Too Many Elk

BenHuntn

BenHuntn

Active Member
Messages
585
Game and Fish implimented their plan 2 months ago. They are giving landowners where elk numbers are 3 times the objective level extra Cow/Calf tags. The landowner will pick who he gives the tags to. This will go on for the next 5 years. This info came from a Biologist in Laramie. He used unit 6 as his example

wyofile.com

Elk wars: Inflated herds spur committee duel, radical proposals - WyoFile

Two elk-related bills are poised to emerge from the Agriculture Committee, where lawmakers took on an unassigned topic because of dissatisfaction with another committee’s response.
wyofile.com wyofile.com
 
Do you have a link to the aritcle/plan? Interested in how many extra tags? Enough to make a difference? Hopefully it won't just turn into a high-priced bidding war like LO bull tags have.

Lots of discussion on this a few months ago.

Interesting WY Elk Herd Article | Wyoming

I bet a few extra NR tags could help solve this problem! :LOL: :LOL: I guess it's better to have this problem than the problem of diminishing herds. https://oilcity.news/community/wyoming-community-2/2023/06/21/elk-wars-inflated-herds-spur-committee-duel-radical-proposals/
www.monstermuleys.info www.monstermuleys.info
 
The tags are called auxiliary licenses and I had a sit down at my district office to get more info. I was told of almost 1000 of these tags that have been allocated in the eastern part of Wyoming and area 7 elk. Landowners are being allowed to charge for them and it's up to them who gets the tags. The Wy G&F gets a license fee for each permit. There are pretty much no rules. They are only allowing 5 per hunter at this time and cow permits only.

So yes, Wyoming now has transferable landowner permits. @BuzzH
 
Bookhead said:
Hmm reminds me of when they gave out doe mule deer tags like candy too. Just wait it'll bite
us in the a$$
Click to expand...
At this time there are not enough in any particular area to make a difference. For instance Wagonhound got 100, which won't make any difference with the elk on them. And yes, Dax got his five.
 
jm77 said:
The tags are called auxiliary licenses and I had a sit down at my district office to get more info. I was told of almost 1000 of these tags that have been allocated in the eastern part of Wyoming and area 7 elk. Landowners are being allowed to charge for them and it's up to them who gets the tags. The Wy G&F gets a license fee for each permit. There are pretty much no rules. They are only allowing 5 per hunter at this time and cow permits only.

So yes, Wyoming now has transferable landowner permits. @BuzzH
Click to expand...
Let's hope it stops with cows, but next step will be bulls.
 
So, GF gives the landowners a monopoly on elk (cow) tags...animals that belong to the citizens of Wyoming? Is this a Nesvik brainfart? Thanks to JM and Buzz for being our watchdogs, you guys do not get enough credit
 
P.T. Jeffers said:
So, GF gives the landowners a monopoly on elk (cow) tags...animals that belong to the citizens of Wyoming? Is this a Nesvik brainfart? Thanks to JM and Buzz for being our watchdogs, you guys do not get enough credit
Click to expand...
From what I hear, both Nesvik and King are advising/telling district managers to give landowners anything they want.

The public and our wildlife are losing big right now, and it's going to get worse.

The local managers are not in favor of what's going on.

Wyoming now officially has transferrable landowner tags.

The upper management of the GF thinks the north American model is a punchline, if they have ever even heard of it.
 
I've been following this somewhat. As a NR, I would love the opportunity to hunt cow elk in an area that needs the herd reduced, without all the OTC hunters like found in CO. Maybe LO cow tags won't be too expensive, but as said above, this likely leads to bull tags, when then leads to lots of money in a LO's pocket for a dead bull that really doesn't affect population or change how much damage is done.

No solution will please everyone, but what to the local managers think the solution is?

Yes, thanks to JM and Buzz for their inside info, just don't get the big head guys! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Joe2Kool said:
I've been following this somewhat. As a NR, I would love the opportunity to hunt cow elk in an area that needs the herd reduced, without all the OTC hunters like found in CO. Maybe LO cow tags won't be too expensive, but as said above, this likely leads to bull tags, when then leads to lots of money in a LO's pocket for a dead bull that really doesn't affect population or change how much damage is done.

No solution will please everyone, but what to the local managers think the solution is?

Yes, thanks to JM and Buzz for their inside info, just don't get the big head guys! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Wyoming landowner vouchers are free. No money changes hands.
 
As I've been trying to say all along, the Wyo landowner tag process needs updated.

Some may not be aware that Wyo landowner tags are taken off the top of the pile of limited tags prior to the public draw. All landowners (both res and nonres) that qualify are issued tags. Currently I don't even believe there is a cap on limited landowner tags. In reality, there could be 0 tags issued in the public draw if landowners that qualify pick up every tag. Unit 111 for nonres elk is a prime example of 0 bull tags issued in the public nonres random pools.

The WG&F doesn't advertise in the draw stats how many landowner tags are issued in every unit. If Wyo res were aware of how many of these tags are issued they may not be pleased.

It's pretty wild hearing that additional tags (or vouchers) mentioned above are issued to landowners without a drawing or possibly any regulation? These sound like additional tags over and above the landowner tags that already exist. Who exactly is in control of the number and management of these tags and hunters? It sounds like the WG&F hands are somewhat tied?

Hopefully Wyo residents wake up and offer a strong voice in landowner tag processes. Colo is a prime example of landowner tags gone bad. The Colo landowner tag system has a % of tags taken directly away from the public draw and going directly into the hands of landowners and/or highest bidders. Colorado hunters had virtually no say in these changes to the system...bummer!

It's pretty evident from countless Task Force Meetings the wheelings and dealings of outfitters in Wyoming. This shows the importance of public hunters (both res and nonres) joining forces to stay on top of these issues.
 
I was in a big brass meeting last month here in Maryland regarding deer crop damage, potential public access, and the basic reduction of WT deer in known "hot spots". The Sec of Ag, Assist Sec of DNR, biologist, stakeholders, farmers, and a few hunters from the sportsman group were in attendance. We were all crammed in a board room for 2+ hours. We came to the consensus that in real problem spots, public hunters are incapable of handling overpopulated deer issues with conventional tactics. Deer, and I'm sure elk in WY, just plainly don't like bullets flying at them. Shoot a few?...sure....but shoot the 100+++ that are needed, that really takes nighttime tactics, sharpshooters, etc. I think there could be a real cohesive plan that would resemble something like a 1750's native american elk drive....to a cliff, or through a canyon, or a pinch point, where 50++ hunters attended a detailed pre-hunt tactics meeting, positioned safely and perfectly, waiting on a well planned drive, and they could literally go buck wild with semi-auto's and whack and stack a couple hundred elk....even with 50 cals semi's. Unfortunately, the public hunters would probably have a fatality even with all of the pre-planning and strategy sessions. Secondly, most hunters just wouldn't be interested in this kind of carnage and bloodshed. Lastly, to find a "team" of public hunters to "whack and stack" is almost a military mission. It can be done, but I can guarantee one thing....these ranchers, like our farmers here in Maryland, know how to complain with the best of them, but DO NOT want "the hunting public" on their land....so these rich men keep on complaining, and allow very little free access to their land.
 
jims said:
As I've been trying to say all along, the Wyo landowner tag process needs updated.

Some may not be aware that Wyo landowner tags are taken off the top of the pile of limited tags prior to the public draw. All landowners (both res and nonres) that qualify are issued tags. Currently I don't even believe there is a cap on limited landowner tags. In reality, there could be 0 tags issued in the public draw if landowners that qualify pick up every tag. Unit 111 for nonres elk is a prime example of 0 bull tags issued in the public nonres random pools.

The WG&F doesn't advertise in the draw stats how many landowner tags are issued in every unit. If Wyo res were aware of how many of these tags are issued they may not be pleased.

It's pretty wild hearing that additional tags (or vouchers) mentioned above are issued to landowners without a drawing or possibly any regulation? These sound like additional tags over and above the landowner tags that already exist. Who exactly is in control of the number and management of these tags and hunters? It sounds like the WG&F hands are somewhat tied?

Hopefully Wyo residents wake up and offer a strong voice in landowner tag processes. Colo is a prime example of landowner tags gone bad. The Colo landowner tag system has a % of tags taken directly away from the public draw and going directly into the hands of landowners and/or highest bidders. Colorado hunters had virtually no say in these changes to the system...bummer!

It's pretty evident from countless Task Force Meetings the wheelings and dealings of outfitters in Wyoming. This shows the importance of public hunters (both res and nonres) joining forces to stay on top of these issues.
Click to expand...

The landowner tags are regulated and needs to be left alone.


The tags in question are NOT the landowner tags you're talking about. The tags in question are for auxiliary hunts, check chapter 34 for the regs on those. There's those regulations and and also some internal rules the Department has.

They updated the auxiliary regs not long ago and many of us saw this coming.
 
Last edited:
jims said:
As I've been trying to say all along, the Wyo landowner tag process needs updated.

Some may not be aware that Wyo landowner tags are taken off the top of the pile of limited tags prior to the public draw. All landowners (both res and nonres) that qualify are issued tags. Currently I don't even believe there is a cap on limited landowner tags. In reality, there could be 0 tags issued in the public draw if landowners that qualify pick up every tag. Unit 111 for nonres elk is a prime example of 0 bull tags issued in the public nonres random pools.

The WG&F doesn't advertise in the draw stats how many landowner tags are issued in every unit. If Wyo res were aware of how many of these tags are issued they may not be pleased.

It's pretty wild hearing that additional tags (or vouchers) mentioned above are issued to landowners without a drawing or possibly any regulation? These sound like additional tags over and above the landowner tags that already exist. Who exactly is in control of the number and management of these tags and hunters? It sounds like the WG&F hands are somewhat tied?

Hopefully Wyo residents wake up and offer a strong voice in landowner tag processes. Colo is a prime example of landowner tags gone bad. The Colo landowner tag system has a % of tags taken directly away from the public draw and going directly into the hands of landowners and/or highest bidders. Colorado hunters had virtually no say in these changes to the system...bummer!

It's pretty evident from countless Task Force Meetings the wheelings and dealings of outfitters in Wyoming. This shows the importance of public hunters (both res and nonres) joining forces to stay on top of these issues.
Click to expand...
Wrong thread, this is about Auxiliary tags.
 
BenHuntn said:
Wyoming landowner vouchers are free. No money changes hands.
Click to expand...
As @BuzzH has said, there is a price. The license fee must be paid and whatever the LO may or may not charge.

I now see you got info from a biologist in Laramie. He's got some of this wrong, which doesn't surprise me. My source is much higher on the chain. Area 7 has plenty of auxiliary tags and the elk are not three times the objective. There is a fee for the license, as mentioned.
 
Last edited:
crcountry said:
I was in a big brass meeting last month here in Maryland regarding deer crop damage, potential public access, and the basic reduction of WT deer in known "hot spots". The Sec of Ag, Assist Sec of DNR, biologist, stakeholders, farmers, and a few hunters from the sportsman group were in attendance. We were all crammed in a board room for 2+ hours. We came to the consensus that in real problem spots, public hunters are incapable of handling overpopulated deer issues with conventional tactics. Deer, and I'm sure elk in WY, just plainly don't like bullets flying at them. Shoot a few?...sure....but shoot the 100+++ that are needed, that really takes nighttime tactics, sharpshooters, etc. I think there could be a real cohesive plan that would resemble something like a 1750's native american elk drive....to a cliff, or through a canyon, or a pinch point, where 50++ hunters attended a detailed pre-hunt tactics meeting, positioned safely and perfectly, waiting on a well planned drive, and they could literally go buck wild with semi-auto's and whack and stack a couple hundred elk....even with 50 cals semi's. Unfortunately, the public hunters would probably have a fatality even with all of the pre-planning and strategy sessions. Secondly, most hunters just wouldn't be interested in this kind of carnage and bloodshed. Lastly, to find a "team" of public hunters to "whack and stack" is almost a military mission. It can be done, but I can guarantee one thing....these ranchers, like our farmers here in Maryland, know how to complain with the best of them, but DO NOT want "the hunting public" on their land....so these rich men keep on complaining, and allow very little free access to their land.
Click to expand...

This is sort of hijacking this thread, but there is some truths here. The first being "public hunting" or letting the general public on would not solve the problem, they would get some but mostly educate the deer and push them nocturnal or to the next property. The large groups would also not work because it would push/educate the deer more than anything, you would have a couple of days of carnage but mostly little impact to the overall deer numbers.

This type of thing is not meant to be hunting, it is to be culling and there is a significant difference. I 100% agree that the general hunting public doesn't have the patience, abilities, or the stomach to do what that takes.

Consistent nighttime, sharpshooting would work, the issue is usually government programs dont have the consistent pressure necessary to impact herd numbers, a few nights of carnage, but not enough to make a messesurable difference. At least what I have seen in Suburban settings.

What is required is a few serious guys to keep consistently killing deer, either through archery or using suppressed rifles, through kill permits, that can selectively take mature does all year long in ones and twos. Nighttime isn't required, but could speed things up. It takes 5 years to see a significant reduction in deer. Not sure if this model could be applied to elk.

This might be the issue Wyoming is facing is that it is meant to be one to two guys culling elk to significant reduce damage but instead they are selling tags to general public, which as stated above probably won't be effective enough to make a difference.
 
LivingTheDream said:
This is sort of hijacking this thread, but there is some truths here. The first being "public hunting" or letting the general public on would not solve the problem, they would get some but mostly educate the deer and push them nocturnal or to the next property. The large groups would also not work because it would push/educate the deer more than anything, you would have a couple of days of carnage but mostly little impact to the overall deer numbers.

This type of thing is not meant to be hunting, it is to be culling and there is a significant difference. I 100% agree that the general hunting public doesn't have the patience, abilities, or the stomach to do what that takes.

Consistent nighttime, sharpshooting would work, the issue is usually government programs dont have the consistent pressure necessary to impact herd numbers, a few nights of carnage, but not enough to make a messesurable difference. At least what I have seen in Suburban settings.

What is required is a few serious guys to keep consistently killing deer, either through archery or using suppressed rifles, through kill permits, that can selectively take mature does all year long in ones and twos. Nighttime isn't required, but could speed things up. It takes 5 years to see a significant reduction in deer. Not sure if this model could be applied to elk.

This might be the issue Wyoming is facing is that it is meant to be one to two guys culling elk to significant reduce damage but instead they are selling tags to general public, which as stated above probably won't be effective enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...
How about we stick to the subject instead of hunting deer at night?

The part everyone is missing is that tags are being transferred for $$$.

This isn't about reducing elk numbers...period.
 
BenHuntn said:
Game and Fish implimented their plan 2 months ago.
Click to expand...
Thanks for starting this thread, but so far the only detail you have pointed out that's correct is the landowner can choose who they want to get the license. The program is over a year old.
BenHuntn said:
They are giving landowners where elk numbers are 3 times the objective level extra Cow/Calf tags. The landowner will pick who he gives the tags to. This will go on for the next 5 years.
Click to expand...
Herd objective has no bearing on these tags. They are based on LO damage claims. There is no time limit for the auxiliary tag program.
BenHuntn said:
You are correct the shooter must purchase a License and all applicable stamps or permits. I don't think the Landowner can charge a fee to hunt on there land.
Click to expand...
LO can and are charging hunters to receive these licenses.
 
I like it. If you give more public land cow tags, the elk just get pushed more and more to private. Love the idea of having the private shot more cow elk to move the elk off of private and lower the numbers.

As much as I love to see public hunting, private land can become a sanctuary.
 
goforbroke said:
I like it. If you give more public land cow tags, the elk just get pushed more and more to private. Love the idea of having the private shot more cow elk to move the elk off of private and lower the numbers.

As much as I love to see public hunting, private land can become a sanctuary.
Click to expand...
How are you going to like it when the NR bull permits are slashed and given to landowners for sale to the highest bidder? Because I can tell you that Residents won't be giving up our tags to this nonsense. The tags will be coming from the NR pool.

The landowners, or more likely, the outfitters, will WANT elk to be using their places as a sanctuary.

You'll lose access to cows, and you wont have any bull permits in the draw. Its where this is all headed, fact.
 
BuzzH said:
How are you going to like it when the NR bull permits are slashed and given to landowners for sale to the highest bidder? Because I can tell you that Residents won't be giving up our tags to this nonsense. The tags will be coming from the NR pool.

The landowners, or more likely, the outfitters, will WANT elk to be using their places as a sanctuary.

You'll lose access to cows, and you wont have any bull permits in the draw. Its where this is all headed, fact.
Click to expand...
Then the biggest bulls in the sanctuary go to deep pockets and we lose the top end.
 
junior said:
Then the biggest bulls in the sanctuary go to deep pockets and we lose the top end.
Click to expand...
And if you're lucky and the landowner/outfitter feels like it, you can spend a few hundred to a few thousand so they give you the green light to buy a NR/R cow permit from the GF to hunt a cow on the sanctuary/private.

Its all wonderful.
 
Was trap, and removal considered? If the end goal is to get elk off the landscape it seems that would bear more fruit and having yokals volley shots at wintering elk.
 
BuzzH said:
How are you going to like it when the NR bull permits are slashed and given to landowners for sale to the highest bidder? Because I can tell you that Residents won't be giving up our tags to this nonsense. The tags will be coming from the NR pool.

The landowners, or more likely, the outfitters, will WANT elk to be using their places as a sanctuary.

You'll lose access to cows, and you wont have any bull permits in the draw. Its where this is all headed, fact.
Click to expand...
Yep. And the herd gets bigger. And the damage keeps happening. And the bull tag$ get more expensive.
 
BuzzH said:
How are you going to like it when the NR bull permits are slashed and given to landowners for sale to the highest bidder? Because I can tell you that Residents won't be giving up our tags to this nonsense. The tags will be coming from the NR pool.

The landowners, or more likely, the outfitters, will WANT elk to be using their places as a sanctuary.

You'll lose access to cows, and you wont have any bull permits in the draw. Its where this is all headed, fact.
Click to expand...
Good or bad, I'll likely never draw these units. I still think it is a good management decision.- you like to make it resident vs nonresident, do what is best for herd numbers first.

The Wasatch unit in Utah was over objective and they kept giving more cow tags - it made all the elk go to private land. Tough cow hunts and elk numbers remained high. Now you can get a private land cow tag over the counter. Land owners get to sale more cow hunts, herd numbers are in control and the cow hunts on public land are better as the elk distribution is better. Berry blaster will know better, but I see it as a win for the public land hunter
 
goforbroke said:
Good or bad, I'll likely never draw these units. I still think it is a good management decision.- you like to make it resident vs nonresident, do what is best for herd numbers first.

The Wasatch unit in Utah was over objective and they kept giving more cow tags - it made all the elk go to private land. Tough cow hunts and elk numbers remained high. Now you can get a private land cow tag over the counter. Land owners get to sale more cow hunts, herd numbers are in control and the cow hunts on public land are better as the elk distribution is better. Berry blaster will know better, but I see it as a win for the public land hunter
Click to expand...
I really don't give a chit what Utah does.
 
BuzzH said:
Take what Utah does, and do the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
More cow tags for public land hunters. Go for it. You seem to take the time and are involved with making legislation happen. I hope it turns out great for hunters and reduces the elk population.
Arizona seems to be the one state that doesn't give tags to landowners to help control elk numbers, but I'm not too familiar with what they do. In one form or another, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Neveda all give tags to land owners.
 
BuzzH said:
Pretty sure Jeff talked to his boss...get your facts straight. You might want to give Martin another call too.
Click to expand...
Buzz are we going to have another come to Jesus meeting here real soon. Buzz you are wrong on chapter 34 they are not using it.
 
Last edited:
BenHuntn said:
Buzz are we going to have another come to Jesus meeting here real soon. Buzz you are wrong on chapter 34 they are not using it.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are. Who is telling you the GF isn't using chapter 34?

Because if they are using Chapter 56, the only other authorization I'm aware of, the killing has to be done by an employee of the GF with sign off from the Chief Game Warden.

If they're doing things outside of those chapters, then the GF is violating statute/regulation.

Also, you stated that the hunter needs to buy a license, not so under chapter 56, no license required. Other commission regulations don't apply either.

I'm having a feeling the GF is doing whatever they want and somebody is going to get a knot jerked in their tail.
 
Last edited:
If you fellas want to see a HUGE herd of elk go to: Nine Mile Guest Ranch..Meeker CO and click on the video. It will blow your mind. You will not believe it.
 
goforbroke said:
I like it. If you give more public land cow tags, the elk just get pushed more and more to private. Love the idea of having the private shot more cow elk to move the elk off of private and lower the numbers.

As much as I love to see public hunting, private land can become a sanctuary.
Click to expand...
The tags aren't private only. They are good on public land with-in and adjacent to the ranch they are issued for.
 
BenHuntn said:
Negative on Auxiliary tags. Negative on Chapter 34. You guy's are making **** up.

Sorry Buzz but you are talking of something totally different than I am. No Chapter 34 ****.
Click to expand...
Well if that's true, kill permits are not purchased, they are given.
 
BuzzH said:
How are you going to like it when the NR bull permits are slashed and given to landowners for sale to the highest bidder? Because I can tell you that Residents won't be giving up our tags to this nonsense. The tags will be coming from the NR pool.

The landowners, or more likely, the outfitters, will WANT elk to be using their places as a sanctuary.

You'll lose access to cows, and you wont have any bull permits in the draw. Its where this is all headed, fact.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that what resident hunters want isn't necessarily what they will get...this landowner voucher thing is an interesting subject. I was under the impression Wyoming would NEVER have those. We can't say that anymore, and an uneducated guess is the people who really make the decisions will enjoy the benefits of them.
 
Don't know the politics of it- but private lands in elk country seem to be an ever increasing problem in some parts of Wyoming. Last elk hunt we were on in western mountains we chatted with the G&F guy at camp. He was lamenting how the elk were herding up in the first few days of rifle season and parking on the private ranches just off the National Forest. A hunter we met also told us he saw a herd he estimated at 200 (no doubt overestimated) on the second day of season do exactly that- pretty much confirming what the G&F guy said.

We've hunted that drainage for 30 years off and on- it certainly was not that way in the past.

Some of these ranchers want no hunting, and I suppose others want money. Some of these landowners aren't even ranchers- rich doctors or whatever that buy 5 square miles on the forest boundary.

Not sure what the solution is.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Don't know the politics of it- but private lands in elk country seem to be an ever increasing problem in some parts of Wyoming. Last elk hunt we were on in western mountains we chatted with the G&F guy at camp. He was lamenting how the elk were herding up in the first few days of rifle season and parking on the private ranches just off the National Forest. A hunter we met also told us he saw a herd he estimated at 200 (no doubt overestimated) on the second day of season do exactly that- pretty much confirming what the G&F guy said.

We've hunted that drainage for 30 years off and on- it certainly was not that way in the past.

Some of these ranchers want no hunting, and I suppose others want money. Some of these landowners aren't even ranchers- rich doctors or whatever that buy 5 square miles on the forest boundary.

Not sure what the solution is.
Click to expand...
The solution is obvious but I don't see it happening.

Landowners need better incentives, that outweigh what they currently getting to keep their borders closed, in order to open up their lands for hunting. Anything short of that just isn't going to work on a large scale.

I think the WG&F could charge higher prices in areas needing this type of help in order to make it happen. Use those additional funds to pay landowners that allow access.
 
Mallardsx2 said:
Well, to me anyhow, it certainly isn't giving cow and bull tags to the already filthy rich landowners and "ranchers" so that they can sell them to the highest bidder while not even letting you hunt their property where they elk are.
Click to expand...
Ya, doesn't feel like the Wyoming way.

Although I would add that some of the "filthy rich" don't want hunters anyway, don't need the money, and are just fine with the elk there. :(
 
Last edited:
HikeHunt61 said:
Ya, doesn't feel like the Wyoming way.

Although I would add that some of the "filthy rich" don't want hunters anyway, don't need the money, and are just fine with the elk there. :(
Click to expand...
Well, if that’s the case maybe F&G needs to haze the elk back on public land.
 
DaveD said:
The solution is obvious but I don't see it happening.

Landowners need better incentives, that outweigh what they currently getting to keep their borders closed, in order to open up their lands for hunting. Anything short of that just isn't going to work on a large scale.
Click to expand...
They are getting the incentive, transferable licenses and permits, but they don't have to open 1 acre of land to the public.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
In AZ, aircraft cannot fly below 500 feet (which is then trespassing). No laws like that in WY? I'd imagine they'd have to get pretty low to move the elk.
Click to expand...
AZGF has to fly above 500 feet for aerial surveys of big-game?

Do planes not land in Arizona? Passengers have to jump out above 500 feet in AZ?
 
BuzzH said:
AZGF has to fly above 500 feet for aerial surveys of big-game?

Do planes not land in Arizona? Passengers have to jump out above 500 feet in AZ?
Click to expand...
?

No- you cannot fly a plane over somebody else's private land below 500 ft. Thus, the reference to trespassing. It's common in many states.

Maybe government a/c get an exception, but that's the law.

Makes sense you cannot "buzz" somebodies place...
 
Last edited:
Seriously- I would love to see the G&F find a way to keep or push elk off the private lands. If they could do it with A/C or any other way, I would donate to the fund! (Or we can all corner cross as a MM group)
 
HikeHunt61 said:
?

No- you cannot fly a plane over somebody else's private land below 500 ft. Thus, the reference to trespassing. It's common in many states.

Maybe government a/c get an exception, but that's the law.

Makes sense you cannot "buzz" somebodies place...
Click to expand...
You might double check that. The FAA rule in Wyoming is no lower than 500 ft over buildings or structures.

I'm sure ultralights are legal in Arizona.
 
I agree the primary problem is transparency. If G&F is delusional enough to think this isn't going to stir up controversy and rumors (see all the comments above) then they have entirely missed the boat. They should "come clean" and inform the public exactly what's happening, from goals to results. This simply can't and won't be "Buried."

I just finished some cow elk hunts in 6. We struggled. There were cows all around where we were, but none where we hunted. I was informed that one adjacent ranch had recently killed 30 cows and were still hammering them. Was told another ranch was killing 4-5 cows per day. We had about 75,000 acres with great country that held over 1,000 elk last January. None now.

I did talk with a landowner friend and he said they can not charge a fee for these hunts. That's a big item that needs clarification.

My observations:

1. Something other than weather is holding those elk on other places.
2. It's terribly difficult to get access even for cows any more. I've lived near some of these areas for almost 50 years and offered some good $$ for access. I have been unable to find a place to shoot a cow for either myself or clients. I probably know at least 20 good-sized ranchers and can't get any access either for myself or for clients. The lands are simply tied up.
3. To me, the bottom line is this is good for mule deer. There are WAY TOO MANY ELK in areas 6, 7 and 16. Anything we can do to hammer those elk is fine with me. Hunters can't get access anyway.
4. I wish there was some way for everyone to get access to those elk, but it seems impossible. So let's kill a few thousand, put the meat to good use, and hope the muleys bounce back.
5. We, as sportsmen (or sportspeople) need to be watchful to ensure this does not become a normal thing - if that's possible. Regardless, we need to try to not let this become the norm.

Good discussion. I wish G&F would have someone release exactly what is going on. I'll bet the landowner meetings coming up will be interesting.

Finally, I would encourage EVERYONE to attend the public season-setting meetings in March. It's especially important this year. In Wheatland last March, there were 6 people. One guy under 60, the rest old gummers like me. Three outfitters and the rest landowners, Zero people speaking for sportsmen. Please attend those meetings. And speak your piece.
 
On corner crossing.........

Grab your map or OnX. There are so few corners in area 6 you won't make any significant difference. One place where a small piece of BLM hits the county road. There are a couple of decent school sections with access. We pounded those last week and saw zip. Those landowners are smart enough to move those elk (and deer) off of any lands where the public might have access. It's different from area to area, but not much good can be had from corner crossing in 6 and just a little more in 7.
 
ICMDEER said:
I agree the primary problem is transparency. If G&F is delusional enough to think this isn't going to stir up controversy and rumors (see all the comments above) then they have entirely missed the boat. They should "come clean" and inform the public exactly what's happening, from goals to results. This simply can't and won't be "Buried."

I just finished some cow elk hunts in 6. We struggled. There were cows all around where we were, but none where we hunted. I was informed that one adjacent ranch had recently killed 30 cows and were still hammering them. Was told another ranch was killing 4-5 cows per day. We had about 75,000 acres with great country that held over 1,000 elk last January. None now.

I did talk with a landowner friend and he said they can not charge a fee for these hunts. That's a big item that needs clarification.

My observations:

1. Something other than weather is holding those elk on other places.
2. It's terribly difficult to get access even for cows any more. I've lived near some of these areas for almost 50 years and offered some good $$ for access. I have been unable to find a place to shoot a cow for either myself or clients. I probably know at least 20 good-sized ranchers and can't get any access either for myself or for clients. The lands are simply tied up.
3. To me, the bottom line is this is good for mule deer. There are WAY TOO MANY ELK in areas 6, 7 and 16. Anything we can do to hammer those elk is fine with me. Hunters can't get access anyway.
4. I wish there was some way for everyone to get access to those elk, but it seems impossible. So let's kill a few thousand, put the meat to good use, and hope the muleys bounce back.
5. We, as sportsmen (or sportspeople) need to be watchful to ensure this does not become a normal thing - if that's possible. Regardless, we need to try to not let this become the norm.

Good discussion. I wish G&F would have someone release exactly what is going on. I'll bet the landowner meetings coming up will be interesting.

Finally, I would encourage EVERYONE to attend the public season-setting meetings in March. It's especially important this year. In Wheatland last March, there were 6 people. One guy under 60, the rest old gummers like me. Three outfitters and the rest landowners, Zero people speaking for sportsmen. Please attend those meetings. And speak your piece.
Click to expand...
@ICMDEER , LO charging for these special hunts has been mentioned several times in this thread. In Chapters 34 & 56 of the G&F regulations, there is no language of any kind that prohibits a LO from charging for access or the permit. I was originally told by someone in the Dept who was involved with regulations that LO would be told there could be no charging of hunters in these circumstances. They told me if they did charge, they would not be allowed in the program anymore.

My most recent meeting last week was a different story. I was told LO were charging hunters and was even told the name of the ranch in one instance. I was told auxiliary tags and kill permits were being given out to most any request and basically there was no end in sight. There is supposed to be a year end report for 2023 at some point and I will FOIA request it if there is no movement on making it public.

A question I have for you is: why do you think these ranches denying access to hunt cow elk?
 
ICMDEER said:
On corner crossing.........

Grab your map or OnX. There are so few corners in area 6 you won't make any significant difference. One place where a small piece of BLM hits the county road. There are a couple of decent school sections with access. We pounded those last week and saw zip. Those landowners are smart enough to move those elk (and deer) off of any lands where the public might have access. It's different from area to area, but not much good can be had from corner crossing in 6 and just a little more in 7.
Click to expand...
Ya- and in western areas off NF the same is true- no checkerboard there. The elk run down just off the NF to a big block of private. I assume each year is different, but it's a few hours to meander over to the feedgrounds (Jewett, Franz). I imagine they hang for quite a while though- until they start feeding. Dunno the op scenario or timing of those lots.
 
Last edited:
BuzzH said:
Absolutely could be a part of the solution to the elk problem, not sure why you find that funny?
Click to expand...
The corner crossing reference was kind of half joking. There are several other very, very long threads on MM about the CC legal cases. In other words, I was just being a smart @$$. :D
 
A few other things worth mentioning......

The processing.........Many of the ranchers and hunters don't really want the harvested elk. I've been informed that if they don't want the elk, just field dress them, notify G&F and the G&F will swing by and take the elk to be processed. After processing, the meat will be donated. Just as it was in Chapter 34 last year. With as many elk as are being taken, these processing fees could add up to six figures. Not sure who is picking up that tab.

The ranchers I know who are doing this are all using suppressed rifles. They don't want to run the elk through fences and they do want the elk to stay around so they can keep hammering them. If hunters don't have a suppressed rifle, they will provide one for you.

The dates........I was also told by a rancher friend that this will continue "through March." Not sure if that's March 1 or 31, but it is still a ways off.

JM - I think the ranchers have had bad experiences with public hunters and others. They just want elk killed and feel they can best handle it themselves. But I am not certain why.
 
ICMDEER said:
A few other things worth mentioning......

The processing.........Many of the ranchers and hunters don't really want the harvested elk. I've been informed that if they don't want the elk, just field dress them, notify G&F and the G&F will swing by and take the elk to be processed. After processing, the meat will be donated. Just as it was in Chapter 34 last year. With as many elk as are being taken, these processing fees could add up to six figures. Not sure who is picking up that tab.
Click to expand...

The elk not wanted are donated to The Wyoming Hunger Initiative's Food from the Field program. All must be CWD tested before they go to any food banks. I do not know where the funds to process these elk is coming from.
 
Joe2Kool said:
The corner crossing reference was kind of half joking. There are several other very, very long threads on MM about the CC legal cases. In other words, I was just being a smart @$$. :D
Click to expand...
Wow, first I've heard anything about a corner crossing case, thanks for filling me in.
 
BuzzH said:
a step toward transferable bull tags, the true reason for all of this nonsense.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many landowners that participate and those that endorse this method of killing elk are really in it for this reason? Certainly not 0% but I'm also sure its not 100%.

After listening to and speaking with a few landowners that have been in front of the Commission pleading their case for elk damage compensation, I get a strong feeling from many that they just want less elk eating their hay and damaging their fences. Some others not so much.
 
mulecreek said:
I wonder how many landowners that participate and those that endorse this method of killing elk are really in it for this reason? Certainly not 0% but I'm also sure its not 100%.

After listening to and speaking with a few landowners that have been in front of the Commission pleading their case for elk damage compensation, I get a strong feeling from many that they just want less elk eating their hay and damaging their fences. Some others not so much.
Click to expand...
It's usually one of the 3 things. Control, money, or transferable tags (which is mostly about money).

I do agree, some just want less elk, in particular those enrolled in the HMA program.

IMO/E unless the landowners are actively allowing some form of public access, their motives are not just less elk.
 
mulecreek said:
I wonder how many landowners that participate and those that endorse this method of killing elk are really in it for this reason? Certainly not 0% but I'm also sure its not 100%.

After listening to and speaking with a few landowners that have been in front of the Commission pleading their case for elk damage compensation, I get a strong feeling from many that they just want less elk eating their hay and damaging their fences. Some others not so much.
Click to expand...
At one meeting(Commission or TRW can't remember which) the landowner pleading his case that there were too many elk and something had to be done, was accompanied by his outfitter.

Yep, you guessed it, they asked for transferable bull tags.
 
Landowners have had to deal with the elk problem in this country for decades. My first job back in 1990 was fixing fences for Pete Burns in area 6. I worked full time for several months repairing the fences the elk would run through. Many of the larger landowners allowed access back then to keep numbers in check. Why they have changed to the current position now only leads me to believe they are chasing bigger money.
 
I bet anything that ranchers that don't allow hunters are the same ranchers that are handed over thousands of $ in elk damage claims?

You would think the WG&F would have the balls to not offer damage claims unless landowners first offered access to public hunters to shoot a few cows. One option may be to possibly penalize ranchers that don't offer public access to hunt cows.

There needs to be some sort of incentive for ranchers to offer public access that is better than what currently is available. As mentioned above, $ may not be that big a deal to some ranchers but the loss of landowner tag options (landowner bull tags) or something similar may prompt them to consider differently!

I can pretty much guarantee that if the WG&F revoked landowner bull tags from landowners that are unwilling to help control high elk populations with public cow hunters that things would likely change in dramatic fashion!

With that said, the state of Wyoming owns the elk and not the landowners! With what's going on with cow tags it almost sounds like the landowners own the elk?

It's pretty obvious that private land without hunting pressure is the main culprit for low harvest rates in any given unit.
 
Last edited:
jims said:
I bet anything that ranchers that don't allow hunters are the same ranchers that are handed over thousands of $ in elk damage claims?

You would think the WG&F would have the balls to not offer damage claims unless landowners first offered access to public hunters to shoot a few cows. One option may be to possibly penalize ranchers that don't offer public access to hunt cows.
Click to expand...
You ought to research a little before making this comments.

Wyo G&F will not pay monetary damage claims without significant hunting taking place on the property. The LO are even required to supply the license numbers of the hunters.
 
My guess is that the WG&F doesn’t scrutinize when determining eligibility for landowner tags between guided and public hunting access before allocating landowner bull tags? They also likely don’t scrutinize between cow and bull hunters that are used as reference for damage claims on private?

Also, do they have a minimum quota on how many cow hunters before issuing landowner bull tags? I don’t think any of us know these dimple questions. The point I’m making is these requirements could be stricter before any landowner bull tags are issued.

The WG&F could require a % of public cow hunter access before issuing any landowner bull cows or damage claims.

With that said, the state owns the elk and could tighten reins on landowners that don’t offer public access to promote the aid in the decrease in elk populations.

Damage claims and bull landowner tags could be used somehow as leverage. It’s obvious if elk are holding up on private land that some ranches are shelters for large populations of elk.
 
Last edited:
jims said:
The WG&F could require a % of public cow hunter access before issuing any landowner bull cows or damage claims.

Damage claims and bull landowner tags could be used somehow as leverage. It’s obvious if elk are holding up on private land that some ranches are shelters for large populations of elk.
Click to expand...
It's a slippery slope "requiring" a private landowner to allow access. It's their land to do with what they wish. It is also their land to NOT do what they wish.

The whole situation is playing directly into the landowner's hand here. Of course, they are holding the elk hostage to get their transferrable bull permits that they can sell for $10K a pop. Thats what this has been about for years.

I say call their bluff and let the elk "destroy" the ranches. Let the population get 25X what it is now. Who cares? I don't give a rip. When the elk have grazed off the landscape maybe they will then move to an area where they can be hunted.

The elk need to leave the ranch sooner or later. Maybe it's time for a spring/summer season. After all, nothing brings the community together more than shooting a calf trying to get some milk from its mommy.
 
The Q Ranch in 16 is a prime example of literally hundreds of elk holding up on a large ranch during hunting season. The WG&F could somehow place pressure on the Q to offer access to control cow elk on the Q during hunting season that would get a high number of cows harvested on the Q plus adjacent public land.

My guess is if the large herds of elk were getting pressure during the hunting season on the Q that a pile of cows would get harvested rather than sitting in huge herds watching public hunters on the wrong side of the fence?

A few guided bull hunters and landowner bull tags on the Q will never solve this issue on an extremely large private ranch that offers so little hunting pressure. I’m aware that there are a few scattered walk-in or hmas but the elk know the borders!

Maybe I’m wrong and everything is peachie in 16 and the Q is happy with status quo? There really is no excuse for extreme population of cow elk in 16 if the Q cooperates. My guess is the Q owns 85% of the private land in 16 with elk. If they aren’t willing to cooperate then nothing will likely ever change.
 
jims said:
The Q Ranch in 16 is a prime example of literally hundreds of elk holding up on a large ranch during hunting season. The WG&F could somehow place pressure on the Q to offer access to control cow elk on the Q during hunting season that would get a high number of cows harvested on the Q plus adjacent public land.

My guess is if the large herds of elk were getting pressure during the hunting season on the Q that a pile of cows would get harvested rather than sitting in huge herds watching public hunters on the wrong side of the fence?

A few guided bull hunters and landowner bull tags on the Q will never solve this issue on an extremely large private ranch that offers so little hunting pressure. I’m aware that there are a few scattered walk-in or hmas but the elk know the borders!

Maybe I’m wrong and everything is peachie in 16 and the Q is happy with status quo? There really is no excuse for extreme population of cow elk in 16 if the Q cooperates. My guess is the Q owns 85% of the private land in 16 with elk. If they aren’t willing to cooperate then nothing will likely ever change.
Click to expand...

They are likely happy holding all of the cards. I am willing to bet that they have repeat hunters (who are drawing easy to draw tags and paying a massive trespass fees) snipe elk with silenced rifles, so they don't bump the elk off the ranch.

Seems like Narnia to me...

I commend people for looking for a solution but to be honest, I don't know that ranchers/landowners want a solution. From my pov I think they are pretty happy the way things are. They just want the bull tags and no other changes. lol
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Caliente A.jpeg
IMG_20231010_182703068_HDR.jpg
IMG_0490.jpeg
Wide Buck with Extra Stuff
KIMG0088~2.JPG
First Archery Buck for G-Hought3
9A111539-D94C-4329-BFCF-0EEBC31B7487.jpeg
Screenshot_20230117_155742_Instagram.jpg
Winter Range 3.jpg
5068320190807203112.jpg
IMG_0870.JPG
IMG_3660.JPG

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