kwyeewyk
Well-known member
Submitted comments, really didn't like the format where you have to answer one question before you get to see the next questions. Also seems like several areas in the proposals that need clarification or better wording.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That could happen in the initial draw.So they will now issue less than 7250 NR elk licenses per year?
Waiting periods if you draw a HD unit.out of curiosity, what is the implication for residents of classifying areas as high demand?
just like, you know, a cool label to put them even more on the map? or does it come with unique allocation structures?
like, who cares? call it the green balloon for all i care. it's just a unit with certain a draw odds threshold.
edit: oh the next question answers that for me
It was foolish for the TF and Commission to move this forward without a comprehensive plan on what regions would be and some idea on where tag numbers would start vs where they already are. That should have been what public comment was based on, not something as basic as should we or should we not remove the cap. Throw 90/10 on LQ tags, outfitter set asides, transferable LO tags, changes to regular/special and it goes from muddy water to cesspool sludge.That could happen in the initial draw.
Keep in mind NR's receive way more than 7,250 elk tags here. Its about 13K.
What the problem is going to be with regions, is that some regions will become very hard to draw, others not as much. I would guess point creep will get worse across the board as NR hunters shift their application strategies.
Example would be Cody area. Right now about 30% of the total elk hunters there are NR, meaning high demand area. Greys River general elk areas, 20% are NR hunters.
Its going to be up to the Regional Biologists to determine quotas, and MAY mean a shift to adhere to the regulation of 84-16 split. Meaning, that recommendations could be to reduce the Cody area region tags by 14%, the greys river by 4% to adhere to 84-16 tag splits.
That would make those tags in those areas more difficult to draw, increasing point creep. Other units may be easier, or what it may do is shift some of the lower tier point holders to not apply for the Greys or Cody tags, increasing point creep and the number of points required to draw higher across the board.
Its tough to know.
For the record, I testified in opposition to lifting the cap at the commission meeting just a while ago. Did no good, the commission moved to allow the department to start the process of drafting regulation change for both removing the cap and making region NR general tags.
Would the 30% nonresident hunters in the Cody area have anything to do with “high demand” areas? The way I understood it was that it was determined by 30% or less draw odds for residents and had nothing to do with NR. I figured the elk allocation would work similar to deer in the regional scheme. My example being that region G deer hunters exceed 80% on the resident side. The whole thing is a mess either way you slice it. I guess theoretically they could set NR general “region” elk quotas to whatever number they want irrelevant to the 84-16 quotas.That could happen in the initial draw.
Keep in mind NR's receive way more than 7,250 elk tags here. Its about 13K.
What the problem is going to be with regions, is that some regions will become very hard to draw, others not as much. I would guess point creep will get worse across the board as NR hunters shift their application strategies.
Example would be Cody area. Right now about 30% of the total elk hunters there are NR, meaning high demand area. Greys River general elk areas, 20% are NR hunters.
Its going to be up to the Regional Biologists to determine quotas, and MAY mean a shift to adhere to the regulation of 84-16 split. Meaning, that recommendations could be to reduce the Cody area region tags by 14%, the greys river by 4% to adhere to 84-16 tag splits.
That would make those tags in those areas more difficult to draw, increasing point creep. Other units may be easier, or what it may do is shift some of the lower tier point holders to not apply for the Greys or Cody tags, increasing point creep and the number of points required to draw higher across the board.
Its tough to know.
For the record, I testified in opposition to lifting the cap at the commission meeting just a while ago. Did no good, the commission moved to allow the department to start the process of drafting regulation change for both removing the cap and making region NR general tags.
I guess the theory is if the public slam dunks your ideas, just keep reintroducing them until you get a favorable result.
Time to get those comments fired up again.
In 2021 I did an 8 day guided sheep hunt in WY. Other than paying the outfitter, I had 2 gas station stops in WY for that trip, that's it. In 2020 I had a 2 day DIY antelope hunt for my two sons. 3 nights at a hotel (locally owned, not a chain), 4 restaurant/cafe bills (hungry teenagers), 5 gas station stops for gas/snacks and 1 grocery store stop before the hunt. My Dad and brother joined us the 2nd day and had their own expenses as well.This is so silly. This does nothing but take money away from "normal" Wyoming businesses and sends it the outfitters way.
They can argue all they want that outfitter money goes back into the economy but does it really as much as the DIY'ers? Most hunt packages include lodging and food. So most of the money goes to the outfitter themselves. On the other hand, the average NR goes out and rents hotels (because you know damn well the average guy isn't sleeping in a tent), eats out and spends their money on a variety of smaller businesses throughout the state, not just those affiliated with outfitters.
The way I see it, this is just another opportunity for the outfitters/landowners to make more money and get much better odds for their repeat rich clients. This affect DIY'ers AND regular businesses.
i know a few restaurant owners in saratoga that maybe i should e-mail/message about this. hadn't thought of that yet.
I’ve pointed out to decision-makers in these discussions many times how the x5 argument is flawed. Your guided client is in the state about 6 days. No scouting trip. If I have a WY tag, or hope to snag one the upcoming year, I’m in the state avg of 3 weeks a year between scouting, hunting, and family trips. 2022 is 6 weeks. If DIY opportunity is legislated away, I’m spending 3 weeks a year in CO or ID instead because it’s friendlier to DIY.Outfitted vs DIY spending is a tough thing to quantify, I've sat in a bunch of advisory board meetings for the local ice climbing park and watched guide companies (who resemble WYOGA to a scary degree..) trot out studies that they claim show that their clients spend 5x as much in town as DIY climbers... it looks compelling until someone who understands statistics breaks down the model and shows where the assumptions can be tilted so it shows the exact opposite if that is the direction the person paying for the study wants it to...
At least in the cases I've seen the data for clients vs DIY spending is tough to nail down, even in the context of a single town that is really interested in the exact percentage, let alone an entire state, I can't believe that anyone has any real data to support the claims either way...
I submitted another comment, it's a little disheartening to have to do so again after the was essentially no support last month...
"It's only welfare when it goes to other guy." Conrad Burns, 1998.I am guessing that most of these outfitters fundamentally oppose welfare and socialism as a general rule
They are all perfectly fine taking what is nothing short of welfare from a state agency.
It will be a double-dip for them, they will no longer have to spend a dime on marketing