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.
Wyo Wildlife Task Force and the new outfitter/landowner draw proposal
- Thread starter JM77
- Start date
ashersdad
Well-known member
Boy, I really had to bite my tongue on the comments to be respectful...
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. why is calling it high demand a separate recommendation from what comes with high demand? who wrote this chit?
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. why is calling it high demand a separate recommendation from what comes with high demand? who wrote this chit?
BuzzH
Well-known member
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.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Waiting periods if you draw a HD unit.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Thoughts on sending Sy from SNS unintelligent points in how beneficial this proposal would be to all these task members and providing counter points to each one?
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
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.
I envision increase in the Cody region. Greys river, Wyoming range regions stay same, Snowys get a reductions, Central and Eastern see big increases. If I was an outfitter on leased private in a Gen unit I would be ordering my new King Ranch right now.
Should be fun to have yet another thing to argue about at season setting meetings going forward. How long until the first outfitter suggests that resident gen elk hunters should have to pick a region?
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.
just submitted 409 words on why 50% NR to outfitters is bullchit.
I could've rambled on for another 1200 words.
i used strong words. i used Outfitter Bailout, Outfitter Subsidy, Outfitter Handout, and Outfitter Welfare. I told them to take their pick, they're all the same thing.
I told them if outfitters want clients they need to provide quality services, no reason for the government to provide clients for them. I told them this goes against the very core of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. I told them who seems to really gain the most financially when it comes to DIY/versus guided - it's the locals seeing the restaurants and gas stations filled with DIY guys. The hotels and short term rentals that are filled from August to November. It's not the several guides and absentee landowners lining their pockets that provides much benefit to wyomign residents.
What i did not tell them is i want more NR tags for myself, even though that would be awesome. that's not what the problem really is.
I could've rambled on for another 1200 words.
i used strong words. i used Outfitter Bailout, Outfitter Subsidy, Outfitter Handout, and Outfitter Welfare. I told them to take their pick, they're all the same thing.
I told them if outfitters want clients they need to provide quality services, no reason for the government to provide clients for them. I told them this goes against the very core of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. I told them who seems to really gain the most financially when it comes to DIY/versus guided - it's the locals seeing the restaurants and gas stations filled with DIY guys. The hotels and short term rentals that are filled from August to November. It's not the several guides and absentee landowners lining their pockets that provides much benefit to wyomign residents.
What i did not tell them is i want more NR tags for myself, even though that would be awesome. that's not what the problem really is.
Last edited:
Sent. I didn't go full Buzz, but I did give a little gas.
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 776
Simply said outfitters should not be gifted a public resource. What's next outfitter only lakes, sections of river? Let's just allocate all the public resources to different special interest groups while we are at it......
ashersdad
Well-known member
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.
Good points about the outfitted guys not spending as much locally. Has there been any discussion on what part of the 50% set-aside would go to outfitter pool vs transferable landowner tags?
I realize they are not popular either (on HT, anyway) but one would think at least some of the hunters using them would be more DIY-style guys supporting the local economy.
I realize they are not popular either (on HT, anyway) but one would think at least some of the hunters using them would be more DIY-style guys supporting the local economy.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
Outfitters keep focusing on the money THEY bring to local economy which IMO is BS. They, for the most part, pocket all of it. Yes, they employ individuals (who are not necessarily from Wyoming btw...), buy groceries and get gas, etc. But for the most part, the hospitality industry in Wyoming gets nothing from them. They're not booking hotels, they get guys in spike camps, bunk houses (on private), cottages (on private), etc. Also, they probably do very selective "shopping" to maximize feeding clients at low cost.
Now what does the average NR DIY guy/gal does? They rent hotel rooms/Air BnBs, some rent cars if they fly in, get gas at various gas stations, buy groceries, go to the restaurant, etc, etc, etc... NR DIYers pump money into local economies AND the State, period. Heck, even those who camp end up spending probably more locally than for guided hunts.
The majority of outfitted hunts money goes towards the outfitter, plain and simple.
GrantK
Well-known member
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...
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...
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
I sent in my comments.
It is hard not to get fatigued, but this is the good fight we're all waiting for, stopping more outfitter welfare and loss of access that results.
I called out SNS specifically, and gave examples of access loss from Colorado that resulted from transferable landowner tags.
It is hard not to get fatigued, but this is the good fight we're all waiting for, stopping more outfitter welfare and loss of access that results.
I called out SNS specifically, and gave examples of access loss from Colorado that resulted from transferable landowner tags.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
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.
runningmt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 717
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
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
"It's only welfare when it goes to other guy." Conrad Burns, 1998.
