Where does it say landowner tags are unlimited? I think they are limited by the number of qualifying landowners in a hunt area and by the quota for the hunt area.
SF118 Action alert big bucks for big bucks take 2
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
The information is out there, I know exactly how it works.
That google thing can help you.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Landowners can draw every single tag in any given LQ area. I believe it has happened in the past in some LQ units.
If there's more qualifying landowners than available tags, then there is a draw.
NR quota's go to NR landowners, R quota's go to R landowners via appropriate tag splits (84-16 for elk as an example).
BuzzH
Well-known member
Correct, I know @WapitiBob has some of the info.
Fair enough. I looked it up for myself. Wouldn't want to have you over-extend yourself.
For those that are interested:
Immediate family of the "individual" only - spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, or lineal descendants and their spouses.
But the "landowner" can also be a partnership, corporation, Trust entity, LLC, or any combination of these in addition to a single individual. That would seem to open the door to a potentially large group of folks if I read the WYO regs correctly. Certainly enough folks in that pool to make a rather large dent in the tags available on the whole if all the landowners exercised the rights WYO has given them.
I also note that NR landowners draw from the NR pool and Res landowners draw from the Res pool. Given the 90/10 (or 84/16 that Buzz references) split, the real pain will be experienced by the Res population.
Landowners are restricted to 2 licenses per species (elk, deer, fall turkey, spring turkey).
"Licenses shall be issued to landowners without participating in a competitive drawing unless the number of landowner license applications exceeds the number of licenses authorized for the hunt area by the Commission. In such cases, a competitive
drawing shall be utilized to determine successful landowner license applicants." - Guess that already partially addresses one of the options I offered previously. Thus not every landowner is guaranteed a tag if more landowners apply than there are tags available under the quota. That's at least one positive.
And it doesn't automatically kick in where there are General Licenses, be it Res or NR, unless that GL is for anterless only. That clearly removes a large number of hunting areas from the pool.
So it appears the real issue is a) does a transferable tag result in a larger fraction of landowners exercising their right to apply for a highly sought-after tag that in turn removes a tag from the competitive draw; and b) would monetizing that draw compound that increased application trend?
For a) the 2024 draw results (elk only) show that Res landowners represented less than 5% of all Res tags awarded and slightly less than 10% of Type-1 Res tags awarded. Archery tags were inconsequential. So the potential impact is huge if the size of the landowner pool is significantly higher than the number that actually participate now. But per online news stories, the landowner usage is already growing (26% between 2014 and 2021) and I suspect that trend hasn't slowed down. Thus while making tags transferable may increase that rate, it's seems hard to argue that by itself, it poses a major threat that isn't already there. There are a few units where landowners take >10% of the tag quota but that is in less than 16% of the total hunting areas affected (Resident numbers only). Could that double? Probably. Increase by 10-fold? Seems unlikely as those that want to hunt already do and those that don't, don't.
for b) highly likely. Human nature is to take advantage of the opportunity to make a $ whenever possible. There is an existing capping mechanism but that doesn't look to help the draw pool hunter much.
Again, just my observations. As a NR and not a landowner in WYO, I don't have any say in the matter and don't have an ox in the arena.
How much of Wyo will be sold off into 160 acre pads so that wealthy res and nonres hunters can apply and receive tags every year? My guess is that if the tag is only valid on the private property of the owner that this would curtail some of this from happening. It also would put more hunting pressure on private vs public land where the critters seem to always spend time....a couple other faults with the current flawed landowner program.
www.swanlandco.com
www.whitetailproperties.com
6 Important Regulations Regarding Wyoming Landowner Hunting License
What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming has some great hunting opportunities, for both residents and non-residents. One great opportunity is the Landowner License option that Wyoming offers. What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming...
www.swanlandco.com
Land for Sale | Whitetail Properties
Explore vast Wyoming land for sale and embrace nature's beauty. Your gateway to owning a piece of the West. Find your dream property today.
www.whitetailproperties.com
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not many, because most likely they won't qualify here shortly. The commission is looking to change the minimum acreage to 640, increase use days, and also tighten up the corporation problems.How much of Wyo will be sold off into 160 acre pads so that avid res and nonres hunters can apply and receive tags every year?
6 Important Regulations Regarding Wyoming Landowner Hunting License
What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming has some great hunting opportunities, for both residents and non-residents. One great opportunity is the Landowner License option that Wyoming offers. What Qualifies a Person for a Wyoming Landowner Hunting License? Wyoming...
Land for Sale | Whitetail Properties
Explore vast Wyoming land for sale and embrace nature's beauty. Your gateway to owning a piece of the West. Find your dream property today.
Seems like a good idea.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The only species that are 90/10 are moose, sheep, goat, and bison.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You probably should be concentrating on making some changes in Colorado...we have it covered in WY.
If LO really want additional tags make them available for private land only and through the public draw. The PLO tags in Colo usually have better draw odds and relieve hunting pressure on public land. There is no need for transferable tags if there are PLO tags available in a public draw.
But do we?
ismith
Well-known member
ismith
Well-known member
LO’s should get nothing.
This bill destroy everything. NR corporate interest are already eating up lands without transferable tags. This goes through and there will be big money in owning land here.
This will cause several negative impacts. lands in areas that are marginal livestock lands will have inflated values. As the hunting in some of those areas are incredible. Think a 124 elk (already suffering from this issue). Or pretty much anywhere in the checker board. Changing the acres to 649 would not matter much as landowners will still divide out into LLCs that are now 640 acres. Huge swaths of land will be changed by this. Think about the rock springs grazing association, Stratton sheep company. Hell we just recently lost access on the stone ranch as it sold to NR investors who were primarily buying for access to tags in elk 22.
End result will be less land available for ranching, especially sheep as sheep are not favored by hunters. NW Colorado saw several sheep properties taken out of sheep production when transferable tags came on board. Same will happen in WY.
The other major impact will be the end of Access Yes, the end of HMAs and the end of walk-in access. Those programs will be all but gone. Simply put they will not be able to compete with the big money from the tags and leasi g. Transferable tags are the biggest reason why Colorados access programs struggle. Raymond in 22 will be gone. The Tipton ranch access gone, any access we can get in 118, will be gone.
Lastly can you imagine the pressure and fight we will have to keep any access in the elk mountain area etc?
So if the changing land ownership, the subdividing and creation of LLcs, is not enough. We will not have any successful access programs left for all the public. Resident or Non
Lastly once this starts it will be a never ending g co start battle. The landowners will never let up and they will want more and more.
This will cause several negative impacts. lands in areas that are marginal livestock lands will have inflated values. As the hunting in some of those areas are incredible. Think a 124 elk (already suffering from this issue). Or pretty much anywhere in the checker board. Changing the acres to 649 would not matter much as landowners will still divide out into LLCs that are now 640 acres. Huge swaths of land will be changed by this. Think about the rock springs grazing association, Stratton sheep company. Hell we just recently lost access on the stone ranch as it sold to NR investors who were primarily buying for access to tags in elk 22.
End result will be less land available for ranching, especially sheep as sheep are not favored by hunters. NW Colorado saw several sheep properties taken out of sheep production when transferable tags came on board. Same will happen in WY.
The other major impact will be the end of Access Yes, the end of HMAs and the end of walk-in access. Those programs will be all but gone. Simply put they will not be able to compete with the big money from the tags and leasi g. Transferable tags are the biggest reason why Colorados access programs struggle. Raymond in 22 will be gone. The Tipton ranch access gone, any access we can get in 118, will be gone.
Lastly can you imagine the pressure and fight we will have to keep any access in the elk mountain area etc?
So if the changing land ownership, the subdividing and creation of LLcs, is not enough. We will not have any successful access programs left for all the public. Resident or Non
Lastly once this starts it will be a never ending g co start battle. The landowners will never let up and they will want more and more.
Addicting
Well-known member
While I don’t want to see transferable tags to the masses, I wouldn’t mind seeing it more than just immediate family. There are alot of long time ranch hands that work these properties every day. They may be on the property more than the owner. I wish there was a way for them to get a one of these tags.
I realize there is potential for abuse by “hiring” a hand then transfer the tag. I’m not sure how it could be worded to prevent a one day hire.
Anyway, thanks for bringing light to this. It needs all the light it can get to stop it.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 3,468
Primary income with a w-2
Elks brings up several good points. First and foremost there needs to be landowner quotas. There currently are none. Every available tag in a unit can go to landowners prior to the draw.
A quota would prevent the sub-dividing of property and many other problems.
How on earth would landowners benefit from the headaches of public HMA and Walk-in programs when they can make big $ off transferable tags?
If a landowner is really concerned about ranch hands, why not claim them as owners with the current system?
A quota would prevent the sub-dividing of property and many other problems.
How on earth would landowners benefit from the headaches of public HMA and Walk-in programs when they can make big $ off transferable tags?
If a landowner is really concerned about ranch hands, why not claim them as owners with the current system?
