SF118 Action alert big bucks for big bucks take 2

[Treeshark]

Whether or not I have personally purchased LO tags. What difference would that make in this discussion?

The personal stuff usually doesn’t help foster a productive discussion, it’s always helpful to focus on the subject.

 

[Nick87]

Ok so is it convenient or is it better for the resource?

 

[Treeshark]

Ok so is it convenient or is it better for the resource?

Yes- both.

 

[Nick87]

Yes- both.

All the work the landowners do for wildlife in the eplus program? Is that it?

 

[Treeshark]

All the work the landowners do for wildlife in the eplus program? Is that it?

That certainly helps in NM. I think that in general that programs tend to lead to higher game tolerance by private landholders.

 

[Nick87]

That certainly helps in NM

Pm'd you the other day in hopes to try to explain how corrupt some of the eplus system is. Im not interested in divulging any details on here publicly. Not so much as a response from you. So it seems you don't want to learn anymore about it from anyone first hand. Just read the front page of the eplus website and then bury your head back up your ass. I've always wondered why anyone would use the ignore button. Now I know.

 

[Treeshark]

Nick, you didn’t even have a basic grasp some fairly basic parts of their program last week when we were discussing this. I’m not claiming to be an expert by any means, but I’m also not sure it’s fair to say I’m the ignorant one here.

Also, I apologize that I did not apply to your pm. It was kind of cryptic- no real context, you just said you had super secret info that you couldn’t discuss openly- you didn’t offer to disclose it to me. Knock yourself out if you think it would help the discussion, but chill out with the attacks.

 

[BuzzH]

How many states that have transferable big game tags have public big game access programs like Access Yes or Block Management?

Anyone care to talk about this?

Or is it just another "scare tactic"?

 

[cgasner1]

Anyone care to talk about this?

Or is it just another "scare tactic"?

New Mexico does but their landowner system is built to help with that. A landowner can get a tag for only his ranch if that’s all he wants. If he wants to hunt the entire unit his ranch is in then he has to open the ranch up to a type of access program

 

[Ben Lamb]

Arguing online reduces the time you spend organizing.

Hunt talk doesn't vote. Legislators do.

 

[Treeshark]

Anyone care to talk about this?

Fair question.

It’s a comparison of Block Management and Access Yes land vs the amount of private that would be opened up via a Landowner program.

I’m not sure how you’d be able to answer that without enacting an LO program and analyzing after the fact, but it’s an interesting point to ponder.

Also, important to note- Block Management acreage has been on a downward trajectory for a while, so you’d obviously need to control for that in the analysis as well.

 

[BuzzH]

If what you say is correct, then there is already incentives (financial) to buy land in WYO other than hunting. Access may take a hit but unless WYO is converting State lands to private lands, that access is already under pressure as it stands.

WYO regs already address this: Ch 44, Section 8 - "Any lands purchased or subdivided for the primary purpose of obtaining landowner licenses shall not be eligible for landowner licenses." Is WYO G&F not enforcing current regs?

I think this argument is mostly BS. Sheep ranching, whether for wool or for meat production, has been on the decline since 1940. Sheep production now is 10% what it was in WWII. Multiple factors contribute; loss of US textile industry, US consumption of lamb/mutton, improved beef, pork, and chicken production methods (good or bad depending on your POV), weather (cold winters, dry summers), competition from NZ and Australia, etc. Are there isolated examples where a rancher said "forget raising sheep, I can make more money from wild game hunters."? Coulld be, but they were likely already on the very low financial end of the sheep producers to begin with.

Potentially, yes. But all of these programs are voluntary by the landowners so are at risk whether there are transferable tags or not. Many hunter access programs, including those in CO, struggle due to lack of funding for states to compensate landowners for opening up their properties to hunting vs putting it into some other form of production. Suggest you look at PERC (headquartered in Bozeman) as one example of a pro-conservation group that has looked at this topic in detail for quite some time.


Doesn't really solve the potential big $$$ spree that has been raised. Could make it worse as the "supply" is cut but the demand hasn't changed. More $$$'s to fewer landowners that get one of the quota tags. It would allow more tags to make it to the draw portion which is good for the average hunter. But passing a change that takes away from an existing entitlement will be challenging and has the potential to further discourage landowners from participating in any hunting access programs whether they get a quota tag or not. If WYO is going to screw the landowner, two can play at that game. They can simply close their land to the public and sell "access" rather than tags. They already have that right.


Again - WYO already has regs around subdivision for the purposes of getting landowner tags. Are these not being enforced?


Landowners can already make big $'s off their land, be it hunting related or not. And many are mutually exclusive.

I am not a fan of transferable tags that can then be sold on the open market. Monetizing a public resource within a private transaction is generally wrong. But the arguments so far have been mostly scare tactics of what might happen with an underlying angst around losing their historical share of the pie. If the goal of this bill is to give landowners a bigger incentive to support and expand habitat improvement that results in a larger and healthier wildlife population, then that benefits everyone. I think there are better ways of achieving that goal than the current bill. As Big Fin has said before, we need to focus on putting more animals on the landscape rather than arguing who gets to kill the last elk.

To respond to a few of the points here.

1. Sheep ranching is highly subsidized already from the tax payer in direct sheep meat and wool subsidies as well as cheap grazing on federal leases. If not for the subsidies sheep ranching would fail to exist. I'm inclined to not prop up a failing industry any more with me wildlife tags.

2. Yes, WY's accessyes program is voluntary. WY does not struggle with funding for the program and absolutely transferable landowner tags would crush accessyes, that's just a fact. That would in turn lead to even more harboring of elk, which is already a huge problem in Wyoming in many areas. Keep in mind, nobody is requesting to do away with the current LO tag program. In fact, I'm supportive of it. Nobody is getting screwed so I don't know what you're even talking about.

3. Yes, we do have regulations on subdividing for the purpose of landowner tags, yes it's been enforced but very difficult to prove.

4. Yes, landowners can already make big bucks off their land via several options for the hunting of public wildlife. They can utilize those that already exist, they don't need transferable tags to profit heavily from my wildlife.

5. The goal is not to incentivize landowners to support more wildlife or wildlife tolerance. Many are pushing agendas such as aerial gunning elk and leaving them in a pile. They have already had wardens gunning elk from the ground and leaving them. They have had wardens killing elk starting August 1. They are allowing elk to be killed by the public into March. The GF hired people to kill as many elk as they could in some areas of the state. The GF have allowed NR and R hunters to kill elk without a license. They have allowed 4 individuals to kill 25 elk each on another property.

Does this sound like the actions of LO's that are looking for incentives to support and expand healthier wildlife populations? Yeah, I don't think so either.

Lets not forget the fact that in many cases the LO tags will have ZERO impact on controlling the population unless those tags are for cow elk. You can't control a population shooting bulls.

One step further, just because a landowner is allowed to transfer and profit from a bull tag, doesn't mean they are going to be any more tolerant of big-game or do anything to improve habitat. There is ZERO requirement for the LO's to do anything to improve habitat. In particular when many times these types of tags are not used anywhere close to the property where the LO tag was issued.

Its simply a give-away program and I don't agree with it at all.

6. I'm also tired of people like you claiming hunters do nothing for landowners. That's a bunch of bullshit. We provide 100% of the funding for damage claims. We provide 100% of the funding for the accessyes program. We provide 100% of the funding for the landowner coupons. The WYGBLC has provided millions of dollars of improvements to private lands for wildlife related projects through grants. We provide 100% of the funding for wardens to field their calls about game violations, trespassing, etc. That's just to name a few of the things we provide 100% of the funding for.

To say that hunters are doing nothing for LO's is a repulsive thing to even imply. Hunters bend over backward to work with landowners and provide millions in support of the many good landowners out there.

I'm not inclined to see that fall apart over transferable tags.

 

[BuzzH]

Fair question.

It’s a comparison of Block Management and Access Yes land vs the amount of private that would be opened up via a Landowner program.

I’m not sure how you’d be able to answer that without enacting an LO program and analyzing after the fact, but it’s an interesting point to ponder.

Also, important to note- Block Management acreage has been on a downward trajectory for a while, so you’d obviously need to control for that in the analysis as well.

Pretty easy to know what happens when you look at other states, like CO which borders WY.

 

[Treeshark]

Pretty easy to know what happens when you look at other states, like CO which borders WY.

I personally don’t think that Colorado has a bad thing going with their LO tag program.

 

[BuzzH]

I personally don’t think that Colorado has a bad thing going with their LO tag program.

How's their public access program?

 

[Treeshark]

How's their public access program?

Good from my perspective, I’ve never had trouble finding public lands to hunt on in Colorado.

They even let dirty NRs like me hunt the wilderness

 

[elks]

Actually, they do exactly the opposite.

They provide access to private land that would otherwise be off-limits, and by increasing the game populations they increases available tags (that’s why states wisely offer unit-wide tags).

nope not at all. There is nearly 30,000 acres of access lost in NW Colorado. Lands that were open to all are now only open to those willing to pay big money. It will end access program in WY. Why is it that Colorado has virtually no public access for deer and elk hunting? Because the tags are too valuable and as a result the access become exclusive to those with more money. Ranches where access only cost the public $100 a gun are now locked up for the cool cost of $3,000 plus the tag cost. All because of privatized tags.

 

[cgasner1]

Good from my perspective, I’ve never had trouble finding public lands to hunt on in Colorado.

They even let dirty NRs like me hunt the wilderness

Can you afford to hunt Colorado?

 

[elks]

How's their public access program?

Nonexistence. There is literally no way to get a public access program to work in Colorado.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Good from my perspective, I’ve never had trouble finding public lands to hunt on in Colorado.

They even let dirty NRs like me hunt the wilderness

Wonder if moga would support that in MT?

Be kinda nice.