160 tags taken from WY Pronghorn hunters

[BuzzH]

The 2018 legislative session is in full swing.

This bill has already passed out of the Senate TRW committee and is on its way to the House TRW.

What's at stake? Well, 160 set aside tags for the exclusive use of 2 pronghorn hunts.

(b) In addition the commission may, upon payment of
2 proper fees, issue up to eighty (80) one hundred sixty
3 (160) antelope licenses each year for the exclusive use of
4 not more than two (2) antelope hunts, provided that:
5
6 (i) Not more than eighty (80) of these licenses
7 are issued for a single antelope hunt. event;
8

Full bill can be found here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2018/Introduced/SF0003.pdf

What can you do?

If you want to maintain the number of pronghorn tags you have available to you, as either a NR or R hunter of Wyoming, send the House TRW a note and tell them that you do not support set aside licenses. Let them know that all hunters should be afforded the same, and equal opportunities, at the States Wildlife resources as described in the North American Model. Hunting should be an inclusive sport, not just reserved for the exclusive use of special interests.

Contact information for the House TRW here:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

[BlakeA]

On it. Thanks Buzz

 

[mtmiller]

Done, thanks Buzz.

 

[Mudranger1]

what does it mean to set aside 80 tags for 1 hunt? like a specific organization or ???

 

[7mm08mo]

Sent one to all of the above. Thanks buzz.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Thanks Buzz.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I wondered where they’d go with the One Shot and the women’s hunt. Interesting development. Sent emails. Thanks Buzz.

 

[JM77]

what does it mean to set aside 80 tags for 1 hunt? like a specific organization or ???

In a nutshell it means no more than 80 for either hunt. These are private exclusive organizations.

 

[iaengineer]

Sent.
Buzz, Thanks for posting.

 

[VikingsGuy]

For those looking for a little background: https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?275250-Lander-quot-one-shot-quot-hunt-issues. It is also discussed by Buzz at the end HuntTalk podcast episode 56.

Time to send the pictures of white men dressed up as Indian women to the WY press.

 

[Addicting]

Email sent to all the above. Thanks Buzz

 

[mtmiller]

Sent the email last night and received a response within an hour.

Rep Halverson is being lobbied from both sides and with the "new" amendment, leaning "yes". Still waiting on the debate. I don't know what the amendment is.

Only takes a few minutes folks. Please contact the folks Buzz posted and make substantive comments why this is a bad idea. Don't waste time and just state you don't like the bill and don't want it passed. Buzz brought up some great points that you may want to include in comments. Lots of reasons not to support pulling these tags from the public. Let these Reps know.

 

[VikingsGuy]

BuzzH, a sincere question - how much do non-resident comments matter in WY? In two other states where I have been active in the legislative arena, outside comments weren't afforded a whole lot of weight unless accompanied by significant $$ interests or clear ability to influence local voters. Is WY more persuaded by outside public opinion? If you think it will actually help, I am fine sending emails, but if NR-comment goes right in the trash then I will save the few minutes for another time.

 

[BuzzH]

All I can say is that I've heard comments read in testimony that I know for a fact, NR made.

I also know that the legislature realizes the amount of money that NR's bring to the State.

I know that Randy has pinched a nerve or two with his comments on a few bills, one I can remember for sure is the last 60/40 bill. Apparently his comments made the rounds with the legislature.

So, yes, I think the legislature consider the comments from NR's.

 

[rmyoung1]

Done. Thanks, Buzz.

And... as a side note... I listened to that podcast. Does bringing up the practices of that bunch help push opposition to this bill? Man... I'd think so. What elected official would want to be linked to stuff like that? Yikes.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't think many people realize what goes on with the one shot hunt, including the legislature.

It just seems ridiculous to "double down" on set asides, no matter what two groups get the tags.

 

[VikingsGuy]

All I can say is that I've heard comments read in testimony that I know for a fact, NR made.

I also know that the legislature realizes the amount of money that NR's bring to the State.

I know that Randy has pinched a nerve or two with his comments on a few bills, one I can remember for sure is the last 60/40 bill. Apparently his comments made the rounds with the legislature.

So, yes, I think the legislature consider the comments from NR's.

Thanks for your perspective, I will fire off some emails tonight.

 

[JM77]

For those looking for a little background: https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?275250-Lander-quot-one-shot-quot-hunt-issues. It is also discussed by Buzz at the end HuntTalk podcast episode 56.

Time to send the pictures of white men dressed up as Indian women to the WY press.

 

[MN_Bowhunter4]

What area(s) are the tags for? Thinking perhaps including some math on the revenue for tags would be beneficial to include...
<<<edit>>> according to the One Shot website areas are 65, 66, 67, 68, and 106.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I don't know what the amendment is.

As I read, they added a "(ii)" that provides that if tag allocations have to be cut due to animal population management needs, those cuts would first come from this pool. FWIW - as Buzz and others note, this is still a bad way of allocating hunting opportunity.