Non Residents received 56% of the quota

[alaska_bou]

Struck out for the 5th year in a row for antelope, so, I check the leftover list like everyone else looking for an opportunity tag. I notice that area 21 type 1 is indicated as "sold out" but the numbers don't add up. This area had a 2017 total quota of 450 of which 357 were available to residents during the initial random draw according to the 2017 draw statistics. Twenty five (25) residents applied for this unit as a first choice, 108 applied as a second choice and 60 applied as a third choice leaving a surplus of 164 area 21 type 1 RESIDENT tags. I called the WY Game and Fish asking why these 164 tags were not listed under the leftover license list and to my surprise they explained that the surplus of 164 resident tags were ALL given to non residents applicants. They explained that non residents are given four (4) hunt area choices opposed to only three (3) choices for resident hunters. In other words, if resident tags are not sold out to resident hunters during the initial draw non-residents will have the FIRST opportunity to draw these tags as a fourth choice before residents can apply for them during the leftover drawing. This resulted in non-residents receiving 56% of the total quota in 2017 for unit 21 type 1.

Area 21 is just one example. There area a number of hunting areas I found that all had surplus resident tags given to non residents in 2017.

This is opportunity lost for resident hunters and needs to change, ESPECIALLY when considering how few non-resident tags our neighboring states give to their non-resident hunters (ex. Idaho gives 0% to a max of only 10% to non-resident hunters). I fear this all comes down to money; $272 per non resident tag vs only $33 per pronghorn tag paid by residents... Someone tell me I am wrong?

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 03:35PM (MST)[p]You're partly wrong, LOL! First off, NRs have three choices in the draw if they want to put something in each of them and whoever told you four was flat wrong. Also, residents can put in for the LQ tags and their percentage of the total tag numbers is large and drawn before the NR draws. That's why the leftovers are then dumped into the NR draws that make the G&F a lot more money than the resident fees put into the system. Wyoming definitely treats the NR hunter better than any other western state and that's pure fact!

 

[blacktailBC]

If you wanted a 21 tag.........
why didn't you just apply for it?

 

[nripepi]

All you had to do was to put it down as your 3rd choice and you would have received it.

If you put down a 3rd choice that you historically draw, but didnt this year I think I see your point where you should have first choice at that tag over a nonres. Maybe the easy solution is to allow residents 5 choices or more?

 

[alaska_bou]

That information was exactly what I was told by the G&F in Cheyenne by phone today. It is true that the resident surplus was given to non-residents. There was a surplus of 164 resident tags, none of which are available for the leftover draw because all 164 were given to non residents in addition to the 20% quote already allocated.

Why didn't I apply for area 21? Because I chose to apply for three alternate areas. The point isn't that I wanted a unit 21 tag, the point is that resident's opportunity to buy or apply for leftover tags is being stripped by the G&F's greed to sell tags at higher non resident prices and that non-residents are being awarded tags that rightfully belong to the residents of WY.

 

[Cahunter805]

Residents have 3 choices just like non residents. If they choose not to apply for a certain unit in those 3 choices why shouldn't a resident or non resident that puts it as one of their 3 choices get it?
Another problem is the landowner tags come from the non resident pool. How does that make sense?
This new leftover draw will also be very interesting to me. Can't wait to see how many applicants apply for certain tags.

 

[llamapacker]

Residents are getting first crack at these tags. Simply put, very few applied.
As previously stated, non-residents get only three choices just like residents. HOWEVER, if there are remaining tags from the resident quota, they can be given to non-residents in the initial drawing. They don't keep the extra tags to offer to NR in the left-over drawing, they issue them to whomever in the first drawing.
Seems like much ado about nothing. If you want that tag, apply as one of your first three choices. You would have been guaranteed the tag.
Bill

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 04:50PM (MST)[p]Exactly llamapacker! He's crying about nothing and if it wasn't for us NRs putting the bulk of the money into the license budget he'd be paying ten times for his resident tags than he now is!

 

[Millsworks]

I think lot's will have to alter their strategy next year, both res and out of state guys like me.
This new leftover draw will possibly help cause those that purposely apply for a impossible first choice to keep and bank points to rethink that.

Might help reduce large amount of point holders in the long run.
Time will tell.

If you want a tag that normally requires 5 points, and you happen to have 5 points then you might wanna put that tag as first choice next go in the draw.
Just what I think, but I'm sure those in the know can still milk the system. It will just be more of a gamble now sense the leftover can't be snatched up by those waiting for hours with their finger on the button like before.
More people will apply for those leftover tags now if they now think it is an even playing feild.

I'm curious to see if I'm wrong.

 

[MaineFlatlander]

Not saying it happened here but if I was a resident I would "shoot for the moon" with my first choice. My second choice would be a Unit that had a chance at being drawn as a second choice and my third would be a slam dunk. I know a resident that puts his second and third choices that are less than 100% as choice #1?

I believe there are still a lot of people who have no idea how the draw really works and that is part of the problem.

 

[Hunt_the_West]

^^^^this^^^^
Thank you llamapacker and topgun

 

[grosventrehunter]

A 90/10 split needs to be pushed by all residents.

 

[alaska_bou]

"A 90/10 split needs to be pushed by all residents."


Agreed and fortunately momentum is gaining for that. Hunters from Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, etc, etc would be up in arms if WY proposed treating our non residents the same way those said states treat theirs. It is self-serving hypocrisy. Too many non-residents who hunt WY have a sense of entitlement to WY tags but will never reciprocate the same from their own state. Just read some of the ignorant replies and it is clear when someone tries to suggest that surplus tags going to non residents must not be wanted by resident hunters.

 

[Hunt_the_West]

Good luck with that. If it goes to 90/10 there will be over 7 million dollar deficit to an already struggling game and fish department. NR fees currently generate 75% of their revenue. To cover the shortfall resident license will need to increase 250% and we all know that $*+% isn't gonna fly. Lastly WY really caters to their outfitters and I don't see them supporting that bill. 90/10 split on trophy species I can see happening but not deer/elk/lope.

 

[grosventrehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 06:11PM (MST)[p]Well said and I completely agree. Just wait you will hear it all again once certain people read our posts. See what I mean already have one telling us how we will be broke and it's impossible. Man thank goodness for these wonderful folks trying to save us residence from complete disaster.

 

[Hunt_the_West]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 06:26PM (MST)[p]You're welcome. Glad my higher license fees could help.

 

[grosventrehunter]

Let me guess your state is a 90/10 split, but you want wyoming to stay the same?

 

[Cahunter805]

Alaska bou

Just curious. What were the 3 antelope units you applied for in the draw?

What do you think about the extra tags going into the leftover draw instead of going straight to non residents?

 

[Millsworks]

Where I live we see a mass army of orange the first few days of our deer rifle season.
Most here would love to see that change.
But it would tank my business if it does change.
They Peter out soon after the opener though.

The difference is we don't have the elbow room you guys have.

I for one thank the state of Wyoming for making it possible for a blue collar guy to hunt there.
I really thank those good people that live there for putting up with me and lending advice when they can.
Not all non resident hunters are a plague on the system.
Your all welcome to come hunt at my place any time you want.
I think you'll go home liking how it is in your state just fine.
I'm sure your system has room for improvement, but it could certainly be worse fellas.

I humbly say thank you for my tags and I'll try not to be to much trouble while I'm there.

 

[Hunt_the_West]

I never said I wanted Wyoming to stay the same. I just stated my opinion for why it won't change. I could actually care less if it goes to a 90/10 split. The main thing I do not want is for residents and nonresidents alike to wait a decade or two for a decent tag like many other states. Wy does a pretty good job managing their wildlife and that is and should be priority #1.

 

[alaska_bou]

CAhunter: My first choice area had odds just under 50%. According to the 2016 draw odds report my second and third choice areas each offered chances of drawing as a second and third choice and did not sell out after the first choice go around but we all know those statistics change every year.

I think WY residents are entitled to 80% of the quota. If there are leftover resident licenses I feel residents should have the first option to buy or apply for those remaining resident licenses first with any that are in-fact not wanted after the second leftover drawing sold to anyone (residents and non-residents) on a first come, first served basis. Either way non-residents are still guaranteed a 20% quota which is very generous for any western state.

 

[Cahunter805]

Just under 50% for first choice. That's pretty good. Sorry you didn't draw. Next year!

 

[junior]

Pretty simple. Just apply your 3rd choice for your last resort garanteed tag. It's not anyone fault but your own that you didn't apply. Your blaming nonresident when you already have priority over them and first choice. Sorry you didn't get your tag.

 

[blacktailBC]

apply for unit 21 next time.

 

[grosventrehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 08:36PM (MST)[p]

Ya be happy you get a 3rd choice when NR get your first choice. Well spoken NR. Obviously you know nothing about 21!! I have supported the wyoming game and fish in the past, but will not in the future. Giving nr a 4th choice option over residence has broken the camels back for me.

 

[junior]

There is no 4th choice.

 

[grosventrehunter]

Read original posts....

 

[FrontRange]

In Colorado % resident allocation only applies to 1st choice applications, so in an 80/20 unit with 100 tags available, if only 70 residents apply with their 1st choice, the remaining 10 tags allocated by percentage to residents are available to non residents so the actual ratio could be 70/30. There are no rules saying that 80% must be held for residents regardless of 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. choice.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17 AT 10:29PM (MST)[p]Sorry I have to say this, but I will again. The residents have three choices to hunt an LQ unit BEFORE the NR tags are drawn. The residents also have a guaranteed general tag they can fall back on to hunt all over the state if they don't draw their LQ choices and the NR doesn't. You are blaming NRs for your own problem of not applying where you could have easily drawn a tag on your third choice and possibly even your second choice. This seems to be a common problem in the US where everybody blames the next guy for a problem that is strictly their own! If the resident hunters raise holy hell when they want to raise your license less than ten dollars like they are now, just wait if it goes to a 90/10 split and you have to pay a ton of money to make up for what the residents now cover in the G&F budget. It's right there in the G&F reports if you don't believe us when we say the NRs carry the load on license fees just like they do in all the western states. Millions of dollars would have to be made up if the system is changed and NR numbers are decreased.

 

[alaska_bou]

Wow, Wyoming is arguably THE most generous western state for non-residents big game hunters but after reading the above comments I would begin to believe that many of the non residents on this site still feel that WY just isn't doing enough for them...

If WY has an 80/20 split then 80% of the tags should stay in resident hands. I am a WY resident and I fully support a resident fee increase.

 

[DESKPOP]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17 AT 01:16AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17 AT 01:15?AM (MST)

Original poster is fake news. You only need rudimentary knowledge of the Wyoming draw to see several falsehoods in his original post. Just resident propaganda to try and spin up those who are silly enough to believe it.

As far as the resident/non-resident split goes, there is a reason it is the way it is.

Wyoming residents enjoy some of the cheapest, most diverse, lengthy hunting opportunities in the west. For the split to change and budgets to stay what they are, Wyoming residents would have to pay much more for their licenses.

Wyoming is a deeply conservative state. The thing about conservative states is they want it all but don't want to pay for it. Residents would lose their minds if their resident general deer tags that allow them to hunt some of the most premium units in the west year after year for long seasons, started costing $500 or more.

The other thing is game and fish policy in Wyoming is heavily influenced, if not flat out controlled, by the abundant large big money ranches and outfitters who profit from wildlife. Their profits are driven by non-resident hunters. Cut the non-resi hunters and they see their profits fall.

Remember what I mentioned about Wyoming being a deeply conservative state? There is more outfitter welfare in Wyoming than almost any other state, the largest handout being the wilderness outfitter rule for non-resi's.

Wyoming resi's have it pretty good. I would be surprised to see any significant change occur because it would be extremely expensive to locals. The ranchers and outfitters don't want to pay for it and neither do the residents.

 

[grosventrehunter]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17 AT 10:08AM (MST)[p]Man, now the nr are telling us residence what we will and will not pay for. And of course we have the nr, Michigan expert chiming in on wyoming.

 

[alaska_bou]

Fake news? Really? Pick up the phone, call the WY G&F and ask them what happened to the 164 surplus resident tags for pronghorn unit 21, the surplus resident tags in unit 113, the surplus resident tags in unit 25, etc, etc, etc. Of course your not going to do that, instead your going to write some chicken $hit comment that it must all be fake propaganda...

Was the lady at the G&F whom I spoke with mistaken about non-residents getting a 4th choice? Apparently so, but what does that change? Nothing.

 

[Tknez]

>LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17
>AT 01:16?AM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17
>AT 01:15?AM (MST)
>
>Original poster is fake news.
>You only need rudimentary knowledge
>of the Wyoming draw to
>see several falsehoods in his
>original post. Just resident
>propaganda to try and spin
>up those who are silly
>enough to believe it.
>

It seems you yourself like to give out facts that are either wrong or just your own little opinion...
>As far as the resident/non-resident split
>goes, there is a reason
>it is the way it
>is.
>
>Wyoming residents enjoy some of the
>cheapest, most diverse, lengthy hunting
>opportunities in the west.

ding ding ding at least you got this one right!
>For the split to change
>and budgets to stay what
>they are, Wyoming residents would
>have to pay much more
>for their licenses.

Seems you may have lucked out and got this right also
>
>Wyoming is a deeply conservative state.

Yes we are and dang proud of it!
> The thing about conservative
>states is they want it
>all but don't want to
>pay for it.

HAHA starting to loose me here! Yes there are some welfare type systems set up as far as say ranching and outfitters are concerned but I could give you lefties plenty of welfare you scream about being entitled to also. At least on this side of the fence people are willing to go out and provide a service for others and bust their butt while doing it! Now why don't you tell me about all the welfare being paid out in those blue states that people don't do a dang thing to earn?!!
Residents
>would lose their minds if
>their resident general deer tags
>that allow them to hunt
>some of the most premium
>units in the west year
>after year for long seasons,
>started costing $500 or more.

You are great at pointing out the obvious! So let me get this straight... Wyoming residents would be upset if our tags went up over 1000%? Ha I think you may be on to something there! Could you maybe let me in on any state that if their tags were raised that much would be fine with that?
>
>
>The other thing is game and
>fish policy in Wyoming is
>heavily influenced, if not flat
>out controlled, by the abundant
>large big money ranches and
>outfitters who profit from wildlife.
> Their profits are driven
>by non-resident hunters. Cut
>the non-resi hunters and they
>see their profits fall.

I agree with you to a certain extent here with the exception of not real sure how ranchers make a ton of money off of non res hunters.
>
>Remember what I mentioned about Wyoming
>being a deeply conservative state?
> There is more outfitter
>welfare in Wyoming than almost
>any other state, the largest
>handout being the wilderness outfitter
>rule for non-resi's.

Again as stated above, I tend to agree with you for the most part here... Have you ever checked into hunting Alaska?
>
>Wyoming resi's have it pretty good.

Yes we do and we will keep it that way thank you very much! No matter how miserable you are in your little corner of the world!
> I would be surprised
>to see any significant change
>occur because it would be
>extremely expensive to locals.
>The ranchers and outfitters don't
>want to pay for it
>and neither do the residents.
>

All this being said, I have never met a non res I didn't enjoy talking with and have also made some long time friends! You sir on the other hand it seems is precisely what gives many residents heartburn over non residents!

Also just for the record, I do tend to think the way the tags are being given out as of right now might just be the best way for all parties involved. Maybe a little tweeking but for the most part I see it as a win win

 

[Tknez]

>LAST EDITED ON Jun-23-17
>AT 10:29?PM (MST)
>
>Sorry I have to say this,
>but I will again.
>The residents have three choices
>to hunt an LQ unit
>BEFORE the NR tags are
>drawn. The residents also
>have a guaranteed general tag
>they can fall back on
>to hunt all over the
>state if they don't draw
>their LQ choices and the
>NR doesn't.
Nope you are wrong here as this post is about antelope tags. There hasn't been Antelope "gen" tags for a LOOOOOOOOng time!

You are
>blaming NRs for your own
>problem of not applying where
>you could have easily drawn
>a tag on your third
>choice and possibly even your
>second choice. This seems
>to be a common problem
>in the US where everybody
>blames the next guy for
>a problem that is strictly
>their own! If the
>resident hunters raise holy hell
>when they want to raise
>your license less than ten
>dollars like they are now,
>just wait if it goes
>to a 90/10 split and
>you have to pay a
>ton of money to make
>up for what the residents
>now cover in the G&F
>budget. It's right there
>in the G&F reports if
>you don't believe us when
>we say the NRs carry
>the load on license fees
>just like they do in
>all the western states.
>Millions of dollars would have
>to be made up if
>the system is changed and
>NR numbers are decreased.

 

[Cahunter805]

If you wanted a unit 21,25,113 tag why didn't you put it 3rd choice? Seems every resident that wanted a tag for any one of those units put it as a choice and got it.

On another subject how do the residents of WY feel about the Wyoming resident landowner tags coming out of the non resident pool?

Just to be clear I think WY is a great state and does A LOT for the Non resident hunter and I'm thankful to be able to hunt there when I can.

 

[DESKPOP]

So they were wrong about something so simple as non-resi's having a 4th choice but they will be right about where the tags went?

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17 AT 11:59AM (MST)[p]>>Sorry I have to say this,
>>but I will again.
>>The residents have three choices
>>to hunt an LQ unit
>>BEFORE the NR tags are
>>drawn. The residents also
>>have a guaranteed general tag
>>they can fall back on
>>to hunt all over the
>>state if they don't draw
>>their LQ choices and the
>>NR doesn't.
>Nope you are wrong here as
>this post is about antelope
>tags. There hasn't been
>Antelope "gen" tags for a
>LOOOOOOOOng time!
>
> You are
>>blaming NRs for your own
>>problem of not applying where
>>you could have easily drawn
>>a tag on your third
>>choice and possibly even your
>>second choice. This seems
>>to be a common problem
>>in the US where everybody
>>blames the next guy for
>>a problem that is strictly
>>their own! If the
>>resident hunters raise holy hell
>>when they want to raise
>>your license less than ten
>>dollars like they are now,
>>just wait if it goes
>>to a 90/10 split and
>>you have to pay a
>>ton of money to make
>>up for what the residents
>>now cover in the G&F
>>budget. It's right there
>>in the G&F reports if
>>you don't believe us when
>>we say the NRs carry
>>the load on license fees
>>just like they do in
>>all the western states.
>>Millions of dollars would have
>>to be made up if
>>the system is changed and
>>NR numbers are decreased.


I was referring to the deer and elk tags, not antelope. Having hunted out in Wyoming all but 3 or 4 years since 1992 I probably know as much or more than most of the friggin residents and keep up on G&F things more than most do. Now that my wife passed three weeks ago I may even move out and become a resident of the Cowboy state!

 

[DESKPOP]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-17 AT 12:11PM (MST)[p]Never said I was a lefty, far from it. You could cut all welfare to blue states tomorrow and it would be just fine with me.

You think residents are paying Wagonhound 10k for elk, 6k for deer? They have no reason to. You think large ranch owners let the outfitters operate for free?

I never said I wanted to change anything about the way Wyoming handles their tags.

I wont address the vitriol.



>It seems you yourself like to give out facts that are either >wrong or just your own little opinion...

>ding ding ding at least you got this one right!


>Seems you may have lucked out and got this right also

>Yes we are and dang proud of it!


>HAHA starting to loose me here! Yes there are some welfare type >systems set up as far as say ranching and outfitters are >concerned but I could give you lefties plenty of welfare you >scream about being entitled to also. At least on this side of >the fence people are willing to go out and provide a service for >others and bust their butt while doing it! Now why don't you >tell me about all the welfare being paid out in those blue >states that people don't do a dang thing to earn?!!
>Residents

>You are great at pointing out the obvious! So let me get this >straight... Wyoming residents would be upset if our tags went up >over 1000%? Ha I think you may be on to something there! Could >you maybe let me in on any state that if their tags were raised >that much would be fine with that?


>I agree with you to a certain extent here with the exception of >not real sure how ranchers make a ton of money off of non res >hunters.


>Again as stated above, I tend to agree with you for the most >part here... Have you ever checked into hunting Alaska?

>Yes we do and we will keep it that way thank you very much! No >matter how miserable you are in your little corner of the world!

>All this being said, I have never met a non res I didn't enjoy >talking with and have also made some long time friends! You sir >on the other hand it seems is precisely what gives many >residents heartburn over non residents!

>Also just for the record, I do tend to think the way the tags >are being given out as of right now might just be the best way >for all parties involved. Maybe a little tweeking but for the >most part I see it as a win win.

 

[TOPGUN]

I can't believe this argument was started by the OP who could have drawn any of the units he mentioned when all he had to do was put one down as his third choice, LOL! Now he comes on and bitches because the G&F handed the leftovers to NRs when not enough residents applied for all of their share and now he can't buy one as a leftover---boohoo! Wyoming lives off of the fees paid by NRs just like all the other states. If you want a 90/10 split, then get enough residents together and pay ten times the amount you pay for your licenses to cover the loss of all that NR money. It isn't rocket science to figure out how much licenses would have to go up to match what would be lost in NR fees. I have to LOL when residents come on these forums and say they will be happy to pay more and then when the Legislature tries to raise the fees even a few bucks like they have several times over the last 5 or 6 years the cry goes out that it will bankrupt the average family!!! I love Wyoming and have called it my second home for close to 20 years and may even decide to move out and make it my permanent home soon! One last thing that was brought up was landowner tags. How about going to your Legislature and getting that mess taken care of that screws all of us out of thousands of tags just because they may have a few acres.

 

[Tknez]

I know you were probably referring to both deer and elk, but to lump that in to a discussion about antelope is a bit misleading at best. About you knowing as much or more than most of the friggin (your word not mine) residents. Well I guess that depends on who you talk to. I will say this, you do keep up with the G&F changes pretty well.

So if you do move here and become a resident, will that then make you a friggin resident?

 

[jm77]

CAhunter you are wrong about resident landowner tags coming out of NR quotas. That is "fake news".

 

[jm77]

Alaska_bou makes some good points. Here is what I think about this: if law states that 80% of the available antelope tags are reserved for residents AND residents can purchase a second "leftover" tag, those leftover licenses SHOULD NOT roll over to NR until residents can purchase leftovers.

 

[Tknez]

Topgun it is also "fake News" that landowners get land owner tags by only owning a few acres. If it were only that easy I would have some seriously good tags every year!

 

[nripepi]

The current law says 80% shall be "initially" offered to residents.

Just have to get the language changed to be offered through the leftover draw.

44-1 wyoming game and fish commission chapter 44 regulation for issuance of ...

 

[TOPGUN]

>Topgun it is also "fake News"
>that landowners get land owner
>tags by only owning a
>few acres. If it
>were only that easy I
>would have some seriously good
>tags every year!

All it takes is 160 acres to qualify for landowner tags and I'd call that a "few"! A number of owners even break up their property into 160 acre chunks in the names of various family members. It;s all legal and the family Carter in Ten Sleep did that and used the extra tags illegally in their outfitting business for NRs and got nailed for it by the G&F and Feds!

 

[TOPGUN]

>CAhunter you are wrong about resident
>landowner tags coming out of
>NR quotas. That is "fake news".


Yep Jeff! I have no idea where he got that from! I have no problem with what you mentioned for the residents to get a crack at the leftovers first before they go to NRs. What I was really finding fault with is that under the present system the OP could have drawn those tags easily on the initial draw all the way to making them his 3rd choice and then he wouldn't have had to make that post.

 

[jm77]

>>CAhunter you are wrong about resident
>>landowner tags coming out of
>>NR quotas. That is "fake news".
>
>
>Yep Jeff! I have no
>idea where he got that
>from! I have no
>problem with what you mentioned
>for the residents to get
>a crack at the leftovers
>first before they go to
>NRs. What I was
>really finding fault with is
>that under the present system
>the OP could have drawn
>those tags easily on the
>initial draw all the way
>to making them his 3rd
>choice and then he wouldn't
>have had to make that
>post.

That is correct about the OP.

As far as it taking "only" 160 acres to qualify for a landowner tag, that is incorrect. The property has to meet strict requirements of use by the species in question. There is a formula used that requires G&F to "test" the area for "use days". Not as easy as you think, many are denied.

 

[Cahunter805]

>CAhunter you are wrong about resident
>landowner tags coming out of
>NR quotas. That is "fake
>news".

My mistake! I was under the impression they did.
Where do the landowner tags come from then? Are they part of the total quota? Is there a set aside number per unit?

 

[jm77]

>>CAhunter you are wrong about resident
>>landowner tags coming out of
>>NR quotas. That is "fake
>>news".
>
>My mistake! I was under the
>impression they did.
>Where do the landowner tags come
>from then? Are they part
>of the total quota? Is
>there a set aside number
>per unit?

Resident or NR landowner tags are "drawn" first out of the respective quotas. Landowner tags could take the whole area quota, but are usually less than 10% of total quota. Landowners must meet certain criteria to get tags and only get two nontransferable tags per ownership, only to be used by owner or family.

 

[Tknez]

As far as it taking "only" 160 acres to qualify for a landowner tag, that is incorrect. The property has to meet strict requirements of use by the species in question. There is a formula used that requires G&F to "test" the area for "use days". Not as easy as you think, many are denied.

Dead on with the explanation!

I have a very different view on what is a few acres then others.

 

[TOPGUN]

>As far as it taking "only"
>160 acres to qualify for
>a landowner tag, that is
>incorrect. The property has to
>meet strict requirements of use
>by the species in question.
>There is a formula used
>that requires G&F to "test"
>the area for "use days".
>Not as easy as you
>think, many are denied.
>
>Dead on with the explanation!
>
>I have a very different view
>on what is a few
>acres then others.

I know that, but there are plenty of guys that are in tight with the G&F folks and get those tags, especially more by breaking up their property like I mentioned. Then they can hunt anywhere in the unit and don't have to stay on their land. That should also be stopped IMHO!

 

[OchocoKid]

These childish res vs non res chit fights are unproductive at best. If you residents don't like it go to your representatives and have them change it that's how it works.


WY does treat the NR hunter well no argument there, and you're well compensated for it. states like mine treat the NR like crap and I still hear residents crying and wishing the NR quota would be cut. so if you had the NR quota cut to 10% you still wouldn't be happy if you didn't draw every tag you put in for every year . greed is human nature .














Stay Thirsty My Friends

 

[jm77]

>
>These childish res vs non res
>chit fights are unproductive at
>best. If you residents
>don't like it go to
>your representatives and have them
>change it that's how
>it works.
>
Glad you are here 440, to tell residents how to do things.


>WY does treat the NR hunter
>well no argument there, and
>you're well compensated for it.
> states like mine treat
>the NR like crap and
>I still hear residents crying
> and wishing the NR
> quota would be cut.
> so if you had
>the NR quota cut to
>10% you still wouldn't be
>happy if you didn't draw
>every tag you put in
>for every year .
> greed is human nature
>

Let me help you with that, it's disappointment, not greed for most. The greed thing may be your own experience.

 

[Millsworks]

I'm surely not what I would call a wise man, but I did learn long ago that arguments with those that can't be reasonable are pointless.
I tend to voice my opinion if I see fit but have refrained from arguments for some time.
Particularly with those that would laugh and scoff those that don't see things their way.

Certainly having a little disappointment myself here.

Wish you all well.
Hopefully I'll meet some of you over a camp fire and some coffee this fall.