Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[bighorns]

Won't happen...they'll be lucky to send anything else, in particular any new ideas this late in the game.

Aware of the fact the TF has zero authority to change the law.

My understanding is they would make recommendations to the legislature.

Buckeye,
One major thing working against you on your idea is that Sen. Hicks is an avid hunter and hunts the wilderness a lot. He is also the VP of the Senate and seems to carry a lot of weight on hunting issues. I doubt that you would ever get him behind the idea.

 

[7mm08mo]

Got a response from one of my emails so far.

 

[BuzzH]

So, I'm heard that the needle is moving on the "grand compromise" to dying the death it deserves.

From what we're hearing, a recent flurry of respectful emails has swayed some of the task force the right way.

That along with some pressure from Resident hunters is having an impact.

Keep things respectful and keep sending emails.

 

[rwc101]

Wyofile said they would consider writing an article on the topic when I emailed them about it. I hope they pull through.

 

[Big Fin]

So, I'm heard that the needle is moving on the "grand compromise" to dying the death it deserves.

From what we're hearing, a recent flurry of respectful emails has swayed some of the task force the right way.

That along with some pressure from Resident hunters is having an impact.

Keep things respectful and keep sending emails.

Thanks for the confirmation, Buzz. Just home from two days of travel and my email inbox has this from one of the Task Force members, "Randy, we've been getting very thoughtful and articulate emails, which I assume are coming from your platforms. Keep them coming. Full court press!"

To all of you who have sent these, thanks for doing so. And for those considering doing so, please do that. And as Buzz says, keep them respectful, articulate, and to the point.

If you want a sample, here is what I sent. Feel free to plagiarize any portions you find helpful.

Dear Task Force Member:


I am writing about proposals currently being discussed by the Wyoming Wildlife Task Force, of which I see you listed as a member. Most specifically, I am commenting on a proposal to allocate a large portion of the non-resident tag allocation to those non-residents who would engage the services of an outfitter.

I completely understand why Wyoming residents want to reduce the non-resident allocations to 10%. I support Wyoming doing what it feels is best for this allocation between residents and non-residents. A 10% allocation is what most states allocate to non-residents. My home state of Montana uses a similar allocation.

What I am writing to oppose is a further bifurcation of that 10% non-resident tag quota to an outfitter pool. There are many folks who cannot, or choose not to, use the services of an outfitter. Allocating a large portion of the non-resident tags to a specific group negatively impacts the majority of non-residents, most of whom have diligently applied to Wyoming over the last 17 years of which a preference point system has been in effect.

For purposes of giving an example of how this outfitter pool might impact Wyoming resident hunters, I provide the ten-year experiment from my home state of Montana, where we had an outfitter pool of non-resident tags that was eventually overturned by a citizens ballot initiative. During that period of outfitter set asides, leasing by outfitters increased dramatically, as expected, with most of the hunter displacement impacting resident hunters. That leasing also made it difficult for our public access program, the Block Management Program, similar to the Wyoming HMA/WIHA program, to compete with the new stream of dollars redirected to the outfitting industry.

I understand a proposal to restructure the General elk tags to a Region-specific allocation has been adopted by the Task Force. That makes sense. Such change should be beneficial to the outfitting industry, most of which have a great reliance on non-resident elk hunters.

I understand and expect that Wyoming will do what it feels is best for their state, and I support that effort. My purpose in writing is to share with you my opposition to splitting the non-resident tag allocation into outfitter/self-guided pools.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


Randy Newberg

Thanks to all who are working on changing the direction of this, both resident and non-resident.

 

[huntin24/7]

Great news buzz and Randy. Thanks for the updates. Hopefully more people keep sending e mails and this bill can go away.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Thanks for all the updates! Just finished emailing all on the committee.

 

[7mm08mo]

I was super polite, but Randy is far more articulate than I am!!

 

[elkantlers]

I have heard from several people that I emailed. I have been encouraged by the responses I've received.

Here are some of the responses:

Thank you for providing your perspective and feedback regarding the work of our task force and some of the recommendations we are considering. I appreciate and respect the fact that you enjoy hunting our great state. I will include your email as public comment for consideration by the entire task force.
Brian

Thank you for the response and I certainly appreciate the sentiments from a non-resident hunter perspective. I think the challenge I struggle with in not doing anything here is still the parity of how other states treat Wyoming residents as non-resident hunters. Utah is an excellent example. I have hunted Utah once in my life, even after more than 16 years of applying for various permits. I’ll likely get to hunt it once or twice more in my lifetime. That is where I struggle when I engage in conversation with Wyoming resident hunters. How do I answer my fellow Wyoming resident hunters when they argue with me that Wyoming should treat non-residents in the same fashion that states like Utah treat non-residents?
No easy answers to these complex issues, but I am very appreciative of you taking the time to reach out and add your voice to the considerations.
Joe

First, thank you so much for taking the time to connect and share your thoughts with us. As you can imagine, each issue/topic we tackle is a complicated tapestry of interconnected perspectives, values, and priorities. It helps our understanding a great deal to hear from a variety of perspectives. Throughout this process I have learned that we all share at least one common thread – we care passionately about our resources and critters and want to ensure their wellbeing for future generations to enjoy
Thank you sir, truly appreciate your thoughts, stories, and insights!
Elissa

 

[DFS]

Second response hits home. Hard to argue with that. Especially when you see the Utah hunters pouring into other states.

 

[JLS]

Second response hits home. Hard to argue with that. Especially when you see the Utah hunters pouring into other states.

While there is truth to this, do you really want to use the worst example of western states as to how you want to act?

 

[rmyoung1]

While there is truth to this, do you really want to use the worst example of western states as to how you want to act?

This!!!!

Again, as it’s been said ad nauseam, Wyoming is free to manage its elk for the benefit of Wyoming. But… let’s please not use Utah as the peer review. Horrible comparison. Utah’s commitment to rifle hunting their elk in the rut throws everything out of whack. Plus, Utah is a state with 30,000 fewer elk and 3 million more people.

From a tag allocation perspective, wouldn’t MT or ID be the more appropriate peer states? I hope other TF members can better appreciate the nuance.

 

[Kiwi]

Sent my comments to the task force members (thanks for the sample @bigfin), wasn't sure if my comments would help being from New Zealand. But its worth a try, especially as my kids and I have 50+ points combined.

 

[DFS]

This!!!!

Again, as it’s been said ad nauseam, Wyoming is free to manage its elk for the benefit of Wyoming. But… let’s please not use Utah as the peer review. Horrible comparison. Utah’s commitment to rifle hunting their elk in the rut throws everything out of whack. Plus, Utah is a state with 30,000 fewer elk and 3 million more people.

From a tag allocation perspective, wouldn’t MT or ID be the more appropriate peer states? I hope other TF members can better appreciate the nuance.

Sure. And if Montana actually managed wildlife we would see cuts to both nonresidents and residents. The big difference I see is I thought Wyoming did a great job managing wildlife and tags from the limited experiences I have had. Doesn’t change the fact Wyoming residents don’t get to hunt Utah. I understand that perspective.
Edit** Montana’s commitment to rifle hunting our mule deer during the entire rut without limiting tags is as bad as Utah or worse. It’s ok though because you have opportunity?

 

[rmyoung1]

Sure. And if Montana actually managed wildlife we would see cuts to both nonresidents and residents. The big difference I see is I thought Wyoming did a great job managing wildlife and tags from the limited experiences I have had. Doesn’t change the fact Wyoming residents don’t get to hunt Utah. I understand that perspective.
Edit** Montana’s commitment to rifle hunting our mule deer during the entire rut without limiting tags is as bad as Utah or worse. It’s ok though because you have opportunity?

I don’t think anyone is arguing that WY does a poor job managing their wildlife resources. I’m certainly not claiming that MT does better. What I’m suggesting is that if Wyoming wishes to devise a new R/NR allocation strategy, they shouldn’t use Utah as a peer case study or cite local frustrations with Utah as a basis for change. In the realm of western big game hunting, Utah is a whacky outlier. Even the way Utah distributes tags to its own residents is weird.

 

[shootbrownelk]

To Buzz's point, I live next to the biggest wilderness area in the State. It's the assumption that wilderness areas in Wyoming are the Mecca for elk hunting that all residents flock to every fall and thumb their noses at all the non residents on the borderlines from.

Every elk I have killed in the last 22 years have been outside the wilderness. Every single one.

A lot of the best elk habitat is on Private land, or Public surrounded by private IMO.

 

[JM77]

I have heard from several people that I emailed. I have been encouraged by the responses I've received.

Here are some of the responses:

Thank you for providing your perspective and feedback regarding the work of our task force and some of the recommendations we are considering. I appreciate and respect the fact that you enjoy hunting our great state. I will include your email as public comment for consideration by the entire task force.
Brian

Thank you for the response and I certainly appreciate the sentiments from a non-resident hunter perspective. I think the challenge I struggle with in not doing anything here is still the parity of how other states treat Wyoming residents as non-resident hunters. Utah is an excellent example. I have hunted Utah once in my life, even after more than 16 years of applying for various permits. I’ll likely get to hunt it once or twice more in my lifetime. That is where I struggle when I engage in conversation with Wyoming resident hunters. How do I answer my fellow Wyoming resident hunters when they argue with me that Wyoming should treat non-residents in the same fashion that states like Utah treat non-residents?
No easy answers to these complex issues, but I am very appreciative of you taking the time to reach out and add your voice to the considerations.
Joe

First, thank you so much for taking the time to connect and share your thoughts with us. As you can imagine, each issue/topic we tackle is a complicated tapestry of interconnected perspectives, values, and priorities. It helps our understanding a great deal to hear from a variety of perspectives. Throughout this process I have learned that we all share at least one common thread – we care passionately about our resources and critters and want to ensure their wellbeing for future generations to enjoy
Thank you sir, truly appreciate your thoughts, stories, and insights!
Elissa

I want to start by saying I hope the information Buzz got turns out to be accurate, but I want to be cautiously optimistic with this. Of the four or five email responses posted yesterday here from TF members, one confirms a member against the compromise, the other three are polite "thanks for the comment" replies. I spoke at length with Joe and he is genuinely in favor of the 90/10 allocation and seems prepared to go with the compromise to get it. He has a keen understanding of how things work, one of the minority on the TF that does, and he had some good comebacks to my points against an outfitter draw. He seemed to be listening to me, but the "leave as is" option didn't seem to appeal to him.

Don't take my comments here to mean that anyone who is planning to, should not take the time to comment on this. Please do. Just be aware, once in the same room together, all bets could be off as to what direction they go and how they vote for this issue(s). One particular member has replied to me and another hunttalker in two different directions. I'm actually not surprised about it either, considering.

 

[rmyoung1]

Thanks @JM77 Can you elaborate a little on the nature of Joe’s “good comebacks”? What’s the thrust of his counter-argument?

 

[PAhunter]

"How do I answer my fellow Wyoming resident hunters when they argue with me that Wyoming should treat non-residents in the same fashion that states like Utah treat non-residents?"

Perhaps consider how the Utah model treats residents before following their lead? Yes, elk populations in WY have been booming, but one doesn't have to look farther than this thread to see that private/outfitter access is already a factor in the quality of many of Wyoming's elk opportunities. Wyoming's human population is low, but will keep growing. Respond to those two dynamics the same way that Utah did years ago and the writing is on the wall for Wyoming resident hunters.

7-8 years ago the Wyoming antelope resource was plainly an untapped and readily renewable resource with burgeoning opportunity for all. But take a look at 2022 opportunities. Don't believe that can't happen with Wyoming elk. I'm not wishing that on any game population but it's the way of the world.

And yes, I know I quoted a guy who's (presumably) not reading this post.

 

[JM77]

Thanks @JM77 Can you elaborate a little on the nature of Joe’s “good comebacks”? What’s the thrust of his counter-argument?

The main point was with 90/10, what "extra" tags would be available to outfitters through the 50% NR draw, especially with landowners able to participate? Take for an example area 7 elk. Ten percent of the tags would be 150/2 = 75 for the outfitter draw. It's totally believable that currently 75 NR type 1 tags already book outfitters in 7. When including the ability for landowner to sponsor tags, the outfitters gain nothing, if not maybe lose tags. Because of this, Joe thinks outfitters will not have to seek additional leases for private land, which was my main point against the outfitter draw.

My rebuttal to this was we very well could lose HMA landowners when they figure out they can profit bigger $ from sponsoring NR in the draw.