Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[madtom]

so your arguing we should combine all big game licenses?

I’ve pretty plainly said leave it as is.

I’ll admit that, as a nuclear option, part of me doesn’t hate the Idaho “pick one LQ” model. But, I don’t think we’re there yet.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Currently, if a general license holder fills their tag on a whitetail, we know with certainty a mule deer doesn't die on that license.

What's wrong with that? If mule deer are hurting that bad that it's better a WTD is killed on a general license, then maybe they should be separated, or at least the general area converted to limited quota.

 

[appaloosa]

I’ve pretty plainly said leave it as is.

I’ll admit that, as a nuclear option, part of me doesn’t hate the Idaho “pick one LQ” model. But, I don’t think we’re there yet.

But, your counterargument to my point is that we manage (allocate harvest) of small game and fish collectively, so why not deer?

Luckily, it is not up to us to decide and we can probably put this debate to bed. The task force will probably have a hand in deciding this, and I have already forwarded my thoughts to the members.

 

[madtom]

But, your counterargument to my point is that we manage (allocate harvest) of small game and fish collectively, so why not deer?

Luckily, it is not up to us to decide and we can probably put this debate to bed. The task force will probably have a hand in deciding this, and I have already forwarded my thoughts to the members.

No, my argument was management is already lumped for some species, so lumping two deer species isn’t the end of the world (and provides a distinct advantage in distributing deer harvest opportunity).

You’re right, out of our courts.

 

[ccc23454]

My comment earlier about going after whitetails would be different than what most are talking. My whitetail thoughts would be STATEWIDE a general (region for NRs) can be used on whitetail in ANY unit (within region NRs), no LE whitetails! Issue a type-3 license: good for any whitetail west of I-25 (not unit specfic), any whitetail east of I-25 unit specfic regulations apply. -3 draw only, unlimited Resident tags avaliable as seconds but must apply, NRs establish a quota! Basically STOP wasting resorces on management of whitetail herd west of I25 simplify it east of I25!

 

[JM77]

What's wrong with that? If mule deer are hurting that bad that it's better a WTD is killed on a general license, then maybe they should be separated, or at least the general area converted to limited quota.

Did I say mule deer were hurting that bad? I'm sure they are in some areas and seasons and quotas are set accordingly. Wyoming isn't the only state that either/or can be taken on the same license. Separation stands to make zero difference in the short term with management other than two things: every hunter can have tags to kill bucks of both species, not just type 3 holders and drawing odds for limited quota tags will go down. The consequence of two separate tags for everyone means the resource is being stretched thinner, for both species and for hunters too.

That said, the TF will do as it pleases.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I hate being a squeaky wheel, but have been sending a lot of e-mails and talking to TF members and commissioners as much as possible in the last month. The sad reality is you have to out squeak the nonsense sometimes.

Comments about regionalized resident deer tags are roughly 1/3 in favor, 2/3 not in favor. That proportion is even more negative toward regionalized tags than results from 2012 and 2017 G&F surveys. If the taskforce recommends this to the commission it will be in direct opposition to current data, G&F field personnel, the 2017 Resident Region Committee Report (which somehow everyone forgot about), and roughly 2/3 their current public comment. If this one isn't beaten back by Thursday there are truly absurd levels of BS afoot.

I don't hear enough consensus or linear movement on 90/10 DEA to move it through as a recommendation right now. I could always be wrong. Even if so it still has to survive the legislative process, where wyoga will convince every store and hotel owner in the state that it will ruin their lives. I haven't and still don't have a strong opinion on this one personally, other than the tradeoffs to placate wyoga probably wouldn't be worth it.

In other news...how in the world does the following make it to the desk of the Taskforce "meeting materials", given preference over all the other public comment? Type X Elk Licenses
Can anyone come up with a wild idea and get it front-and-center in the Taskforce meeting materials? Or is it just the outfitter lobby getting special treatment, wanting either sex outfitter tags -- that don't count against 84/16 and have essentially no limit -- to "address exploding elk populations"?

 

[Hunt West]

I hate being a squeaky wheel, but have been sending a lot of e-mails and talking to TF members and commissioners as much as possible in the last month. The sad reality is you have to out squeak the nonsense sometimes.

Comments about regionalized resident deer tags are roughly 1/3 in favor, 2/3 not in favor. That proportion is even more negative toward regionalized tags than results from 2012 and 2017 G&F surveys. If the taskforce recommends this to the commission it will be in direct opposition to current data, G&F field personnel, the 2017 Resident Region Committee Report (which somehow everyone forgot about), and roughly 2/3 their current public comment. If this one isn't beaten back by Thursday there are truly absurd levels of BS afoot.

I don't hear enough consensus or linear movement on 90/10 DEA to move it through as a recommendation right now. I could always be wrong. Even if so it still has to survive the legislative process, where wyoga will convince every store and hotel owner in the state that it will ruin their lives. I haven't and still don't have a strong opinion on this one personally, other than the tradeoffs to placate wyoga probably wouldn't be worth it.

In other news...how in the world does the following make it to the desk of the Taskforce "meeting materials", given preference over all the other public comment? Type X Elk Licenses
Can anyone come up with a wild idea and get it front-and-center in the Taskforce meeting materials? Or is it just the outfitter lobby getting special treatment, wanting either sex outfitter tags -- that don't count against 84/16 and have essentially no limit -- to "address exploding elk populations"?

Just a way to get more bull licenses for private land. There is already a shit ton of type 6 cow tags for those areas that they can make money through “trespass” fees as the document states. Problem is no one wants to pay the big $$ to shoot cows. I know I’m not telling you anything you aren’t aware of though.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

My discussions with TF members have all been in opposition to the Regionalized Res deer tags. I agree if it goes the other way then something is afoot.

NR regional gen tags will be part of tomorrows discussion. So far I think getting this bad idea halted will be more of an uphill battle. We'll see.

 

[Hunt West]

My discussions with TF members have all been in opposition to the Regionalized Res deer tags. I agree if it goes the other way then something is afoot.

NR regional gen tags will be part of tomorrows discussion. So far I think getting this bad idea halted will be more of an uphill battle. We'll see.

From the outside looking in it seems that the regionalized NR elk tag has far less to do with management or crowding and more to do with a way to circumvent the 7,250 cap.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

From the outside looking in it seems that the regionalized NR elk tag has far less to do with management or crowding and more to do with a way to circumvent the 7,250 cap.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[WYelker]

You hit the nail on the head.

The questions on the survey are intentionally vague, it is a crappy way to produce a survey. The questions comes straight out and says eliminate the NR Cap. Which as we all know is not really the cap as NR often have over 13,000 elk tags in WY.

The only people I have heard speak in favor of the pick a region are guys from the WY Range Fiasco. They have ghosted about everyone and are convinced that despite overwhelming objections they are right. They are ultimately arguing for going all limited on deer with strict draw system. Sadly very limited drawing will not fix any of the problems they see...

It is a mess, with everyone focused only on what they want and not on the bigger picture.

If we really wanted to help the G/H deer then make the rifle opener on Oct. 1 with the rest of the state...

 

[Pucky Freak]

I hate being a squeaky wheel, but have been sending a lot of e-mails and talking to TF members and commissioners as much as possible in the last month. The sad reality is you have to out squeak the nonsense sometimes.

Comments about regionalized resident deer tags are roughly 1/3 in favor, 2/3 not in favor. That proportion is even more negative toward regionalized tags than results from 2012 and 2017 G&F surveys. If the taskforce recommends this to the commission it will be in direct opposition to current data, G&F field personnel, the 2017 Resident Region Committee Report (which somehow everyone forgot about), and roughly 2/3 their current public comment. If this one isn't beaten back by Thursday there are truly absurd levels of BS afoot.

I don't hear enough consensus or linear movement on 90/10 DEA to move it through as a recommendation right now. I could always be wrong. Even if so it still has to survive the legislative process, where wyoga will convince every store and hotel owner in the state that it will ruin their lives. I haven't and still don't have a strong opinion on this one personally, other than the tradeoffs to placate wyoga probably wouldn't be worth it.

In other news...how in the world does the following make it to the desk of the Taskforce "meeting materials", given preference over all the other public comment? Type X Elk Licenses
Can anyone come up with a wild idea and get it front-and-center in the Taskforce meeting materials? Or is it just the outfitter lobby getting special treatment, wanting either sex outfitter tags -- that don't count against 84/16 and have essentially no limit -- to "address exploding elk populations"?

In MT they recently proved that elk overpopulation, evident through 50:100 bull to cow ratios, is remedied through issuing either-sex tags valid for private land only. Why the skepticism?

 

[Pucky Freak]

Over-objective elk herds is what it’s all about.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

If we really wanted to help the G/H deer then make the rifle opener on Oct. 1 with the rest of the state...

I'm going to disagree on that one...I've seen G and H deer in full on migration by mid-October some years. There's a reason a migration hunt like Farson's is 10/15-10/31, and those are largely deer out of the Hoback.

These herds units are unique -- the management dynamics are specific to the diversity of landforms and long distance migrations they undertake. My opinion.

 

[WYelker]

I'm going to disagree on that one...I've seen G and H deer in full on migration by mid-October some years. There's a reason a migration hunt like Farson's is 10/15-10/31, and those are largely deer out of the Hoback.

These herds units are unique -- the management dynamics are specific to the diversity of landforms and long distance migrations they undertake. My opinion.

It was a little tongue in cheek shot at the WY Range group. If they really wanted to decrease hunting pressure and help the animals out the way they suggest then they should be arguing for the later start date lol...

On the flip side the type X paper was hilarious. The only con to their scheme was increased distrust and hate towards NR and outfitters... LOL!

The truth is once the landowners start getting the money and profit from hunting. They will do all they can to keep the elk on the land where they make money from hunting. It happens in every state... Those same landowners complaining about the exploding elk populations, will suddenly be working hard to keep the elk on the land for their rich clients... It happens in Colorado every year. Some big outfits have a 1 shot only rule where if you shoot you only get one shot so not to scare the elk off the ranch. The same places will set up electric hot fences to prevent the elk from leaving (one places has no livestock at all and the entire perimeter of the property is set up with hot wire 2 rows deep to keep the elk in. Once the season ends the wires come down.

This rule is a disaster in the making and will do nothing except make landowners lots of money and truthfully incentivize the owners to grow the herds and harbor even more elk.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

In MT they recently proved that elk overpopulation, evident through 50:100 bull to cow ratios, is remedied through issuing either-sex tags valid for private land only. Why the skepticism?

Elk management in MT was a political mess when I left a decade ago and by all appearances is a dumpster fire today, so I'm not sure what they have proven. If there's a specific example you have in mind where the remedy was good for elk and regular sportsmen you'll have to point me in that direction. I'm always glad to learn.

Here is the proposal I linked to:

Possible Proposal to Game and Fish Commission-Type X Elk licenses

The Department should begin issuing Any Elk licenses valid on only private land in areas or regions
where Elk are above objective. These licenses would be like Antelope Type 2 licenses currently being
issued in Northeastern Wyoming. For purposes of this discussion, these Any Elk private land only
licenses will be referred to as Type X licenses (“Type X”).

1. Type X licenses would be issued at the discretion of the Commission and Department in a
competitive draw.

2. Quota for Type X licenses would be set high as necessary to control burgeoning elk populations
such as that occurring in eastern Wyoming and the Iron Mountain area.

3. Mandate that a person drawing a Type X license also must apply for and receive a Type 4 cow
calf elk license which could only be used on private lands.

4. Type X licenses would not be subject to the current 84/16 split between resident and
nonresident hunters.

5. Add requirement to license application that Applicant must list the landowner or outfitter that
the Applicant has made arrangements with for access to hunt on the licenses.

Identified Pros and Cons of the Proposal
1. Pros
a. This license type would give the Commission and Department an effective management tool
to address exploding elk populations. This tool allows the wildlife experts at Game and Fish
to exercise their discretion to balance harvest as needed on a case-by-case basis throughout
the state.
b. This license type would give landowners an opportunity to generate income via trespass
fees or leases with landowners who possess Type X licenses.
c. This license type could reduce hunting pressure on limited public lands in areas of high
private land ownership.
d. This license type has the potential to move elk off private lands and onto public lands where
the elk would be accessible to public land hunters.
e. This license type will provide additional hunter opportunity to both non-residents and those
residents willing to pay access fees or outfitter fees to hunt on private land
f. This license type will reduce competition between mule deer and overpopulations of Elk.
2. Cons:
a. Continued bias from resident hunters towards nonresident hunters and outfitters and
landowners who do not allow free public access.

Look at that! Only one con! (sarcasm)

 

[Deleted member 16014]

It was a little tongue in cheek shot at the WY Range group. If they really wanted to decrease hunting pressure and help the animals out the way they suggest then they should be arguing for the later start date lol...

I would like to see them advocate for limiting the very liberal high elevation motorized trails in the Caribou-Targhee and B-T; but it's Star Valley, so if you say something bad about anything with an engine you disappear.

 

[WYelker]

Elk management in MT was a political mess when I left a decade ago and by all appearances is a dumpster fire today, so I'm not sure what they have proven. If there's a specific example you have in mind where the remedy was good for elk and regular sportsmen you'll have to point me in that direction. I'm always glad to learn.

Here is the proposal I linked to:

Possible Proposal to Game and Fish Commission-Type X Elk licenses

The Department should begin issuing Any Elk licenses valid on only private land in areas or regions
where Elk are above objective. These licenses would be like Antelope Type 2 licenses currently being
issued in Northeastern Wyoming. For purposes of this discussion, these Any Elk private land only
licenses will be referred to as Type X licenses (“Type X”).

1. Type X licenses would be issued at the discretion of the Commission and Department in a
competitive draw.

2. Quota for Type X licenses would be set high as necessary to control burgeoning elk populations
such as that occurring in eastern Wyoming and the Iron Mountain area.

3. Mandate that a person drawing a Type X license also must apply for and receive a Type 4 cow
calf elk license which could only be used on private lands.

4. Type X licenses would not be subject to the current 84/16 split between resident and
nonresident hunters.

5. Add requirement to license application that Applicant must list the landowner or outfitter that
the Applicant has made arrangements with for access to hunt on the licenses.

Identified Pros and Cons of the Proposal
1. Pros
a. This license type would give the Commission and Department an effective management tool
to address exploding elk populations. This tool allows the wildlife experts at Game and Fish
to exercise their discretion to balance harvest as needed on a case-by-case basis throughout
the state.
b. This license type would give landowners an opportunity to generate income via trespass
fees or leases with landowners who possess Type X licenses.
c. This license type could reduce hunting pressure on limited public lands in areas of high
private land ownership.
d. This license type has the potential to move elk off private lands and onto public lands where
the elk would be accessible to public land hunters.
e. This license type will provide additional hunter opportunity to both non-residents and those
residents willing to pay access fees or outfitter fees to hunt on private land
f. This license type will reduce competition between mule deer and overpopulations of Elk.
2. Cons:
a. Continued bias from resident hunters towards nonresident hunters and outfitters and
landowners who do not allow free public access.

Look at that! Only one con!

I mentioned above that there are many more significant cons. The more money the landowners make the more they want to harbor elk and prevent them from leaving the private.

Lastly even with resident hunters, I don't think anyone believes there should be free access. However participation in access YES would be great. Sorry but the landowners know damn well this is about profit and I cant blame them... If it was just about population then they would easily be selling private land only hunts for cow. The bull tags are about profit. If it was about population control then there is not doubt that the cow tags in mass would fix the issue...

 

[Hunt West]

They’ll sell about 300 fewer nr LQ tags under the proposed elimination of the 7250 cap. The 16% remains in place under the proposal. That 16% is per hunt area as currently implemented.

Care to share a link to the proposal? Not being a smart ass, I just haven’t seen it yet.