Wyoming NR General Elk Regions
- Thread starter Dougfirtree
- Start date
seeth07
Well-known member
Doesn't this already happen with the single state wide general just to a lesser effect?
Plus we are just talking about NR only having these regions just like how deer is with residents still being statewide right? I just am failing to see any real negative or positive impacts on going from 1 to 3 regions, for a NR, in regards to elk herd management.
Tag caps, draw odds, etc I see other things
I liked 13 but they had the tag numbers wrong, this 3 unit is nothing short of F!@king stupid and another cater to outfitters. Still want them to remove or reduce proposed quotas by the 520 type 9 tags in generals units (outfitter welfare tags) that already impact hunt quality and pressure.
seeth07
Well-known member
Are you residents upset just because you want to see the non residents with general tags more spread out as opposed to the way it is now with all the non residents packing into the same spots with it being valid everywhere like your tag is?
We were told this is to better manage herd knowing the whole time is just outfitters trying to remove caps. The western region of this propasal is about the size of your home state of wisconsin. How effectively can they manage herds over a area that contains numerous seperate elk populations and environments. This effort if legit should be based at a minimum by a regional office map. What happens if cody experiances a huge die off and labarge 300+ miles away has mild winter whats to regulate where the hunters can use that general? Doesnt make sense! Better to leave alone than this effort.
Attachments
seeth07
Well-known member
I get it that you were told one thing when like it has been mentioned already, it's only a smoke screen. For that part I don't blame you for being upset especially if it leads to more nr getting tags
seeth07
Well-known member
I don't know the harvest ratios from nr to resident so I'm spitballing here. If goal is to better manage herds by regions, don't you think a good move - for management - would be to regionalize those resident tags too?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes, into 13 or more regions where the Regional biologists can better control tag numbers and seasons. Is there only 3 deer regions in Wyoming? Gee, I wonder why there's more than 3?
This winter is a perfect example, if the deer units were the same as the 3 region elk units, how in the actual hell would you set quota's based on the harsh winter? G and H took a pounding, but other areas were fine.
Going to 3 regions is idiotic, won't work, and just bad policy that makes management even more difficult than just leaving it as is.
My comments were in support of 2 things.
1. 13 regions
2. Caps on NR general tags in each region put in chapter 44.
If not that, keep as is. Mulecreek, JM77 and I have been working this for a few weeks.
Oh, and for clarification, no for Regions for Residents.
Last edited:
perma
Well-known member
Will there be other opportunities for the public to comment? I only remember sending the public comment letter online.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You can contact the GF Commissioners directly or attend the Commission meeting in person in July in Wheatland.
dan.kirkpatrick
Well-known member
the western region looks very big,,looks to me like it could at least be split in half again to manage regions better if they do this thing.
Glad to hear you guys are involved in this issue. Is there any talk of it reverting back to the original 13 region proposal?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, we're in discussions and the GF and Commission are not going to look very good if they go the 3 region route.
If going to regions is really about managing the elk herd, why is there no talk of residents going to the same region structure?
It's pretty easy to see this whole region scheme is about spreading out NR hunters and has little if nothing to do with managing elk.
The talk of changing quotas according to winter kill numbers is pure nonsense and smoke and mirrors if it's not applied to residents too.
Residents want everything their way and don't want change. I get it, but let's be honest.
It's pretty easy to see this whole region scheme is about spreading out NR hunters and has little if nothing to do with managing elk.
The talk of changing quotas according to winter kill numbers is pure nonsense and smoke and mirrors if it's not applied to residents too.
Residents want everything their way and don't want change. I get it, but let's be honest.
BuzzH
Well-known member
The honest answer is that the outfitters and GF want to remove the cap. The outfitters motive speaks for itself. The GF is concerned about the Eastern region and a perceived over-population of elk. Elk that can't be hunted for the most part due to outfitted hunting and mostly private land.
What the residents are concerned with is the quality of the general elk hunting we enjoy in Wyoming as well as the health of those general herds. We also want a quality hunt for both Residents and Non Residents.
I've never been anything but honest. I live here, I work here, I pay taxes here, and I'm selfish when it comes to my States general elk hunting. I rarely draw a LQ tag and a vast majority of my elk hunting is general.
That's not to say I think the Residents shouldn't be willing to share if the resource can handle it. But I also make no bones with the fact if tags need to be cut for whatever reason, NR tags should go first.
We want the 13 regions for NR's, and we want hard caps on NR general tags.
brocksw
Well-known member
I'm certainly not an expert on Wy elk, but from my POV this 3 region proposal seems like a move backwards for Wyoming management. Just to the north of Wy, MT general tags that are too broad in terms of surface area, and IMO it's causing problems with hunter dispersal and therefore uneven pressure/harvest on game. It's also not providing accurate location based harvest data for managers to know where people are hunting and where the critters are coming off the landscape. Region 7 mule deer is a perfect example of this. 20 million acres in the region 7 without any real idea which specific areas/units are getting hit the hardest and what that means for long term populations in those areas. IMO, trying to manage these huge regions that contain multiple different habitats and ecosystems within them, also impedes the ability to make finer adjustments to tag allocations specific to each area when needed. This would seem especially true for hard winters that don't hit an entire region evenly, CWD/EHD management actions that are different in each area, etc.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Cant speak to MT but in regards to Wyo Gen unit management, I see bios making changes all the time on a unit-by-unit level. Not all units within a region will have the same dates, legal bull criteria, cow harvest, etc just because they are in the same region. These tools already exist and the managers use them. They will switch season dates on individual units yearly if needed. One unit I frequent over the last 10 years has had the implementation of cow only dates prior to any elk dates. Then back to cows only for a week. Then they moved it to 2 weeks. Then the next year they stopped it all together. Then the next year they went back to two weeks of cows after the any elk dates. On some units they will switch from any elk, to bulls only, to no spikes and back to any elk. These adjustments are made yearly if needed by what the bios are seeing in the field, from checkpoints and surveys. On top of that they will make yearly adjustments to the number of Type 4 and 6 tags based on what they see on the ground, after the winters have had an effect. There may be a lot of gen units but they are not all managed as one collective unit.
The creation of regions wont change the managers ability to do these things, whether there are 1, 3 or 13. What this plan will do is remove the cap on NR tags. This will devalue public land, non-wilderness Gen elk hunting. It will increase the value into landowners and outfitters pockets for private land or wilderness area elk hunts.
As i've been interpreting what has been said here i feel like this is what some of us were waiting to be clarified, as it's what i already assumed. It seemed to be getting lost in some of the back and forth that already occurred. The regions don't matter really, especially because all along the general tags have essentially been managed unit by unit anyway; that's why i, at least, was getting confused about the region talk because i felt like the general tags were essentially already micromanaged on a unit by unit basis with season lengths, antlerless, any, and antlered only restrictions. It begs the question of why there even was region talk? which brings us full circle to the removal of the cap right? and the smoke screen, etc.
i think people are hung up on the regions here and think 3 is better than one. it would seem that way on it's face. and obviously 13 truly is better.
but, it's the removal of the cap that really matters and if i were a resident i'd be mega pissed about that too.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Here is what I know, take it for what it is worth.
Some, not all, within the G&F want the cap to go away. WOGA as a whole wants the cap to go away. If the cap goes away, the G&F needs a mechanism to determine how many NR gen elk licenses to issue each year. Creating regions gives them that mechanism and its consistent with how things are done for NR deer. There are other ways to determine how many NR gen elk licenses to issue each year, but they don't give the G&F or WOGA everything they want. These other options are worth pursuing and are as @BuzzH alluded to.
It would be disingenuous of me to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with the existing 7250 cap. It has problems, however, I feel the benefits of it far outweigh the problems. Most of the problems from an elk management standpoint have an already existing potential solution that the G&F can use. They just don't like those solutions as much as they do the potential solutions if the cap is gone. In the last 40 years only one species in Wyo has been managed under a cap, elk. In those 40 years MD numbers have declined, pronghorn have declined, moose have declined, bighorn have declined. Elk has increased. Is this 100% due to the cap? No it is not, but its also not 0% due to the cap.
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?
