Wyoming NR General Elk Regions

[Deleted member 18333]

so we can kinda sum up this and say that there is a belief that G&F need a way to get these elk under control and that they cannot do this with their current tool box. therefore, the new tool is more NR tags, under the guise of region based management? and that is sorta WYOGAs playbook on the thing as well?

now certainly it's not that black and white, like you just pointed out, but kinda sums it up right?

The bold part is not correct. The current toolbox will work to the same degree as their potentially new tool box. Only difference is money. Think the difference between NR Type 4 and NR Type 6 tags. If the cap goes away expect to see more Type 4 tags and less Type 6. Quote from high level G&F individual "with the current NR elk cap I have to issue Type 6 licenses to get elk herd levels under control. With the cap gone I issue Type 4 tags and I will sell every last one of them. Any leftovers after the initial draw because they are on private land will be picked up by the NR hunter that already has a gen tag to hunt that ranch. With the cap in place I am leaving money on the table."

Even the highest levels of the G&F will agree that more NR gen tags will not do jack squat to get the elk populations under control.

 

[TOGIE]

The bold part is not correct. The current toolbox will work to the same degree as their potentially new tool box. Only difference is money. Think the difference between NR Type 4 and NR Type 6 tags. If the cap goes away expect to see more Type 4 tags and less Type 6. Quote from high level G&F individual "with the current NR elk cap I have to issue Type 6 licenses to get elk herd levels under control. With the cap gone I issue Type 4 tags and I will sell every last one of them. Any leftovers after the initial draw because they are on private land will be picked up by the NR hunter that already has a gen tag to hunt that ranch. With the cap in place I am leaving money on the table."

Even the highest levels of the G&F will agree that more NR gen tags will not do jack squat to get the elk populations under control.

re read my post.

re. "there is a belief"

those with that belief is partially why it's ended up at this point was my point. i agree that's an incorrect belief. but i feel like that belief and those that hold it has brought us to this point based on what you were saying.

 

[BuzzH]

re read my post.

re. "there is a belief"

those with that belief is partially why it's ended up at this point was my point. i agree that's an incorrect belief. but i feel like that belief and those that hold it has brought us to this point based on what you were saying.

Bottom line, you don't control an elk population killing bulls, and they have all the tools they need to issue cow/calf licenses.

 

[TOGIE]

Bottom line, you don't control an elk population killing bulls, and they have all the tools they need to issue cow/calf licenses.

agreed, not news to me. i think you and JM are right on all counts here, so as to avoid getting yelled at for believing things i don't believe.

but i think points were getting lost in earlier discussion so i was trying to help bring those into better clarity.

 

[Treeshark]

There is a compelling financial argument to eliminating NR cap.

 

[BuzzH]

There is a compelling financial argument to eliminating NR cap.

There's nothing stopping the GF from making every cow/calf license full priced now.

There's going to be a cap on NR general tags too.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

There is a compelling financial argument to eliminating NR cap.

Please make this compelling arguement.

 

[TOGIE]

Please make this compelling arguement.

i think he's referring to the dollar signs in WYOGAs eyes

 

[BuzzH]

i think he's referring to the dollar signs in WYOGAs eyes

I'm not opposed to raising the fees on cow/calf and doe/fawn substantially for NR's.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

i think he's referring to the dollar signs in WYOGAs eyes

I do not feel compelled by that arguement

 

[TOGIE]

I do not feel compelled by that arguement

is it even an argument? i feel like it's actually an observation

what i assume here is its WYOGA being self compelled to get more clients, as always.

i sure hope you wouldn't be compelled by that.

 

[TOGIE]

I'm not opposed to raising the fees on cow/calf and doe/fawn substantially for NR's.

i thought we were all in agreement that part of this whole loss of NR cap debacle is being pushed by WYOGA? I think we were just observing the "financial incentive" they have. i think it's wrong and bullshit and you guys should keep you cap.

i really don't know what NR cow/calf and doe/fawn fees have to do with WYOGA trying to privatize wildlife. unless you're saying that rasing the fees is an avenue to stop them then i'm all for it. i really don't care what you gusy do with your fees. i feel like you frame these things as a threat and i don't know why

 

[BuzzH]

i thought we were all in agreement that part of this whole loss of NR cap debacle is being pushed by WYOGA? I think we were just observing the "financial incentive" they have. i think it's wrong and bullshit and you guys should keep you cap.

i really don't know what NR cow/calf and doe/fawn fees have to do with WYOGA trying to privatize wildlife. if rasing the fees stops them then i'm all for it.

Partly, but raising revenue is a big driver for the GF.

Point: They don't have to drop the cap to do it.

 

[TOGIE]

Partly, but raising revenue is a big driver for the GF.

Point: They don't have to drop the cap to do it.

exactly, that's a good point. and why i think we all know the real problem is WYOGA, if the real problem was revenue for G&F then hell yeah just raise some low hanging fruit fees. but it's the more NR tags that benefits WYOGA that really is the traction here right?

 

[Treeshark]

Point: They don't have to drop the cap to do it.

Imagine the possibilities if they did, though.

Newton’s Third law coming into play perhaps here, as often happens with budgets.

 

[BuzzH]

exactly, that's a good point. and why i think we all know the real problem is WYOGA, if the real problem was revenue for G&F then hell yeah just raise some low hanging fruit fees. but it's the more NR tags that benefits WYOGA that really is the traction here right?

I think it's a pretty even combination of 3 things:

1. Outfitters wanting more NR General tags.
2. GF making money, mostly due to revenue loss from pronghorn and deer being in the tank.
3. Catered to some landowners in the Eastern District that want to make sure their NR pals all get elk tags. The GF is claiming they need more tags to control elk, well, they already have the solution, cow/calf tags all they want to issue.

Then, the excuse, is to give managers better ability to manage general elk herds in smaller regions, which is the ONLY thing that makes sense in this whole debacle.

 

[BuzzH]

Imagine the possibilities if they did, though.

Newton’s Third law coming into play perhaps here, as often happens with budgets.

Imagine if they just did something simple, like cap NR general elk tags at 4000-4300 in chapter 44. Made all cow/calf tags type 4's and called it a day. Keep 84-16 on LQ areas the same with no cap.

Done.

 

[brocksw]

Then, the excuse, is to give managers better ability to manage general elk herds in smaller regions, which is the ONLY thing that makes sense in this whole debacle.

I'm missing something. @mulecreek replied to my post and makes it sound like region sizes are irrelevant. Unit level management is fully doable with the current approach and management decisions will not be impeded by large region surface area. But then this makes your second post that insinuates that there is some drawbacks to management decisions affecting such large areas.

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[BuzzH]

I'm missing something. @mulecreek replied to my post and makes it sound like region sizes are irrelevant. Unit level management is fully doable with the current approach and management decisions will not be impeded by large region surface area. But then this makes your second post that insinuates that there is some drawbacks to management decisions affecting such large areas.

What am I misunderstanding?

The large regions take away the ability to change quota's (both up and down) in smaller geographic regions.

Again I'll use the proposed southern Region as an example. It covers an area from Laramie to the Utah/Idaho line and South of I-80.

Lets say the Snowy Range has a tough winter year, but elk are booming around Evanston, clear across the state.

The GF will be reluctant to cut the southern region total quota with elk doing very well in say the Sierra's and the general units near Evanston.

So, their only option would be to adjust season length in the Snowy Range to take pressure off a depressed elk herd. That would in turn, drive both Resident and Non Resident pressure to the Sierra's and the far Eastern units near Evanston.

What would that do? Likely create a crap experience due to hunter density, reduce total elk numbers, reduce bull to cow ratio's etc.

It would make way more sense if the Sierra's were a region, the Snowy Range was another Region, and the Evanston units were their own region. They could increase or decrease tags in a specific region, rather than just trying to shift shift pressure from one unit to another.

It wound also allow the Resident hunters that primarily hunt their specific region to work with the Department and regional wildlife managers to make sure NR tags and seasons were ensuring recreation management objectives. Tough to do that when your regions covers 1/4 of the state like the Southern Region would, or about 2/3 of the State in their Western region.

The Department had it wayyyyy more correct with the 13 regions, and then pivoted to 3 at the request of the outfitters, making the whole idea complete trash.

 

[brocksw]

The large regions take away the ability to change quota's (both up and down) in smaller geographic regions.

Again I'll use the proposed southern Region as an example. It covers an area from Laramie to the Utah/Idaho line and South of I-80.

Lets say the Snowy Range has a tough winter year, but elk are booming around Evanston, clear across the state.

The GF will be reluctant to cut the southern region total quota with elk doing very well in say the Sierra's and the general units near Evanston.

So, their only option would be to adjust season length in the Snowy Range to take pressure off a depressed elk herd. That would in turn, drive both Resident and Non Resident pressure to the Sierra's and the far Eastern units near Evanston.

What would that do? Likely create a crap experience due to hunter density, reduce total elk numbers, reduce bull to cow ratio's etc.

It would make way more sense if the Sierra's were a region, the Snowy Range was another Region, and the Evanston units were their own region. They could increase or decrease tags in a specific region, rather than just trying to shift shift pressure from one unit to another.

It wound also allow the Resident hunters that primarily hunt their specific region to work with the Department and regional wildlife managers to make sure NR tags and seasons were ensuring recreation management objectives. Tough to do that when your regions covers 1/4 of the state like the Southern Region would, or about 2/3 of the State in their Western region.

The Department had it wayyyyy more correct with the 13 regions, and then pivoted to 3 at the request of the outfitters, making the whole idea complete trash.

Thank you for clarifying for my measley brain. I agree with your thought process.