Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[BrentD]

Nope nothing was ever guaranteed with points. You got exactly what you paid for. A point. It was and still is your choice to buy a point. That is the only thing a point system is designed to do, give you a point. Not our fault you chose to buy a point...

You will LOVE my next idea. User fees for ALL hunters on federal property. Everyone else pays, why not hunters. Support for hunting on federal lands will disappear one day.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I do not see a carve out for outfitters going over very well at all. Hopefully we see the 90/10 for deer elk and lope by next year.

I hope you are right about an outfitter carve out but why would it not go over well? No one raised a stir about the wilderness rule. Same intent, limit DIY non resident hunting opportunity and force non residents to use guides and outfitters. You don’t think 90/10 will raise more discussion as it affects more people? You are talking about way more tags than m/s/g.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

So you will be refunding the NRs that bought into the points racquet under the original set of rules, of course. Reniging now seems a titch dishonorable.

No way. Wyomingites earned that money fair and square.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I see Sy Gilliland was there whining and crying for Outfitter set-asides (as usual) and transferable landowner tags. The State of Wyoming doesn't owe Outfitters a living. Sink or Swim Gilliland. He's the guy with the big cowboy hat with his hand out.

And 90/10 is gonna give him just the leverage he needs to get outfitter set asides and transferable landowner tags. A bit of quid pro quo.

 

[WYWINCHESTER]

You will LOVE my next idea. User fees for ALL hunters on federal property. Everyone else pays, why not hunters. Support for hunting on federal lands will disappear one day.

Sounds like you should go live with the commies in CA.

 

[Treeshark]

And 90/10 is gonna give him just the leverage he needs to get outfitter set asides and transferable landowner tags. A bit of quid pro quo.

NRs have to start taking what they can get unfortunately. Wouldn’t be the worst development.

 

[BuzzH]

You will LOVE my next idea. User fees for ALL hunters on federal property. Everyone else pays, why not hunters. Support for hunting on federal lands will disappear one day.

Do bird watchers, anglers, hikers, etc. pay additional fees to use federal public lands?

I would be all about a NR fee in Wyoming for all recreation on state trust lands...just like Montana and Arizona.

 

[BuzzH]

I hope you are right about an outfitter carve out but why would it not go over well? No one raised a stir about the wilderness rule. Same intent, limit DIY non resident hunting opportunity and force non residents to use guides and outfitters? You don’t think 90/10 will raise more discussion as it affects more people? You are talking about way more tags than m/s/g.

It's the information age. The wilderness guide law would never pass today.

 

[rtraverdavis]

As much of a bummer as a 90/10 split for Wyoming will be for us NRs, whining about it will do nothing to help. I imagine it’ll even make Wy residents less willing to fight against outfitter set-asides too. I’ll be grateful to have an honest shot at 10% of Wyoming’s tags. Can’t complain coming from Oregon.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

i figured the out fitter set asides were some sort of underhanded deal made to make the outfitters go along with this,i just heard about the set asides,low handed i say.

 

[Bluffgruff]

I really don't have a problem with the 90/10 split. I hate outfitter tags and transferrable landowner tags, though.

I think there will need to be an adjustment to the preference/random allocation for nonresidents. Flip flop to 75%random/25%pp or something. Does the TF have anything to say about that @BuzzH?

 

[HONEYBADGER]

i figured the out fitter set asides were some sort of underhanded deal made to make the outfitters go along with this,i just heard about the set asides,low handed i say.

They have to buy off the ranchers and outfitters somehow. Transferable tags and outfitter set asides will be how they do it.

 

[brownbear932008]

So you will be refunding the NRs that bought into the points racquet under the original set of rules, of course. Reniging now seems a titch dishonorable.

My guess is you better get use to it in many States. Doesn't hurt my feelings a bit though TBH.

 

[WYelker]

It's the information age. The wilderness guide law would never pass today.

My thoughts exactly. I am surprised that it has not came under fire recently and wonder if things get pushed too far by the WYGOA if it will bring attention in the state back to that.

What is the current split for deer, elk and lopes? Resident vs NR?

 

[WYelker]

I really don't have a problem with the 90/10 split. I hate outfitter tags and transferrable landowner tags, though.

I think there will need to be an adjustment to the preference/random allocation for nonresidents. Flip flop to 75%random/25%pp or something. Does the TF have anything to say about that @BuzzH?

There has been talk in the TF about this a little, no movement on the issue but it has came up. I doubt it will flip, but some have mentioned doing a squared bonus point system for all tags, another option was 50/50 points vs random... That is likely the next action items in line...

 

[Big Fin]

My thoughts exactly. I am surprised that it has not came under fire recently and wonder if things get pushed too far by the WYGOA if it will bring attention in the state back to that.

Speaking for myself, the reason I've not focused on the topic as a non-resident has been Wyoming's generosity toward non-residents in the form for tag allocation. I suspect, as you question, the non-resident guide requirement in Wilderness Areas is going to find more scrutiny and pressure as the changes in allocation happen.

I say that, in full support of Wyoming doing what they want for tag allocation between resident/non-resident. Every state gets to decide that. Yet, it does have influence in how hunters will look at other parts of Wyoming's structure of non-resident restrictions, in this case, hunting in Wilderness Areas.

 

[JM77]

I suspect, as you question, the non-resident guide requirement in Wilderness Areas is going to find more scrutiny and pressure as the changes in allocation happen.

I say that, in full support of Wyoming doing what they want for tag allocation between resident/non-resident. Every state gets to decide that. Yet, it does have influence in how hunters will look at other parts of Wyoming's structure of non-resident restrictions, in this case, hunting in Wilderness Areas.

Randy, because the wilderness guide law is in statute, I can't imagine what small group of legislators would sponsor the change, except if it came as a Task Force recommendation. While I don't agree with the law, the amount of political capital that could be expended to even get a bill would be enormous. Obviously the outfitter lobby would be against it. It would take a good deal of resident support and we all know how tough that is to get.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, because the wilderness guide law is in statute, I can't imagine what small group of legislators would sponsor the change, except if it came as a Task Force recommendation. While I don't agree with the law, the amount of political capital that could be expended to even get a bill would be enormous. Obviously the outfitter lobby would be against it. It would take a good deal of resident support and we all know how tough that is to get.

Agree.

 

[RobertD]

I can't stand the outfitter set aside deal because it seems like such a Montana thing to do. Disappointing to see that in Wyoming.

That said they gotta do what they gotta do to please the outfitter lobby I guess. It shows how much outfitters don't respect resident hunters though, that they would hold their allocation proposal hostage unless they get their cut of the tags.

All that being said I'm not too worried and will still be planning Wyoming hunts. Any NR that wants to throw their sucker down over the allocation change, by all means feel free to do so and help my draw odds!

 

[WYelker]

Randy, because the wilderness guide law is in statute, I can't imagine what small group of legislators would sponsor the change, except if it came as a Task Force recommendation. While I don't agree with the law, the amount of political capital that could be expended to even get a bill would be enormous. Obviously the outfitter lobby would be against it. It would take a good deal of resident support and we all know how tough that is to get.

Yeah I agree with this as well. I do however feel that as we move forward an argument against outfitter set asides and transferable tags is the idea they already have the wilderness rule. Time will tell, I am really afraid that we will see the HMA and walk in programs get gutted in the process. In some ways I would rather keep status quo on deer elk and lope, rather than entertain transferable tags or outfitter set aside...