WYGF March 18 updated proposals

[seeth07]

Those great numbers just move to another property. It is a revolving door in this area.
There are too many elk here, very simple. Not enough good habitat to support the huge herds- they must go to private.

What is the logic for the habitat not being able to support the size of the herd? Are they unhealthy, underweight, etc? Are there disease outbreaks? I'm seriously interesting in learning more because from the outside, I don't see how with an animal that can migrate significant distances where an over abundance is possible. If habitat isn't good enough, wont they just move on to greener pastures? As far as neighboring ranches go, seems that simply allowing access and pressure would help keep the elk off properties that don't want them - perhaps its not quite that simple due to season lengths, timing, etc.

I appreciate you not being an asshole to me asking these questions unlike Buzz who just assumes that I'm contributing to this discussion with motives of making him angry or something...

 

[BuzzH]

What is the logic for the habitat not being able to support the size of the herd? Are they unhealthy, underweight, etc? Are there disease outbreaks? I'm seriously interesting in learning more because from the outside, I don't see how with an animal that can migrate significant distances where an over abundance is possible. If habitat isn't good enough, wont they just move on to greener pastures? As far as neighboring ranches go, seems that simply allowing access and pressure would help keep the elk off properties that don't want them - perhaps its not quite that simple due to season lengths, timing, etc.

I appreciate you not being an asshole to me asking these questions unlike Buzz who just assumes that I'm contributing to this discussion with motives of making him angry or something...

Zero to do with habitat, 100% to do with social tolerance of elk. Herd objectives also based on tolerance not carrying capacity.

Also hunting seasons only last so long, elk don't stay away from places that allow access all year. Elk aren't like whitetail, they concentrate and do not tolerate pressure. Plus, must hunters hunt them like total shit and run them off being stupid. I've seen elk near Gardiner that will stay in the park and starve rather than crossing the park line where they can be hunted.

 

[wytex]

Buzz is right, the habitat is there, my misspoken thought. Some ranches get overrun and their habitat(range) is affected but overall the area can support the elk.
He is right about how they are hunted, the huge herds take a diff. approach to taking multiple animals out of it.

This issues has been brewing for years, heck the LO we work has stated if they would make cow tags cheaper more folks would buy them. When I pointed out access was the issue he got quiet, knew I was right. He finally mentioned last year " I guess some folks are having issues with too many elk".
He also wished to manage his property's hunting for trophy bulls, that is really a joke as this herd moves around so much.

I'm stymied as too what will help but I really think the right amount of $$ might get some access opened up.
I do know there are some LOs that no matter how much $$ you throw at them they want only folks they know and trust on their property and that helps continue this problem. Our LO is that way, no hunters unless we, or one of his family is with them. He does not have a too many elk problem though.

As to the not taking pressure, Buzz is right on again. The elk herds do not tolerate much or anyone really that they see or smell. ATV sounds or people pressure, they herd up and get moving.
This is mostly open country.

 

[seeth07]

Buzz is right, the habitat is there, my misspoken thought. Some ranches get overrun and their habitat(range) is affected but overall the area can support the elk.
He is right about how they are hunted, the huge herds take a diff. approach to taking multiple animals out of it.

This issues has been brewing for years, heck the LO we work has stated if they would make cow tags cheaper more folks would buy them. When I pointed out access was the issue he got quiet, knew I was right. He finally mentioned last year " I guess some folks are having issues with too many elk".
He also wished to manage his property's hunting for trophy bulls, that is really a joke as this herd moves around so much.

I'm stymied as too what will help but I really think the right amount of $$ might get some access opened up.
I do know there are some LOs that no matter how much $$ you throw at them they want only folks they know and trust on their property and that helps continue this problem. Our LO is that way, no hunters unless we, or one of his family is with them. He does not have a too many elk problem though.

As to the not taking pressure, Buzz is right on again. The elk herds do not tolerate much or anyone really that they see or smell. ATV sounds or people pressure, they herd up and get moving.
This is mostly open country.

So is the problem that there are landowners that do not want this many elk traveling and using their property because when the big herd does show up, its destroying their pasture/hayfields? If so, are these unhappy landowners allowing the access then and collecting the damage payments from the state? You state that they are impacted by pressure easily though so if they allow access, isn't that pressure removing the elk and working as intended?

Sorry for my ignorance on this, I'm just really struggling to see that there is a "real problem".

 

[BuzzH]

So is the problem that there are landowners that do not want this many elk traveling and using their property because when the big herd does show up, its destroying their pasture/hayfields? If so, are these unhappy landowners allowing the access then and collecting the damage payments from the state? You state that they are impacted by pressure easily though so if they allow access, isn't that pressure removing the elk and working as intended?

Sorry for my ignorance on this, I'm just really struggling to see that there is a "real problem".

If you owned property bordering wagonhound, the picture would clarify itself.

Sure you can run elk off anywhere for a short time, even for a few months.

What do you recommend for the months no hunting is taking place?

It's tough to imagine you're having trouble with understanding the issue.

 

[wytex]

Yeah, I guess year round hunting might solve the problem. No thanks to that idea.

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

You clearly haven't a clue how the damage claims work here.

They have to allow access to get damage claims.

Could you clarify what counts as access? I think they can allow very limited access (not advertised or public) and still count it. Am I wrong? I know I've called landowners listed on the G&F website as allowing access only to be told gruffly that they don't need any hunters. So did they technically allow access to three people and now they can get their damage claims? It's not clear to me. I'm sure it's buried in a rule somewhere but I don't know where to find it. I also know that during this year's legislative session it was proposed that in order to get damage claims they had to enroll in a HMA program -- this idea was shot down immediately by ranchers in the legislature. Maybe you can provide some clarity on what is actually required? Thanks in advance!

 

[BuzzH]

Could you clarify what counts as access? I think they can allow very limited access (not advertised or public) and still count it. Am I wrong? I know I've called landowners listed on the G&F website as allowing access only to be told gruffly that they don't need any hunters. So did they technically allow access to three people and now they can get their damage claims? It's not clear to me. I'm sure it's buried in a rule somewhere but I don't know where to find it. I also know that during this year's legislative session it was proposed that in order to get damage claims they had to enroll in a HMA program -- this idea was shot down immediately by ranchers in the legislature. Maybe you can provide some clarity on what is actually required? Thanks in advance!

Google chapter 28 Wyoming game and fish damage regulations.

been filed. For an award to be allowed, the Department shall have
to determine the claimant allowed sufficient numbers of hunters to access his privately owned or
leased land and adjoining Federal or State land to harvest more than the number of big game
animals, trophy game animals or game birds recruited in the preceding twelve (12) months into
the segment of the population responsible for doing damage. The claimant shall contact the
game warden to whom he reported the damage to determine how many big game animals, trophy
game animals, or game birds meets the requirement of more than the number of big game......

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

Google chapter 28 Wyoming game and fish damage regulations.

been filed. For an award to be allowed, the Department shall have
to determine the claimant allowed sufficient numbers of hunters to access his privately owned or
leased land and adjoining Federal or State land to harvest more than the number of big game
animals, trophy game animals or game birds recruited in the preceding twelve (12) months into
the segment of the population responsible for doing damage. The claimant shall contact the
game warden to whom he reported the damage to determine how many big game animals, trophy
game animals, or game birds meets the requirement of more than the number of big game......

Thanks!

 

[bucdoego]

Wyoming Game And Fish Proposes Unlimited Elk Tags To Cut Down On Gigantic Herds
Mark Heinz | March 23, 2024

In an effort to cull some of the state’s swelling elk herds, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department could offer unlimited cow/calf elk tags in some hunt areas this fall. Whether hunters can fill those tags, however, will depend upon getting access to private land.

https://cowboystatedaily.imgix.net/National-Elk-Refuge-in-Wyoming-getty-3.23.24.jpg

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/0...lf-elk-tags-proposed-to-reduce-wyoming-herds/

I suspect that this reporting is for the meeting being discussed in this thread. It seems related anyway. In any event, it sounds as though access has been identified as a/the limiting factor and yet, mostly left unsolved. It is 'on the hunter' to solve. That would seem to empower the LOs and Outfitters.

Admittedly, I'm not 'informed' on this specific situation (I'm learning though), so if I've stepped in it with anyone here... I'll just apologize in advance.

 

[wytex]

The pressure make the elk someone else's problem when they move. Moving the herd does nothing to reduce the numbers.
Think about thousands of elk hitting your hay meadow, and tearing down the fences to get at it. Shoot at 'em and they just go next door or down the road until they get shot at again and move again.

Everyone knows access is the problem but yet the few LO that will only allow limited access are perpetuating the problem for those that allow hunting. Get all the LOs on board with population control methods and we'll see some results. Hunting them here and there will not work.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Maybe the proposed banana ram tags will only a few points to draw.

Shhh... The less people with more points than me that know, the better.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

There may be better than banana rams if a person has a clue...most don't.

I am in that group of most people, be kind in your judgement

 

[perma]

Wyoming Game And Fish Proposes Unlimited Elk Tags To Cut Down On Gigantic Herds
Mark Heinz | March 23, 2024

In an effort to cull some of the state’s swelling elk herds, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department could offer unlimited cow/calf elk tags in some hunt areas this fall. Whether hunters can fill those tags, however, will depend upon getting access to private land.

https://cowboystatedaily.imgix.net/National-Elk-Refuge-in-Wyoming-getty-3.23.24.jpg

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/0...lf-elk-tags-proposed-to-reduce-wyoming-herds/

I suspect that this reporting is for the meeting being discussed in this thread. It seems related anyway. In any event, it sounds as though access has been identified as a/the limiting factor and yet, mostly left unsolved. It is 'on the hunter' to solve. That would seem to empower the LOs and Outfitters.

Admittedly, I'm not 'informed' on this specific situation (I'm learning though), so if I've stepped in it with anyone here... I'll just apologize in advance.

Nothing to solve really. If LO's dont allow hunters to hunt, then selling unlimited tags is just a diversion to the real issue. Only ones that will benefit will be the LO's that charge the folks with the tag.

That being said, I believe not all type 8's are PLO only, but for those that are not, it's obvious as to why they aren't.

 

[bobbadbob]

Think of all the moose and sheep points WY sold that are worthless. In addition, now there is not even a random tag at all. They need a bonus draw, period. Preference points no longer work due to the allocation cut, population management goals, and point holder levels. WY needs to fix the system or face litigation, as they continue to sale worthless points and defraud a bunch of point holder who no longer have a chance at a tag in a normal lifetime. It’s not like these points are being sold for a negligible amount.

i talked to larry hicks state rep from baggs when the 90/10 was first being talked about...im from nm and have hunted wy many times over the years...he told me he represented the people who elected him...he told me he has hunted in nm where our licenses are 84% to residents and an outfitter thing that would take forever to type...he said he wanted it to be comparable to other states, which they have done...i cant argue with that...im pissed about the moose points too...when i first started 13 points would get a bull in 38...now im at 21 and applied for cow in 38, and its not guaranteed...im 69 and cant wait any longer...wy never guaranteed a moose hunt to anybody so litigation wont change anything imo...the legislature that made the law do not represent the nr or wygf...wygf was unhappy too about nr funding, it was the will of the people in wy... one thing i wondered about, i thought the 90/10 would bring out the heavy hitters en masse, it didnt, im thinking they are mostly younger...also why are new people still applying for moose points...

 

[RunNGunSC]

I understand your perspective but you also make my point. They are being bought because they are being sold. Most people below your point level don’t even have the cow moose option. The current system is stealing money from ignorant people and removes any value for most point holders. There are reasonably easy ways to fix the system and balance interest of stakeholders, but the whole anti NR vibe gives the fraud argument malice intent. A bonus point system like CO with a minimum time commitment strikes a balance, or so do straight bonus point or hybrid systems. There are several reasonable solutions, but the current approach and continuation of point selling is wrong.

 

[JAG]

Here are some specific questions that likley have answers that relate to the macro topics already discussed on this thread.

The proposals for 2024 include a split of Area 54 and creation of a new Elk Area '65' which appears to deal with a heavy presence of elk on rancher land in that flat area to the eastern section of 54.

With the elk quota increasing to 65 from 50 in the now smaller Elk Area 54, I'm curious to know why they are removing Area 53 to the west?

 

[BuzzH]

Here are some specific questions that likley have answers that relate to the macro topics already discussed on this thread.

The proposals for 2024 include a split of Area 54 and creation of a new Elk Area '65' which appears to deal with a heavy presence of elk on rancher land in that flat area to the eastern section of 54.

With the elk quota increasing to 65 from 50 in the now smaller Elk Area 54, I'm curious to know why they are removing Area 53 to the west?

Jag, haven't watched the Cody Presentation, but I bet the reasoning is in there: Looks like around the 21 minute mark.

I also have a good friend that hunts that country a ton and I can get his take on it. Also, Tony Mong is a good biologist that I think does a pretty good job.

 

[JAG]

Thanks Buzz... perfect.

 

[bobbadbob]

Paying for damage and paying for access are 2 different things.

Many ranchers don't claim damage and they don't provide access either. The point being made is that if the financial incentives were increased for access, some would likely start allowing hunting.

If ranchers want to claim damage, then it forces them to allow access.

Of course, anyone that puts 1 second of thought into elk over abundance issues knows that the problem lies with ranches that don't care about harboring a few thousand elk. They don't claim damage, don't allow access for hunting, and the herds simply continue to expand.

Increasing hunting pressure on the surrounding areas that allow hunting make the harboring worse. Fewer elk will be killed, law of diminishing returns is going to happen.

you got it...ranchers that dont claim damage are probably selling hunts...all ranches are different all ranchers are different...one case in point...stan kronke who owns or controls access to 550k acre q creek ranch...i hunted there with 11 points in 2015?...he owns ranches in montana, wyoming. etc....judging what i saw at q creek he couldnt care less about how many elk come on to his ranch...many smaller landowners try to balance grass for elk/cows and have to work the system...i see both sides being a cowman here in nm...same down here...imo lawsuit against wy re points is pi$$ing the wind...they didnt guarantee or imply anything...every state legislature in the west has modified nr hunting tags..nr dont vote for wy legislators...and yet look at the people who have 1 point moose...