Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[BuzzH]

I get why residents want 90/10 for the Wyo big 5. I can support that and think it should be that way. I also think they should be Once in a lifetime, retroactive if you've ever drawn before.

I hope that the elk,deer and pronghorn stay the way they are.

There was discussion about the retroactive part...most likely unconstitutional according to the lawyers in the room (a handful), including a past Wyoming AG.

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, but less appealing is a court battle and litigation over it.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

I agree with jm 77,,yes i think oregon could make alot more revinue moneys by letting a higher percentage of non-residents get more tag alocations,,im all for it.non res is big $$$

 

[Heyjbales]

Sorry, was late when I posted that and in my elderly state these days, lucky if I remember to tie my shoes...good to catch up and great you were in attendance.

All good man! Same to you. And thanks for starting this conversation on here. Good to see it in more public forums because, as you said, the public has been damn near non-existent in these conversations. See ya in July!

 

[Oak]

May see pp/random go to different allocation, possibly 50/50. Lots to discuss next month.

This is what I'll be interested to hear about. I've been trying to think about what scenario would keep me in the NR draws for moose and sheep. I'm not sure one exists. They certainly won't need to worry about lost revenue with a fee increase, so I wonder how hard they will try to retain NR applicants? Doesn't seem like there would be a lot of incentive to do so.

 

[BuzzH]

This is what I'll be interested to hear about. I've been trying to think about what scenario would keep me in the NR draws for moose and sheep. I'm not sure one exists. They certainly won't need to worry about lost revenue with a fee increase, so I wonder how hard they will try to retain NR applicants? Doesn't seem like there would be a lot of incentive to do so.

Growing herds back to early 1980's levels of 500 sheep tags and 2000+ moose tags might keep NR's in...

 

[TheJason]

There was discussion about the retroactive part...most likely unconstitutional according to the lawyers in the room (a handful), including a past Wyoming AG.

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, but less appealing is a court battle and litigation over it.

Absolutely not worth the battle, which would likely be lost in court.

 

[Hunt West]

Assuming the list was put together in order of importance, I’m disappointed to see “priority” items 1-5 is an argument over who gets to shoot the last Buffalo while item 6 seems to be focused on the resource itself.

 

[BuzzH]

Assuming the list was put together in order of importance, I’m disappointed to see “priority” items 1-5 is an argument over who gets to shoot the last Buffalo while item 6 seems to be focused on the resource itself.

Not put together in order of importance.

 

[ashersdad]

Growing herds back to early 1980's levels of 500 sheep tags and 2000+ moose tags might keep NR's in...

This would not only keep me in but I would start putting my kids in too. Especially if they went to a 50/50 allocation of PP/random.

 

[JM77]

This is what I'll be interested to hear about. I've been trying to think about what scenario would keep me in the NR draws for moose and sheep. I'm not sure one exists. They certainly won't need to worry about lost revenue with a fee increase, so I wonder how hard they will try to retain NR applicants? Doesn't seem like there would be a lot of incentive to do so.

Compare Wyoming not changing anything for moose and sheep but 90/10 with other states you apply in now? We are still talking around 20 NR sheep tags and 30 NR moose tags after 90/10. I realize there is a difference in drawings, points, etc. I guess some might just get mad and quit applying in Wyoming, when in reality there would be more tags than almost any other state, correct?

 

[Oak]

The question is not of how many total tags are available to NR, it's whether or not there will be any available to NR in the random draw. I was only pondering what changes they might make in that regard. If there are no changes made to the current allocation system between NR PP and random draw, and the NR total allocation drops to 10%, there won't be many NR random tags available. By my calculation there would have been 1 NR random bull moose tag and zero random sheep tags in the state in 2021 under that scenario. So without changes to the current allocation between NR PP and random it would make little sense for NR to apply unless they are in the very top tier of applicants.

In addition to WY, I currently apply in AZ, NV, UT, and MT for NR sheep. Those are all bonus point states where I can apply for hunts where I know a NR will be drawn (MT not guaranteed, but the reality is that they are drawn). I stopped applying in NM when the NR unguided allocation dropped to 1, and there might not even be a NR drawn in the unit I apply for. I suspect it would be similar in WY for those without near max points. It has made sense up until now to stay in the WY draw with 18 points, as I'm approaching being able to draw some tags in the PP draw which will not be the case with the changes.

I'm not complaining at all about WY going to 90/10. Just pondering whether they will change distribution of the NR allocation to make it worthwhile for the majority of NR to continue.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

The question is not of how many total tags are available to NR, it's whether or not there will be any available to NR in the random draw. I was only pondering what changes they might make in that regard. If there are no changes made to the current allocation system between NR PP and random draw, and the NR total allocation drops to 10%, there won't be many NR random tags available. By my calculation there would have been 1 NR random bull moose tag and zero random sheep tags in the state in 2021 under that scenario. So without changes to the current allocation between NR PP and random it would make little sense for NR to apply unless they are in the very top tier of applicants.

In addition to WY, I currently apply in AZ, NV, UT, and MT for NR sheep. Those are all bonus point states where I can apply for hunts where I know a NR will be drawn (MT not guaranteed, but the reality is that they are drawn). I stopped applying in NM when the NR unguided allocation dropped to 1, and there might not even be a NR drawn in the unit I apply for. I suspect it would be similar in WY for those without near max points. It has made sense up until now to stay in the WY draw with 18 points, as I'm approaching being able to draw some tags in the PP draw which will not be the case with the changes.

I'm not complaining at all about WY going to 90/10. Just pondering whether they will change distribution of the NR allocation to make it worthwhile for the majority of NR to continue.

How many years would it take to get through the current NR point holders?

 

[cur dog]

I'll assume lost revenue, will be made up by a NR price increase. Correct?

 

[RobertD]

I'll assume lost revenue, will be made up by a NR price increase. Correct?

Likely. The numbers check out. And as it was proposed earlier this year, it featured a significant price increase for a handful of tags.

 

[Keeptrying]

Don't care. We are only a few years from establishing residence in Wyoming. Work on the road for nine months, come back and hunt for three.

As soon as our points are gone we won't buy more. My deer points are gone with the latest draw. No replacement planned.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

After Day 1 I had little hope that anything substantive would come from this TF. Day 2 was encouraging. I had three main takeaways.
1) A lot of outfitters and landowners on this TF. They knew the criticism of this. Several kept saying that even though they had a financial incentive to maintain status quo they were also resident hunters and that aspect would also be considered in their votes. Time will tell but their first action on 90-10 for big 5 was a good start. I took time during breaks to introduce myself to the outfitters. Turns out they already knew who I was. Not sure if that is good or bad. Each of them said many things I could agree with and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
2) A bunch of Alphas in this TF. A solid facilitator is going to be required. I think the one they had did a good job. I’m not a huge fan of TF’s but all in all they did well for the first meeting.
3) 90-10 on D/E/A and transferable landowner/outfitter setasides will be the real fight. Those meetings are going to be fun to attend.

 

[JM77]

@Oak 75% of NR moose and sheep tags go into the PP drawing. This is accomplished using the total number of tags available, not by how many tags are available per area. Therefore, with 90/10, there will still be 25% of available NR tags in the random draw.

I see the TF discussing changing this to a 50/50 split PP/Random.

 

[WYelker]

I watched the first day. I was not too overly impressed with the direction. It sounds and looks like the second provided some hope. I also agree the real fight is yet to come. The 90/10 on the big 5 seems like low hanging fruit.

the big fight is allocations on Deer Elk and lopes. What are we going to give up to get that. I hope we fight very hard to make it nothing, but do not see how we will get through the setting without a battle.

I would not mind seeing a settlement of a system where we Go 80/20 on the split, 5% of tags from the 20 are specific for outfitters to draw and resell but we then give up the Wilderness rule?
Or create a pool of tags that will guarantee a small number or transferable tags to landowners who allow public hunting on property that they could sell in exchange for public access.
I honestly hate all these options, because having seen Colorado systems etc. they will never have enough and they will slowly keep taking a little more and giving even less.

I wished I watched the second day, but was virtually attending the Baggs mule deer migration group!

 

[blueridge]

I would not mind seeing a settlement of a system where we Go 80/20 on the split, 5% of tags from the 20 are specific for outfitters to draw and resell but we then give up the Wilderness rule?

Now we’re talking.

 

[ccc23454]

I watched the first day. I was not too overly impressed with the direction. It sounds and looks like the second provided some hope. I also agree the real fight is yet to come. The 90/10 on the big 5 seems like low hanging fruit.

the big fight is allocations on Deer Elk and lopes. What are we going to give up to get that. I hope we fight very hard to make it nothing, but do not see how we will get through the setting without a battle.

I would not mind seeing a settlement of a system where we Go 80/20 on the split, 5% of tags from the 20 are specific for outfitters to draw and resell but we then give up the Wilderness rule?

90/10 has way more significance to big 5 since its almost all point holders than deer/elk/lope people are not realizing. Yes it will impact more tags on DEA but remember the system has some things that can be used to benefit NRs. Elk 7250, i have heard NOTHING on changing that number so it just means few more NRs hunters with generals rather than LE but still SAME number of tags! Deer is non significant change as NRs compete agsinst each other, not residents(otc) for the regional tags since just few LE. Lope could be issue but as we discussed rollover and other tools can used, but remember NRs hold more antelope tags than residents every year so obviously split percentages are not the only factor in number of tags. I would like to see all NR generals deer/elk be bow OR gun and put more more tags in those pools to increase NR oppurtunity while putting LE units on 10% cap. So lets say current allotment of 7250 elk tags went to 7500 then split that 60/40 into a -9 or -1 pools. What i absolutely dont want is more point programs or any outfitter set aside program/transferable tags as they only open door for future expansion of welfare and abuse tags. 90/10 will happen, its just a matter of when but i think there are ways to basically exchange a couple LE tags for many more general type hunts for NRs.