SF118 Action alert big bucks for big bucks take 2

[Treeshark]

Can you afford to hunt Colorado?

Man, it’s tough these days. If it cost a nickel to take a s$&@ I’d have to puke.

 

[Alpine01]

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.

No doubt. And if you are inclined to not prop up sheep ranching with wildlife tags, that's your choice. Suggest you and @elks have a conversation. He's the one making the case that sheep ranches are going out of business because of transferable tags.

2. Yes, WY's accessyes program is voluntary. WY does not struggle with funding for the program

Great, glad to hear WYO has no problems funding access. I spoke to CO, not WYO. Public access to private land for hunting are always under pressure as lands, ranches, farms are sold and new owners have different priorities.

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.

I didn't imply anyone was so what's your point? You need to work on your reading comprehension - @jimss offered up imposing a quota system which would be a significant change to what WYO does now. There are likely going to be a subset of LOs that are going to react rather badly to that and feel like they are being screwed over. Changing the acreage requirements are going to deny some LOs access to an entitlement that others that are their peers enjoy now. There are likely going to be a subset of LOs that are going to react rather badly to that and feel like they are being screwed over. Then we have @ismith that takes the position that LOs should get absolutely nothing. Hard to say what that guy is smoking, if you really want to lose hunting access and drive herds onto private land for good, then advocate for LOs to have no voice and see how far that gets you.

Right now WYO has a very generous entitlement program in place for landowners. They get tags off the top with no set limit of how many are issued which negatively impacts the general draw. That entitlement has been "lightly" used in the past and the trend, regardless of the transferable issue, is on an upward slope. Transferable tags may hasten the issue, but the issue will continue to become problematic. Taking away entitlement benefits always leads to disgruntlement from those having their ox gored. Does WYO need a change in their system? Based on comments in this thread, yes. Draw pool hunters are up in arms and feeling "screwed over" because they see tags that were unused by LOs potentially becoming more attractive and LOs applying for them per their right and as a result they lose tag numbers in the end. If you take away from LOs, they are going to howl just as loud.

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.

No argument there - as I said, I think there are better ways of solving the problem so what's your point?

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.

Sounds like an issue with elk recognizing that private lands are sanctuaries; that perhaps many LOs are not aware of public access options or feel the hassle isn't worth the benefit; or have allowed the public on their lands in the past and had negative experiences to the point they don't want to open their lands anymore; or are in general, just against letting anyone on their property for any reason. I can't begin to fathom what each of their motivations are. But I haven't seen any articles complaining there are too many elk in western Wyoming either.

6. I'm also tired of people like you claiming hunters do nothing for landowners. That's a bunch of bullshit.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, I made no such statement and implied no such thing. If you can't make a sane argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then it's hard to take anything you say seriously. And those types of attacks add nothing to the conversation.

 

[BuzzH]

No doubt. And if you are inclined to not prop up sheep ranching with wildlife tags, that's your choice. Suggest you and @elks have a conversation. He's the one making the case that sheep ranches are going out of business because of transferable tags.

Great, glad to hear WYO has no problems funding access. I spoke to CO, not WYO. Public access to private land for hunting are always under pressure as lands, ranches, farms are sold and new owners have different priorities.

I didn't imply anyone was so what's your point? You need to work on your reading comprehension - @jimss offered up imposing a quota system which would be a significant change to what WYO does now. There are likely going to be a subset of LOs that are going to react rather badly to that and feel like they are being screwed over. Changing the acreage requirements are going to deny some LOs access to an entitlement that others that are their peers enjoy now. There are likely going to be a subset of LOs that are going to react rather badly to that and feel like they are being screwed over. Then we have @ismith that takes the position that LOs should get absolutely nothing. Hard to say what that guy is smoking, if you really want to lose hunting access and drive herds onto private land for good, then advocate for LOs to have no voice and see how far that gets you.

Right now WYO has a very generous entitlement program in place for landowners. They get tags off the top with no set limit of how many are issued which negatively impacts the general draw. That entitlement has been "lightly" used in the past and the trend, regardless of the transferable issue, is on an upward slope. Transferable tags may hasten the issue, but the issue will continue to become problematic. Taking away entitlement benefits always leads to disgruntlement from those having their ox gored. Does WYO need a change in their system? Based on comments in this thread, yes. Draw pool hunters are up in arms and feeling "screwed over" because they see tags that were unused by LOs potentially becoming more attractive and LOs applying for them per their right and as a result they lose tag numbers in the end. If you take away from LOs, they are going to howl just as loud.

No argument there - as I said, I think there are better ways of solving the problem so what's your point?

Sounds like an issue with elk recognizing that private lands are sanctuaries; that perhaps many LOs are not aware of public access options or feel the hassle isn't worth the benefit; or have allowed the public on their lands in the past and had negative experiences to the point they don't want to open their lands anymore; or are in general, just against letting anyone on their property for any reason. I can't begin to fathom what each of their motivations are. But I haven't seen any articles complaining there are too many elk in western Wyoming either.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, I made no such statement and implied no such thing. If you can't make a sane argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then it's hard to take anything you say seriously. And those types of attacks add nothing to the conversation.

There's a lot you don't know and very little you do about this bill or anything Wyoming hunting...and that's a fact.

Very little LO complaints from Western Wyoming elk? That's funny, hilarious actually.

You need to get with the program.

Also, Colorado landowners and hunters could really use your "expertise". Colorado has more issues than most states.

 

[Alpine01]

How's their public access program?

According to CPW and the Governor, doing quite well. In 2021, CPW added 199000 acres into the Public Access Program bringing it to a total of 973000 acres and more than doubled the PAP from 2018. Between 2019 and 2024, CPA added 558000 acres to PAP with the Collard Ranch SWA as the latest (at least as of March 2024). All this while having LO transferable tags.

 

[Alpine01]

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

CPW and Gov Polis would disagree with that. You might want to do some homework on the topic.

 

[ismith]

Then we have @ismith that takes the position that LOs should get absolutely nothing. Hard to say what that guy is smoking, if you really want to lose hunting access and drive herds onto private land for good, then advocate for LOs to have no voice and see how far that gets you.

Not giving landowners transferable bull tags will ruin hunting? WTF are YOU smoking?

 

[BuzzH]

According to CPW and the Governor, doing quite well. In 2021, CPW added 199000 acres into the Public Access Program bringing it to a total of 973000 acres and more than doubled the PAP from 2018. Between 2019 and 2024, CPA added 558000 acres to PAP with the Collard Ranch SWA as the latest (at least as of March 2024). All this while having LO transferable tags.

Wyoming is just under 3,000,000 acres in accessyes.

I'd say you have some catching up to do.

 

[Alpine01]

Wyoming is just under 3,000,000 acres in accessyes.

I'd say you have some catching up to do.

Congrats! If one got brownie points for who had the most acres, WYO would surely beat CO. Maybe you can enlighten @elks that CO actually has been able to implement a public access program after all.

 

[BuzzH]

Congrats! If one got brownie points for who had the most acres, WYO would surely beat CO. Maybe you can enlighten @elks that CO actually has been able to implement a public access program after all.

I don't equate access to brownie points, but I do equate it to some pretty huge opportunity.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Outfitters are trying to take Wyoming hunting inch by inch

 

[Oak]

According to CPW and the Governor, doing quite well. In 2021, CPW added 199000 acres into the Public Access Program bringing it to a total of 973000 acres and more than doubled the PAP from 2018. Between 2019 and 2024, CPA added 558000 acres to PAP with the Collard Ranch SWA as the latest (at least as of March 2024). All this while having LO transferable tags.

LOL, we are talking about access to private lands for big game hunting, not STL lands. Wyoming has access to just about all of their STL lands , while Colorado pays for access to 1,000,000 acres. Again, Colorado has problems.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

LOL, we are talking about access to private lands for big game hunting, not STL lands. Wyoming has access to just about all of their STL lands , while Colorado pays for access to 1,000,000 acres. Again, Colorado has problems.

That’s the understatement of the century…… public land access, along with a whole host of others things. Almost fell out of my chair laughing when Alpine used the words “doing quite well” in regard to hunting and Governor Polis in the same sentence.

 

[Treeshark]

Wyoming has access to just about all of their STL lands , while Colorado pays for access to 1,000,000 acres. Again, Colorado has problems.

Mission creep on this thread subject, but since we are discussing access-

Wyoming does not allow big game hunting on wilderness land to NRs though- a fair comparison of access must also account for that in my opinion.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Mission creep on this thread subject, but since we are discussing access-

Wyoming does not allow big game hunting on wilderness land to NRs though- a fair comparison of access must also account for that in my opinion.

Sure they can. Just have to have friends in Wyoming or buy some (outfitters). I thought you liked buying stuff for exclusive access?

 

[Oak]

Mission creep on this thread subject, but since we are discussing access-

Wyoming does not allow big game hunting on wilderness land to NRs though- a fair comparison of access must also account for that in my opinion.

The mission creep is all you. You're shifting to a public lands access red herring. Transferable big game licenses directly and negatively impact access to private lands through public access programs.

 

[BuzzH]

Mission creep on this thread subject, but since we are discussing access-

Wyoming does not allow big game hunting on wilderness land to NRs though- a fair comparison of access must also account for that in my opinion.

Its funny how you perpetuate outright lies.

I've had numerous NR friends hunt designated wilderness here.

 

[elks]

Mission creep on this thread subject, but since we are discussing access-

Wyoming does not allow big game hunting on wilderness land to NRs though- a fair comparison of access must also account for that in my opinion.

HAHA. Wait all through this thread you were happy about paying for better access. Isn't the wilderness rule just that? So which is it, forcing to pay more for access is good or bad?

 

[MTGomer]

BHA is a terrorist organization in sheep's clothing

Right on, man.
If someone at HSUS, PETA or the CBD said that pedophilia was bad, would you disagree because you don’t like the messenger?

 

[Treeshark]

Transferable big game licenses directly and negatively impact access to private lands through public access programs.

Yes, you’re likely right. However, that access shortfall could be take care of (and then some) with the stroke of a pen by allowing DIY NRs to hunt wilderness land. That is a decision for the residents of Wyoming to figure out.

In addition, you have to factor in the vast amount of private lands that would become open to access via a well-structured transferable, unit-wide LO program (like NM and CO have).

It is a cost-benifet analysis that the residents of Wyoming are going to make. As I’ve said, I don’t think this is the time for transferable LO tags in WY. Yet.

 

[Treeshark]

Its funny how you perpetuate outright lies.

I've had numerous NR friends hunt designated wilderness here.

I personally am a DIY public land hunter, not real interested in a guided hunt at this time. Maybe some day that option will become appealing, never say never. I’m fairly certain you knew that’s what I meant and are being pedantic.

I’m glad your friends got to hunt there with you, hope everyone had an awesome time