Big bucks for big bucks.

[seeth07]

Have to be a resident, right?

Nope, I can transfer them over to whoever I want

 

[Forkyfinder]

Nope, I can transfer them over to whoever I want

R Landowner

 

[seeth07]

You bring me a real scenario that benefits wild sheep and we will both find out where my line is located. Nothing is black and white like you and Treeshark want to make it, but I have yet to see a private transferable tag program in which the juice is worth the squeeze.

I wish I could because you are absolutely right in that no one has done it yet. The "juice is worth the squeeze" is exactly what I wanted to point out to this conservation and it doesn't exist yet. But maybe it could.

 

[seeth07]

R Landowner

A NR landowner can get the same tags and transfer them as they see fit

 

[Lost Arra]

I see the bigger problem with Wyoming landowner tags is in the hunt areas where a lot of landowners meet the eligibility requirements and all apply. That leaves fewer tags in the LE draw for residents and non-residents. If there is a significant financial incentive for the landowner then more would probably apply, further reducing the tags available to non landowners. There probably needs for be a cap on landowner tags, maybe only one tag per owner if the eligible owners reach a certain percentage of the quota.

 

[seeth07]

I wish I could because you are absolutely right in that no one has done it yet. The "juice is worth the squeeze" is exactly what I wanted to point out to this conservation and it doesn't exist yet. But maybe it could.

I need to take this back. I think the program Kentucky created with elk and the landowner vouchers is one of the main reasons for why it's been such a successful expansion of the elk there. The juice is worth the squeeze

 

[Treeshark]

I think the program Kentucky created with elk and the landowner vouchers is one of the main reasons for why it's been such a successful expansion of the elk there. The juice is worth the squeeze

A compelling argument could be made that NM’s landowner tag system is certainly worth the squeeze for their elk herd as well.

I’m surprised the writer even brought NM up as an example, as it is widely thought to be a very successful program overall.

 

[Forkyfinder]

A compelling argument could be made that NM’s landowner tag system is certainly worth the squeeze for their elk herd as well.

I’m surprised the writer even brought NM up as an example, as it is widely thought to be a very successful program overall.

How? Prove that hypothesis?

 

[seeth07]

How? Prove that hypothesis?

You could start with comparing the elk herd numbers from past to present. Then you could also look at available tags in the draw from past to present. Both are increasing.

 

[Wild Bill]

You guys can twist this pretzel all you want but the end result is going to be fewer tags allocated to average everyday hunters, more tags for T & L from Iowa with deep pockets.
Sure there might be more elk/deer/pronghorn/insert your species on the landscape, but only folks that can afford the buy in will be hunting.

 

[Nick87]

You guys can twist this pretzel all you want but the end result is going to be fewer tags allocated to average everyday hunters, more tags for T & L from Iowa with deep pockets.
Sure there might be more elk/deer/pronghorn/insert your species on the landscape, but only folks that can afford the buy in will be hunting.

Yep.

 

[Treeshark]

Sure there might be more elk/deer/pronghorn/insert your species on the landscape, but only folks that can afford the buy in will be hunting.

That is a bit dramatic, don’t you think? Do you have any evidence of that happening from the states that already have transferable landowner tags?

 

[Nick87]

That is a bit dramatic, don’t you think? Do you have any evidence of that happening from the states that already have transferable landowner tags?

Yes, New Mexico for one.

 

[Wild Bill]

That is a bit dramatic, don’t you think? Do you have any evidence of that happening from the states that already have transferable landowner tags?

I edited this one. Shouldn't start the day with negativity.
But, I don't need any evidence of it already happenings, because I can just make up some wild hypothetical to state my case as has already been done in this thread. I'm not going to do that though, so you can imagine your own.

 

[Nick87]

You're dense.

You're polite.

 

[Treeshark]

Yes, New Mexico for one.

Didn’t you just hunt NM, or am I thinking of @seeth07?

 

[Alpine01]

I don't support the CO LPP, or the CO RFW program, or the CO BSAP program, or the NM EPlus program, or the UT conservation permit program either.

Not necessarily trying to pin you down but what part of the LPP (for example) do you disagree with? If I owned 160+ acres in CO, I would have an expectation that I could hunt my own land on somewhat of a regular basis. The LPP seems to have quite a few qualifications in place to get a tag so it's more than just the person owns some land. If the tag was non-transferrable or only transferrable with no monetary gain is that acceptable?

 

[Nick87]

Didn’t you just hunt NM, or am I thinking of @seeth07?

Yes I did. Seeth did as well.

 

[Treeshark]

Yes I did. Seeth did as well.

I’m assuming via the draw, correct?

Can you see how that might be problematic in making the claim that, because of Transferable Landowner Tags, the only way for you to hunt NM is to “afford the buy in” when you hunted there yourself within the past few months?

 

[Nick87]

I’m assuming via the draw, correct?

Can you see how that might be problematic in making the claim that the only way for you to hunt NM is to “afford the buy in” when you hunted there yourself within the past few months?

Yes in the draw. What do you think is going to take place as more and more states keep commercializing wildlife and transferable tags become the norm?