wyoga
- Thread starter Deerlove
- Start date
Cahunter805
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,348
I got the email also. I understood it to be a Facebook live of the discussion on the Elk tags and the percentages of resident and non resident tags distributed.
I personally feel the system has been working for numerous years. Why change it now?
I personally feel the system has been working for numerous years. Why change it now?
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,433
I guess they figure it will help get rid of the 100's and 100's of Leftover tags??
Robb
Robb
Wyohunter1
Member
- Messages
- 86
>I got the email also. I
>understood it to be a
>Facebook live of the discussion
>on the Elk tags and
>the percentages of resident and
>non resident tags distributed.
>I personally feel the system has
>been working for numerous years.
>Why change it now?
Because the greedy Outfitters want more non-resident tags!
>understood it to be a
>Facebook live of the discussion
>on the Elk tags and
>the percentages of resident and
>non resident tags distributed.
>I personally feel the system has
>been working for numerous years.
>Why change it now?
Because the greedy Outfitters want more non-resident tags!
>>I guess they figure it will
>>help get rid of the
>>100's and 100's of Leftover
>>tags??
>>
>>Robb
>
>
>There is already a system to
>deal with the leftovers, it's
>more bull hunting opportunity that
>they want.
>
>Wouldn't you agree?
Yep, as they could give a rat's butt about cow tags!
>>help get rid of the
>>100's and 100's of Leftover
>>tags??
>>
>>Robb
>
>
>There is already a system to
>deal with the leftovers, it's
>more bull hunting opportunity that
>they want.
>
>Wouldn't you agree?
Yep, as they could give a rat's butt about cow tags!
Conrad8899
Active Member
- Messages
- 255
I saw that on bookface... I gave my opinion on there...
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,433
I can see a Compromise of increasing the Non-Ressy Gen Any elk tags and then dropping the Non-Ressy LQ tags down to 10%
Robb
Robb
>I can see a Compromise of
>increasing the Non-Ressy Gen Any
>elk tags and then dropping
>the Non-Ressy LQ tags down
>to 10%
>
>
>Robb
Dropping the NR LQ allocation to 10% would automatically increase the number of NR Gen tags.
I would hate to see an increase in the 7250 quota coupled with a decrease in NR LQ quota percentage.
For the life of me I cant figure out why anyone would want to change a system that is working so well.
>increasing the Non-Ressy Gen Any
>elk tags and then dropping
>the Non-Ressy LQ tags down
>to 10%
>
>
>Robb
Dropping the NR LQ allocation to 10% would automatically increase the number of NR Gen tags.
I would hate to see an increase in the 7250 quota coupled with a decrease in NR LQ quota percentage.
For the life of me I cant figure out why anyone would want to change a system that is working so well.
>I would hate to see an
>increase in the 7250 quota
>coupled with a decrease in
>NR LQ quota percentage.
>
>For the life of me I
>cant figure out why anyone
>would want to change a
>system that is working so
>well.
Simple reason is so the outfitters can get more NRs in their camps by increasing the number of NR tags available to their customers.
>increase in the 7250 quota
>coupled with a decrease in
>NR LQ quota percentage.
>
>For the life of me I
>cant figure out why anyone
>would want to change a
>system that is working so
>well.
Simple reason is so the outfitters can get more NRs in their camps by increasing the number of NR tags available to their customers.
mntnguide
Active Member
- Messages
- 339
>>I would hate to see an
>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>coupled with a decrease in
>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>
>>For the life of me I
>>cant figure out why anyone
>>would want to change a
>>system that is working so
>>well.
>
>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>can get more NRs in
>their camps by increasing the
>number of NR tags available
>to their customers.
There and plenty of outfitters who don't hunt general areas and therefore losing LQ non-res tags would be very detrimental to their business... as a resident, I'm all for reducing non-res LQ to maximum 10% of tags in order to increase resident drawing odds in LQ areas. Wyoming is to generous of our LQ area tags to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous, and I'd much rather see more general tags given out and reduce the LQ ones.
>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>coupled with a decrease in
>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>
>>For the life of me I
>>cant figure out why anyone
>>would want to change a
>>system that is working so
>>well.
>
>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>can get more NRs in
>their camps by increasing the
>number of NR tags available
>to their customers.
There and plenty of outfitters who don't hunt general areas and therefore losing LQ non-res tags would be very detrimental to their business... as a resident, I'm all for reducing non-res LQ to maximum 10% of tags in order to increase resident drawing odds in LQ areas. Wyoming is to generous of our LQ area tags to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous, and I'd much rather see more general tags given out and reduce the LQ ones.
>There and plenty of outfitters who
>don't hunt general areas and
>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>would be very detrimental to
>their business... as a resident,
>I'm all for reducing non-res
>LQ to maximum 10% of
>tags in order to increase
>resident drawing odds in LQ
>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>of our LQ area tags
>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>and I'd much rather see
>more general tags given out
>and reduce the LQ ones.
>
mntnguide,
I think most res hunters would agree with you. Here is my take, which I already know most probably don't agree with. I think the Gen areas are the units that res hunters need to be more concerned about rather than the LQ units. Most res hunters hunt Gen elk areas far more often than they do LQ areas. Even if 6% more tags were available to res hunters, most of us are still going to be hunting Gen areas. Offering a compromise of increasing the 7250 quota while decreasing the NR LQ allocation will put more hunters into the units that most res hunters will hunt the majority of their lives.
In my 20 years of applying in Wyo as both a res and NR I have drawn a total of 1 LQ tag. I am not surprised or pissed about this as I put in for very hard to draw LQ elk tags given that I can usually fall back to a Gen tag which is outstanding elk hunting. I don't think this strategy is that different from most res hunters. I cant tell you how many people I hear complaining that they haven't drawn a Little Mnt tag in 2o+ years of trying. Adding 6% more tags to the res LQ allocation is not going to substantially change my draw percentage. So in that situation, which tag is more consequential to the res hunter, the tag you draw once every 20 years or the one you hunt 19 out of 20 years? That's my take anyway.
>don't hunt general areas and
>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>would be very detrimental to
>their business... as a resident,
>I'm all for reducing non-res
>LQ to maximum 10% of
>tags in order to increase
>resident drawing odds in LQ
>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>of our LQ area tags
>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>and I'd much rather see
>more general tags given out
>and reduce the LQ ones.
>
mntnguide,
I think most res hunters would agree with you. Here is my take, which I already know most probably don't agree with. I think the Gen areas are the units that res hunters need to be more concerned about rather than the LQ units. Most res hunters hunt Gen elk areas far more often than they do LQ areas. Even if 6% more tags were available to res hunters, most of us are still going to be hunting Gen areas. Offering a compromise of increasing the 7250 quota while decreasing the NR LQ allocation will put more hunters into the units that most res hunters will hunt the majority of their lives.
In my 20 years of applying in Wyo as both a res and NR I have drawn a total of 1 LQ tag. I am not surprised or pissed about this as I put in for very hard to draw LQ elk tags given that I can usually fall back to a Gen tag which is outstanding elk hunting. I don't think this strategy is that different from most res hunters. I cant tell you how many people I hear complaining that they haven't drawn a Little Mnt tag in 2o+ years of trying. Adding 6% more tags to the res LQ allocation is not going to substantially change my draw percentage. So in that situation, which tag is more consequential to the res hunter, the tag you draw once every 20 years or the one you hunt 19 out of 20 years? That's my take anyway.
>>>I would hate to see an
>>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>>coupled with a decrease in
>>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>>
>>>For the life of me I
>>>cant figure out why anyone
>>>would want to change a
>>>system that is working so
>>>well.
>>
>>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>>can get more NRs in
>>their camps by increasing the
>>number of NR tags available
>>to their customers.
>
>There and plenty of outfitters who
>don't hunt general areas and
>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>would be very detrimental to
>their business... as a resident,
>I'm all for reducing non-res
>LQ to maximum 10% of
>tags in order to increase
>resident drawing odds in LQ
>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>of our LQ area tags
>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>and I'd much rather see
>more general tags given out
>and reduce the LQ ones.
>
Where did you come up with that 25% figure for NRs when the max is 16%? I have to agree with MuleCreek on his synopsis regarding going to 10% from 16% because it just won't do that much for a resident in drawing the premier LQ tags!
>>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>>coupled with a decrease in
>>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>>
>>>For the life of me I
>>>cant figure out why anyone
>>>would want to change a
>>>system that is working so
>>>well.
>>
>>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>>can get more NRs in
>>their camps by increasing the
>>number of NR tags available
>>to their customers.
>
>There and plenty of outfitters who
>don't hunt general areas and
>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>would be very detrimental to
>their business... as a resident,
>I'm all for reducing non-res
>LQ to maximum 10% of
>tags in order to increase
>resident drawing odds in LQ
>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>of our LQ area tags
>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>and I'd much rather see
>more general tags given out
>and reduce the LQ ones.
>
Where did you come up with that 25% figure for NRs when the max is 16%? I have to agree with MuleCreek on his synopsis regarding going to 10% from 16% because it just won't do that much for a resident in drawing the premier LQ tags!
>
>Funny, looks like WY may be
>going the way of NM!
> That's to bad that
>Outfitters/Guides have that kind of
>power....Oh well, as with NM,
>be done with WY here
>soon....
>
>'Ike'
>
>Bowhunter...
No way, no how is Wyoming going anywhere near what NM does with it's huge amount of landowner tags that are sold for big money along with the guaranteed outfitters tag pool!!!
>Funny, looks like WY may be
>going the way of NM!
> That's to bad that
>Outfitters/Guides have that kind of
>power....Oh well, as with NM,
>be done with WY here
>soon....
>
>'Ike'
>
>Bowhunter...
No way, no how is Wyoming going anywhere near what NM does with it's huge amount of landowner tags that are sold for big money along with the guaranteed outfitters tag pool!!!
mntnguide
Active Member
- Messages
- 339
>>>>I would hate to see an
>>>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>>>coupled with a decrease in
>>>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>>>
>>>>For the life of me I
>>>>cant figure out why anyone
>>>>would want to change a
>>>>system that is working so
>>>>well.
>>>
>>>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>>>can get more NRs in
>>>their camps by increasing the
>>>number of NR tags available
>>>to their customers.
>>
>>There and plenty of outfitters who
>>don't hunt general areas and
>>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>>would be very detrimental to
>>their business... as a resident,
>>I'm all for reducing non-res
>>LQ to maximum 10% of
>>tags in order to increase
>>resident drawing odds in LQ
>>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>>of our LQ area tags
>>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>>and I'd much rather see
>>more general tags given out
>>and reduce the LQ ones.
>>
>
>Where did you come up with
>that 25% figure for NRs
>when the max is 16%?
> I have to agree
>with MuleCreek on his synopsis
>regarding going to 10% from
>16% because it just won't
>do that much for a
>resident in drawing the premier
>LQ tags!
My mistake..i mixed up Bighorn allocation with elk. As non-res are set aside 25% of Bighorn tags. I still stand by my preference for more LQ tags for residents. I usually hunt general tags as well, but would rather not see more LQ tags disappear. The # of general tags needed to make up the revenue from the limited number of LQ tags that would be taken from non-res if reduced to 10% would be minimal
>>>>increase in the 7250 quota
>>>>coupled with a decrease in
>>>>NR LQ quota percentage.
>>>>
>>>>For the life of me I
>>>>cant figure out why anyone
>>>>would want to change a
>>>>system that is working so
>>>>well.
>>>
>>>Simple reason is so the outfitters
>>>can get more NRs in
>>>their camps by increasing the
>>>number of NR tags available
>>>to their customers.
>>
>>There and plenty of outfitters who
>>don't hunt general areas and
>>therefore losing LQ non-res tags
>>would be very detrimental to
>>their business... as a resident,
>>I'm all for reducing non-res
>>LQ to maximum 10% of
>>tags in order to increase
>>resident drawing odds in LQ
>>areas. Wyoming is to generous
>>of our LQ area tags
>>to non-residents. 25% is ridiculous,
>>and I'd much rather see
>>more general tags given out
>>and reduce the LQ ones.
>>
>
>Where did you come up with
>that 25% figure for NRs
>when the max is 16%?
> I have to agree
>with MuleCreek on his synopsis
>regarding going to 10% from
>16% because it just won't
>do that much for a
>resident in drawing the premier
>LQ tags!
My mistake..i mixed up Bighorn allocation with elk. As non-res are set aside 25% of Bighorn tags. I still stand by my preference for more LQ tags for residents. I usually hunt general tags as well, but would rather not see more LQ tags disappear. The # of general tags needed to make up the revenue from the limited number of LQ tags that would be taken from non-res if reduced to 10% would be minimal
> I usually
>hunt general tags as well,
>but would rather not see
>more LQ tags disappear.
Agree 100%
>The # of general tags needed
>to make up the revenue
>from the limited number of
>LQ tags that would be
>taken from non-res if reduced
>to 10% would be minimal
>
Given the 7250 quota, if the NR allocation was decreased there would be a corresponding increase in the number of NR gen tags of the same number of tags. The quota does not need to be increased to increase the number of Gen tag hunters. The exact same number of NR hunters will be in Wyo just more hunting Gen areas rather than LQ units.
>hunt general tags as well,
>but would rather not see
>more LQ tags disappear.
Agree 100%
>The # of general tags needed
>to make up the revenue
>from the limited number of
>LQ tags that would be
>taken from non-res if reduced
>to 10% would be minimal
>
Given the 7250 quota, if the NR allocation was decreased there would be a corresponding increase in the number of NR gen tags of the same number of tags. The quota does not need to be increased to increase the number of Gen tag hunters. The exact same number of NR hunters will be in Wyo just more hunting Gen areas rather than LQ units.
Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
