discussion was on-line.

The gist of the argument for the bill was to increase hunter participation by increasing the # of archers, which by its nature has less odds of harvesting. At least that's what it sounded like to me. There is also an archives of all the legislative discussions, so you can go back & listen to it. (if you're really bored.)
 
It probably doesn't really matter much at this stage, but those napkin-scratchings posted above seem WAY off on archery success rates. Sheep at 10% seems much too low, and elk at 25% is probably much too high. No doubt it would vary drastically by unit. But in places like Colorado where they already have such tags, success runs right at 35% for archery sheep, and averages 12% for elk. But surely those in charge would look into actual facts before any tag allocations were determined.
 
>It probably doesn't really matter much
>at this stage, but those
>napkin-scratchings posted above seem WAY
>off on archery success rates.
>Sheep at 10% seems much
>too low, and elk at
>25% is probably much too
>high. No doubt it would
>vary drastically by unit. But
>in places like Colorado where
>they already have such tags,
>success runs right at 35%
>for archery sheep, and averages
>12% for elk. But surely
>those in charge would look
>into actual facts before any
>tag allocations were determined.

Bingo Sticksender! I didn't look closely enough at the success numbers but I think you're spot-on.
Zeke
 
At least make it for traditional archery. That would burn off some training wheels.
 
As far as actual success rates. The state would have to start with conservative extra archery permits, and see how success rates trend. One could also put a small offset for lost animals.

At the end of the day the 10% quota for archery, and then issuing more tags type 9's to end up with the same or slightly less harvest increases draw odds and hunter opportunity.

I used the success rates, and permit numbers for HA 102. There were 400 total tags last yr in 102
If you figured 80% success with a rifle, and a 25% success rate for archery equipment you could add 86 archery permits and achieve the same harvest. This would be a net gain of 21% in total permit numbers, without increasing harvest.

I'm opposed any division for general season permits and I don't think the legislators need to be involved as the G&F can already do this.
 
I guess i'm a little confused... if Hick's numbers are close to correct wouldn't the chance of drawing a type 1 increase? For the Laramie Peak data given, you give up 83 licenses but if the type 9 takes 300-400 hunters out of the type 1 pool wouldn't odds go up? Maybe I'm missing something?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-03-13 AT 12:57PM (MST)[p]Hicks is assuming the dept will increase the type 9 tags to a level where the combined type 1 and 9 harvest will stay at the current levels. He's also assuming those type 9 apps will not apply type 1 and buy a special license, but will drop out of the type 1 pool and only apply type 9.
Unfortunately for the side wanting those changes, nothing in the legislation compels the dept to make necessary changes to the draw to see that those things happen. If the special archery license would go away so the type 9 was the only archery opportunity I think his scenario might work and pull enough archery guys out of type 1 to actually better the type 1 odds.
Question is, would the residents want to give up their crossover tags?
 
I'm kind of curious why Wyoming is about the only state anywhere that does these combined seasons. Is there even one other state that has no widespread weapon specific hunts? Split seasons seem to work just fine everywhere else. More opportunity, more money to F&G. It makes me wonder how many serious rifle hunters just pick up a bow so they can hunt peak rut. I'm not wild about that.

This 10% thing sounds kind of a hokey way to manage though. More legislative driven than conservation management.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & the SFW Hate Club
 
We used to have crossover seasons, similar but different to the WY system. We dropped that in exchange for statewide archery seasons, LE and general.

The downside to separating archery from rifle, is a decrease in archery opportunity over time. At least in Oregon. It doesn't take long for the Game dept to start listening to the masses bombarding them with calls about long archery seasons hunting vulnerable rutting bulls with high tech gear. And, to a point, they're right. When the rifle guys could cross over the calls didn't come in.
 
Montana...6 weeks of archery, 5 weeks of rifle, on the same general deer and elk tags.

Wyoming Archery hunters are doing this to only increase their draw odds in the best elk, deer, antelope, moose, goat, and sheep areas...no other reason.

Its not about revenue, its not about increasing opportunty.

They're just flat getting greedy...and they'll pay a price for this run at tags.
 
>...and they'll
>pay a price for this
>run at tags.

How so? Are there plans in the making for punitive actions against archery hunters? I'm all for the status quo (keeping type 1 tags/dual season tags) but not if it involves some sort of attempt to limit the current archery seasons... that I can't support...
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Some Width
6632D7B1-81E2-4617-8632-D26E325D8A00.jpeg
B8B9C809-4A8C-4510-8E90-C398EDAEA02B.jpeg
IMG_9619.jpeg
Screenshot_20200718-224429_Video Player.jpg
Screenshot_20210905-193519_Facebook.jpg
D3F122A0-9374-4A85-91CA-06C2AF530D2C.jpeg
IMG_0858.jpeg
Screenshot_20210823-141250_Gallery.jpg
IMG_5111 copy.jpg
74AD77AF-9538-4D98-BBB6-3252114B8BC3.png
A3012A43-E2C0-40CE-92B6-E55098A498F7.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