Wyoming NR General Elk Regions

[Dougfirtree]

I finally went to look at the proposed regions for NR general elk hunting and was surprised. I was expecting more regions and hunters having to limit themselves to smaller areas. In this arrangement, it seems like the vast majority of hunters will be choosing between only two regions. Does anyone know the reasoning that went into this map? Apologies if this was covered in one of the threads on general changes to Wyoming's NR elk hunting. I kind of lost my appetite for those threads after a few pages of pitchfork raising...

 

[Caseknife]

With the three regions, it doesn't look too restrictive, kind of like it. But then again since I drew general this year, it may change before I get to draw again.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Does anyone know the reasoning that went into this map?

The rationale for going from the original 13 NR elk regions to the three regions was complaints from WYOGA about devaluing of PP's, too many tags in regions dominated by non-wilderness public and not enough in regions with Wilderness. There were also complaints from one former Commissioner and TF member Pete Dube about potential to devalue PP's in certain regions.

The way they came up with the current map, G&F looked at a road map of Wyo. Used I80 and the border for Southern region and I25 and Hwy220 and 289 for border between East and West.

 

[seeth07]

I'm in favor of it as well. I can't imagine a whole of people right now are swapping on their general tag from western to eastern to southern in a single year having the general tag.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Well, that makes sense that WYOGA would feel that way... Was there any discussion about how the number of tags would be split between the regions? It's not hard to imagine that one could end up taking more point creep than the other upon implementation.
Pretty interesting to think about how certain units could end up seeing less pressure than they have historically with such big regions.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Current proposal is 500 (East), 1050 (South) and 2775 (West). However, actual quotas will be created every April and then debated during the April season setting meetings just as is done for the deer regions. The only reason they included quotas in the proposal at this point was so that when NR apply in January they will have some idea of how many tags will be available. The number could change in April.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Well, that makes sense that WYOGA would feel that way... Was there any discussion about how the number of tags would be split between the regions? It's not hard to imagine that one could end up taking more point creep than the other upon implementation.
Pretty interesting to think about how certain units could end up seeing less pressure than they have historically with such big regions.

The quotas are derived from the last 3 yr average of the first unit a person hunted based on the responses to NR elk surveys. They then took these numbers and bumped them up a little or a lot depending on region and viewpoint.

 

[Dougfirtree]

The quotas are derived from the last 3 yr average of the first unit a person hunted based on the responses to NR elk surveys. They then took these numbers and bumped them up a little or a lot depending on region and viewpoint.

I appreciate the info!

 

[JM77]

The rationale for going from the original 13 NR elk regions to the three regions was complaints from WYOGA about devaluing of PP's, too many tags in regions dominated by non-wilderness public and not enough in regions with Wilderness. There were also complaints from one former Commissioner and TF member Pete Dube about potential to devalue PP's in certain regions.

The way they came up with the current map, G&F looked at a road map of Wyo. Used I80 and the border for Southern region and I25 and Hwy220 and 289 for border between East and West.

Changing from 13 regions to three is an elk management joke. Any wildlife manager worth his/her salt should be fuming about this. Upper level G&F touted science and flexibility as the reason for region tags and that's why they formulated the 13 regions.

Enter the outfitters and all of a sudden things change. Anyone, including NR should oppose the obvious catering to outfitters and looking the other way from real elk management in general areas. But I get, it's everyone for themselves. Explain to me, with just three regions, how anything meaningful management wise could be accomplished in one elk herd unit?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Changing from 13 regions to three is an elk management joke. Any wildlife manager worth his/her salt should be fuming about this. Upper level G&F touted science and flexibility as the reason for region tags and that's why they formulated the 13 regions.

Enter the outfitters and all of a sudden things change. Anyone, including NR should oppose the obvious catering to outfitters and looking the other way from real elk management in general areas. But I get, it's everyone for themselves. Explain to me, with just three regions, how anything meaningful management wise could be accomplished in one elk herd unit?

The regions are a smokescreen. The only real goal was to lose the 7250 cap.

 

[seeth07]

Pardon my ignorance here but isn't 3 regions better than the one? Also, if a particular area, particular unit or even subunit needed a different management goal from the general doesn't it just go into out of the general and into draw? Isn't that why we see draw units and types of hunts changing in and out of draw units each year?

 

[Dougfirtree]

The regions are a smokescreen. The only real goal was to lose the 7250 cap.

I'm missing something. All of this makes sense (in a sort of cynical way), but the quotas you listed earlier add up to less than 7250. Weren't they trying to issue more NR general tags?

 

[Deleted member 16014]

The regions are a smokescreen. The only real goal was to lose the 7250 cap.

This could not be more true. Not one time have I heard a legitimate explanation of what NR general regions will do that couldn't already be accomplished through unit specific license types.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'm missing something. All of this makes sense (in a sort of cynical way), but the quotas you listed earlier add up to less than 7250. Weren't they trying to issue more NR general tags?

7250 is the total Full Price cap. Take 7250 subtract the total NR FP elk licenses issued (based on 16% NR allocation) and you get the number of NR gen elk licenses issued each year. If the 7250 cap goes away then they will issue the 16% NR Full Price elk licenses and as many NR gen licenses as they want. That number will be more than they currently issue under the 7250 cap. The numbers I listed are already higher than what they issued in 2022. Even at that, influential groups want those numbers to go even higher. Doing away with the cap, may decrease the time between drawing NR gen elk tags but it wont make for better hunting. You will 100% see more hunters when in the field. No question about it.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Pardon my ignorance here but isn't 3 regions better than the one?

No it is not. Please explain why you beleive it would be?

 

[seeth07]

No it is not. Please explain why you beleive it would be?

Regardless of motivations and outcomes regarding tag numbers that you have mentioned as rationale behind this, I was referring to the comment about from an elk herd management perspective turning from 1 whole state general tag to 3 regions is better. It's not the 13 proposed but still is better than 1.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I was referring to the comment about from an elk herd management perspective turning from 1 whole state general tag to 3 regions is better. It's not the 13 proposed but still is better than 1.

How? Not trying to be a smart-ass but I would like to hear your thoughts. If someone can convince me its better, I'll buy it. So far no one has made an elk management argument that I think is worth its weight in shit.

 

[perma]

Changing from 13 regions to three is an elk management joke. Any wildlife manager worth his/her salt should be fuming about this. Upper level G&F touted science and flexibility as the reason for region tags and that's why they formulated the 13 regions.

Enter the outfitters and all of a sudden things change. Anyone, including NR should oppose the obvious catering to outfitters and looking the other way from real elk management in general areas. But I get, it's everyone for themselves. Explain to me, with just three regions, how anything meaningful management wise could be accomplished in one elk herd unit?

You know what my gripe is, is that the outfitters have complained so much about getting business and then dont do anything when their door gets knocked on. I've made two phone calls to outfitters this year, one for a tag I was intending to draw and one that I did draw (one was a wilderness hunt in the wind river range and the other has very little public land, snowy range area). I made very formal communications to both and all I got back was "i'll check and get back to you". It's been 10 days since the last one I reached out to.

Hell, I even called an outfitter in CO that my sibling married into! Nada.

Complain about needing the business and then don't return any calls. Then, they want to change into 3 regions. Very little sympathy for them. Does nothing for the wildlife. If it goes through, vote 90/10 for LE.

 

[BuzzH]

Pardon my ignorance here but isn't 3 regions better than the one? Also, if a particular area, particular unit or even subunit needed a different management goal from the general doesn't it just go into out of the general and into draw? Isn't that why we see draw units and types of hunts changing in and out of draw units each year?

Not only no, but F-no.

Did you actually look at the map, or are you just dreaming about your next tag?

What happens when, so in the southern Region, you have a tough snow year in the Snowy Range, but the Madres and those by Evanston don't? Any tags you cut are going to effect the entire southern half of the State.

Yeah, you can go ahead and shorten the season in the Snowy's, but then the hunting pressure would just shift to the other units in the Southern Region that had longer seasons. Which, would in turn increase harvest, increase hunter density, decrease bull to cow ratio's, etc. You move the problem from area to area.

Finally, no, general units don't normally flip form LQ to General.

This is a horrific idea that has absolutely zero to do with proper management based on Science.

I think this proposal will be very hard for the commission to adopt. Many Resident General elk hunters are not happy with it.

 

[Hunt West]

I was kind of on the fence with the original 13 region proposal and could see the benefit if managed correctly. When I saw the change to 3 regions it was an immediate no go for me and I could see no upside.