SF003 160 tags now at 80...

B

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,797
Location
Laramie, WY
Just wanted to keep everyone in the loop on what happened today in the house TRW committee meeting.

First of all, your emails made a huge impact, there was a lot of discussion regarding the fairness, constitutionality, and reasons for set asides.

Representative MacGuire, who is 100% spot on with this bill, gave some of, if not the best public testimony on hunting I have heard probably ever. He is 100% about keeping hunting available to all, young, old, rich, poor, man, women, black, white, he doesn't care hunting should be equal to all. He's a perfect fit on the TRW committee.

He offered an amendment to keep the bill as is, with the current tag allotment set at 80, split evenly between the Lander one shot hunt and the women's hunt. I want to be perfectly clear that the Women's hunt is the real deal, they do great work and we all need to actively work on getting more women in the field. But, this bill is not about the integrity of the Women's hunt, its about keeping Access to tags on a level playing field.

So, the next step, and I almost hate to ask again, but I think its important enough, the entire House side needs to hear that splitting the 80 existing tags between the 2 hunts, that the MacGuire amendment recommends, is the only path forward, if not, the bill needs to go away. This thing is going to get punted around on the floor here soon, and we need to keep the amendment alive keeping the allotment at 80 tags, or ask that the legislation not move forward.

Please, be polite and to the point, ask them to keep the MacGuire amendment or kill the legislation...you guys that sent emails made a tremendous difference, no question...thank you.

Here's the list: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LegislatorSummary/LegislatorList.aspx?strHouse=H&strStatus=N

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
 
Last edited:
I'm more than happy to write again. Thank you!

If I may clarify a bit, just to make sure I'm understanding you, it sounds like you're saying that in your perfect world, you'd have no set aside tags for events like these, even though you think the women's hunt is a great event, worth supporting. But, getting rid of all set-asides is not a politically realistic action right now, nor is it on the table. Right now, what's on the table is either option 1: keeping things the same (at 80), by either supporting the amendment, or killing the overall bill, or option 2: supporting the bill which would expand the set-asides to 160. Do I have that right?
 
Done and thanks as always BuzzH for keeping us abreast as Bills are brought forward! Yes Dougfirtree, you have it right. I put in my email that there is a groundswell by both resident and nonresident hunters to eliminate ALL the existing set aside licenses in the future, but at least at the present time to either accept the MacGuire Amendment to keep the limit at 80 or kill the Bill completely!
 
Dougfirtree said:
I'm more than happy to write again. Thank you!

If I may clarify a bit, just to make sure I'm understanding you, it sounds like you're saying that in your perfect world, you'd have no set aside tags for events like these, even though you think the women's hunt is a great event, worth supporting. But, getting rid of all set-asides is not a politically realistic action right now, nor is it on the table. Right now, what's on the table is either option 1: keeping things the same (at 80), by either supporting the amendment, or killing the overall bill, or option 2: supporting the bill which would expand the set-asides to 160. Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

The change from current statute if 80 tag amendment stays, is that it would go to two hunts instead of just the One Shot.
 
That's good news, indeed. Drove past the "One-Shot" building in Lander over the weekend and was wondering how all this would end up. Just texted my Rep and will send emails tonight. I'll make sure all my friends continue to keep the heat on. Thanks!
-Cade
 
Heard back from Rep Loucks. He says he is voting no on the whole thing because he didn't want to harm the OneShot event.
 
VikingsGuy said:
Heard back from Rep Loucks. He says he is voting no on the whole thing because he didn't want to harm the OneShot event.
Click to expand...

Bunky Loucks represents north west Casper and I have written him an email pertaining to this because of his response to you. He obviously doesn't have the latest information on the One Shot.

I helped him out a little...
 
Done. Thanks again Buzz for the update.
I copied all the address separated by ; incase someone would like to email all of them at once.

[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];
 
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];
 
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];
 
Since the one-shot will likely never go away, I would much rather see the one-shot only get 24 and the remaining 56 be allocated to the women’s hunt. But I’ll take this.

Also, unless additional wording has been added, the bill says “up to”. I think significant pressure should be put on the commission as well.
 
When I had a dialog with Ms. Halverson, I recommended keeping the 80 tags and splitting them equally, men/women, to be used at the one-shot. I will stand by that. It was brought to my attention that the one-shot created water to benefit pronghorn fawn survival. Since the inception of one-shot's involvement with Water for Wildlife, there have been 174 projects done in WY (records between 1975 and 2015). I also voiced my opinion on those projects, but kept it brief.

Good work Buzz. Looks like this may be going in the right direction.

BTW, it was a pleasure communicating with Halverson. Much respect on this issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
160 tags taken from WY Pronghorn hunters
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
9K
JM77
JM77

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,544
Messages
2,024,582
Members
36,226
Latest member
Byrova

Share this page

Back
Top