Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[BuzzH]

Completely understand the significant difference between changing an existing law and stopping proposed legislation. Maybe changing the wilderness rule is a bridge too far….

I am a bit confused by your second question. How would resident hunters be giving up anything by opposing outfitter set asides and transferable landowner tags? NR hunters are giving up something with a transition to 90/10 (not that we had to be willing, clearly a resident decision) What are you asking resident hunters to give up by increasing their tag allocation to 90/10?

I was operating under the assumption that
the focus of this forum is advocating for DIY western hunting and most folks oppose state regulations that force hunters to use guides/outfitters, resident or non-resident. And within that advocacy we are willing to oppose those proposals going forward on principle alone.

Political capital is what we would be burning. Along with a concerted campaign that costs money, lobbyist, social media, etc. to make a run at an honest effort to reverse the wilderness guide law. Where is the nr funding to do such a campaign? NR's bitch everytime their license fees increase once every 5-10 years...I don't see them shelling out to fund a campaign to undo the wilderness guide law...I just don't.

I also don't see a lot of the state ngo's being willing to buck the outfitter lobby to change it. Unfortunately there is a symbiotic relationship with a lot of ngo's and outfitters.

What you would have to give up to gain access imo, is outfitter set asides from the nr pool of tags.

Is it worth it to gain access to wilderness that you can already get for free via a resident friend?

That's the question.

 

[JLS]

Political capital is what we would be burning. Along with a concerted campaign that costs money, lobbyist, social media, etc. to make a run at an honest effort to reverse the wilderness guide law. Where is the nr funding to do such a campaign? NR's bitch everytime their license fees increase once every 5-10 years...I don't see them shelling out to fund a campaign to undo the wilderness guide law...I just don't.

I also don't see a lot of the state ngo's being willing to buck the outfitter lobby to change it. Unfortunately there is a symbiotic relationship with a lot of ngo's and outfitters.

What you would have to give up to gain access imo, is outfitter set asides from the nr pool of tags.

Is it worth it to gain access to wilderness that you can already get for free via a resident friend?

That's the question.

Pretty well summarizes it.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Political capital is what we would be burning. Along with a concerted campaign that costs money, lobbyist, social media, etc. to make a run at an honest effort to reverse the wilderness guide law. Where is the nr funding to do such a campaign? NR's bitch everytime their license fees increase once every 5-10 years...I don't see them shelling out to fund a campaign to undo the wilderness guide law...I just don't.

I also don't see a lot of the state ngo's being willing to buck the outfitter lobby to change it. Unfortunately there is a symbiotic relationship with a lot of ngo's and outfitters.

What you would have to give up to gain access imo, is outfitter set asides from the nr pool of tags.

Is it worth it to gain access to wilderness that you can already get for free via a resident friend?

That's the question.

Ok, definitely not worth it to concede outfitter set asides in order to remove the wilderness guide law, imo. Not that NRs get to decide anyways.

I guess this leads to the real question, will WY resident hunters make a concerted effort to oppose outfitter asides? For what it’s worth I’d be willing to contribute to that.

For me, I don’t have an issue with NR tag prices and increases as it’s a high demand item that should keep pace with inflation and the rise in prices of other items. Pretty sure I can find a friend to join me in the wilderness but it does really get under my skin, from a DIY public land hunting perspective.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok, definitely not worth it to concede outfitter set asides in order to remove the wilderness guide law, imo. Not that NRs get to decide anyways.

I guess this leads to the real question, will WY resident hunters make a concerted effort to oppose outfitter asides? For what it’s worth I’d be willing to contribute to that.

For me, I don’t have an issue with NR tag prices and increases as it’s a high demand item that should keep pace with inflation and the rise in prices of other items. Pretty sure I can find a friend to join me in the wilderness but it does really get under my skin, from a DIY public land hunting perspective.

The wilderness guide law bothers me too.

I think what's exasperating the fight against outfitter set asides is that every western resident hunter is seeing opportunity evaporate in states they apply in as nrs. Meaning they may be willing to bargain to make sure they have at least one state to hunt, the one they're a resident of.

This whole diy public land hunting craze has come with problems and things that many didn't think about when this all started 10-15 years ago.

We got the cart in front of the horse in many regards, but too late to change it now.

We will continue to pay the piper as residents take actions to make sure they can hunt their own states. That means less tags for nrs, just the way it's going to be.

 

[Treeshark]

We will continue to pay the piper as residents take actions to make sure they can hunt their own states. That means less tags for nrs, just the way it's going to be.

This is well-said, Buzz. If I was a resident of a western state I’m sure I would feel the same way.

However, as a NR I’m starting to see the writing on the wall too- outfitter set-asides and especially transferable landowner tags are starting to look better and better.

I wish this wasn’t the case, I would rather not go this route- but as you said, I think it’s just the way it’s going to be…

 

[BuzzH]

This is well-said, Buzz. If I was a resident of a western state I’m sure I would feel the same way.

However, as a NR I’m starting to see the writing on the wall too- outfitter set-asides and especially transferable landowner tags are starting to look better and better.

I wish this wasn’t the case, I would rather not go this route- but as you said, I think it’s just the way it’s going to be…

I don't disagree, but I'm pretty certain Wyoming residents are going to have something to say about outfitter set asides and transferable land owner tags in particular.

What I could see happening is ALL landowner tags coming from the NR tag pools. Things like that to keep more tags in the resident tag pools.

 

[Treeshark]

What I could see happening is ALL landowner tags coming from the NR tag pools.

I agree with this being the most likely outcome. And still, as gross as this is to say out loud, at least going hunting in WY would be largely within a NR’s control this way.

 

[Thx1138]

Sometimes the truth is painful.

Have you ever entertained the idea for pursuing this change? Surely a big wheel like yourself, could get things rolling.

You have to understand the history of guided hunting and how long these practices have been around in Wyoming. Prior to 1973 ALL Big Game hunting except antelope required a licensed outfitter or resident guide anywhere in the state except deeded or state lands. The law was deemed unconstitutional in 1973 but later replaced with the Wilderness guide rule we have today which also has been challenged and the Courts have deemed it constitutional. The Outfitting Industry has a long tradition in Wyoming but as hunting popularity declines the time may be soon approaching to get this law changed with enough support. On the other hand it may just remain on the books as less and less of the public hunt or could care less about whether a NR wants to hunt in a Wilderness area.

 

[jlmatthew]

We will continue to pay the piper as residents take actions to make sure they can hunt their own states. That means less tags for nrs, just the way it's going to be.

Don't worry, Colorado will continue to erode resident hunting opportunity in order to take in all the Nonresident hunters restricted in other states

 

[rogerthat]

Don't worry, Colorado will continue to erode resident hunting opportunity in order to take in all the Nonresident hunters restricted in other states

not trying to hijack this thread, but I have always wondered why Colorado is so generous to nr's. Is it the money?

 

[Oak]

not trying to hijack this thread, but I have always wondered why Colorado is so generous to nr's. Is it the money?

Yes.

 

[gonhunting247]

I'd donate to a fund to stop outfitter set asides and contribute to a campaign to remove the wilderness rule, just like I did with the corner crossing fund. I have nothing against outfitters whatsoever, but I think all non-residents should draw from the same NR pool with no preference to diy or guided.
I give credit to the folks that spend so much of their own time on all these issues. It takes a lot of time and energy.

 

[poormanslam]

So the 90/10 goes into effect in 2023. Based on current numbers of NR, tags approx 45. Under the 90/10 there will be 18 tags. Is it a stretch to say all of these 18 tags will be allocated to the wilderness units 1-5?

 

[BuzzH]

So the 90/10 goes into effect in 2023. Based on current numbers of NR, tags approx 45. Under the 90/10 there will be 18 tags. Is it a stretch to say all of these 18 tags will be allocated to the wilderness units 1-5?

I think they will be spread around all the various units, but a majority will be in 1-5 is my guess.

 

[Treeshark]

Interesting article recently put out by Eastmans, talk of class-action lawsuit to recoup point $.

Also mentioned future transferable landowner as part of the 90/10 DEA initiative (finally something from the Task Force we can get all get behind!).

 

[RobertD]

Interesting article recently put out by Eastmans, talk of class-action lawsuit to recoup point $.

Also mentioned future transferable landowner as part of the 90/10 DEA initiative (finally something from the Task Force we can get all get behind!).

Found it and read it, feels like he made some pretty bold predictive claims on 90/10 DEA, and he left out some important context

 

[goodhunt]

Found it and read it, feels like he made some pretty bold predictive claims on 90/10 DEA, and he left out some important context

Found it and read it as well. Care to expand on the context you think he left out?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Interesting article recently put out by Eastmans, talk of class-action lawsuit to recoup point $.

Also mentioned future transferable landowner as part of the 90/10 DEA initiative (finally something from the Task Force we can get all get behind!).

Can you share a link? I couldn't find it in my quick 5 second search.

 

[RobertD]

Found it and read it as well. Care to expand on the context you think he left out?

For one, I'm not crazy about the speculative tone. He's making predictions based on knowing unnamed sources, and while I'm sure he does, I don't know how much I trust it.

More broadly, he doesn't mention how, unless I'm mistaken, the LE elk tags taken out of the NR draw will probably just translate to more NR general tags. Doesn't mention how little 90/10 would actually affect NR pronghorn opportunities. He used Region G as an example of 90/10 with a 50% outfitter set aside, when the 90/10 proposal IRL was for LE deer not general deer. He probably used Region G for name recognition honestly.

The whole thing, to me, feels like it was written to stir emotions.

 

[cahunter805]

Interesting article recently put out by Eastmans, talk of class-action lawsuit to recoup point $.

Also mentioned future transferable landowner as part of the 90/10 DEA initiative (finally something from the Task Force we can get all get behind!).

We can all get behind them to STOP transferable LO tags! It will ruin WY hunting for many.