ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
First NameLast NameOrganization or affiliation (if applicable)Zip CodeComment #1: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would change the nonresident elk allocation. The 7,250 cap on full‐price licenses issued in the nonresident drawing would be removed. Nonresident general elk licenses would be issued through a regional quota system, similar to how nonresident general deer licenses are issued. Neither of these changes, if recommended, would result in a change to the percentage (16%) of non-resident limited quota licenses issued in limited quota drawings. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend that the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission make modifications to non-resident elk license allocation?Comment #2: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that, if adopted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, would limit the number of type 1 antelope licenses to one (1) per person (current regulation allows two (2) per person). This recommendation is being considered in the interest of potentially providing more hunter opportunity to more sportspersons each year. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission?
2
DarrenComptonHunter/Conservationist18425Yes, as long as the 16% limited quota licenses remain untouched. Do not entertain set asides. It’s a persons prerogative to use their tag as they see fit within current regulations. Scrap the bogus grand negotiation, people see right through it.No. As the saying goes, once it’s gone good luck getting it back. The Antelope herds will rebound.
3
DavidMarcouxnone, NR hunter03042Yes, the cap should be lifted, the number could be tied to the biologists needs based on animal health and sustainability of the region. Having the number capped and the NR LE units accessing "x" number of tags FIRST from the capped pool unfairly reduces the NR General tags. Eliminate what seems to be unintended consequences. Yes - However I don't fully understand the history as to why one individual should have the ability to have 2 type 1 tags as a good many residents don't get drawn and NR hunters must acquire 6-9 points to be in the hunt. I assume your definition of sportspersons refers to both resident and NR.
4
BrandonKyniston82435Making this change with out a cap doesn't make any sense we want less non residents hunters not more In general areas.there needs to be a hard cap that cannot be exceeded. If this proposal had a cap listed even if it was raised slightly I could support it. But with not having cap listed I will not support this it has the potential to do more harm then good in the general area with adding even more non resident hunter then there is now which is not s good thing . Yes
5
BobWilligNonresident hunter/fisherman 63021Yes, seems that population objectives could be better controlled that wayYes
6
GrantJerry80863Yes, I believe the Task Force should recommend to make modifications to the non-resident general tag allocation and implement a regional quota system to best spread out hunter pressure. I also believe the WWTF should not seek out a 90/10 resident/non-resident tag allocation for deer, elk, and antelope limited quota licenses. Furthermore, the WWTF should not recommend any type of special outfitter draw or allocation.Yes, I believe the WWTF should recommend limiting type 1 antelope licenses to one per person.
7
KevinBrainard82633No. Taking away the cap adds 1000+ general area NR hunters to these already crowded general areas. And as a resident i am not for adding more tags to the non resident pool. As for the regionalization aspect, I can see benefits to it.Yes.
8
RobShaulMountain Pursuit83001Leave the 7,250 Cap, but assign NR general elk tags through a regional quota system.Ok.
9
RodneyWise82601I dont want to see the NR full price elk cap changed... How many emails have this task force received that have stated no sit aside outfitter tags and no transferable land owner tags but U people just keep pushing just say no to Sy and his outfitter welfare...I do not support the recommendation of doing away with two type 1 antelope tags... Just say no to outfitter welfare....
10
Jason Sneathen 82644The cap needs to stay in place to keep numbers and pressure low as there is already huge hunter pressure in most general areas mainly due to lack of huntable access to many of these areas from land owners not allowing access or wanting a outrageous trespass feeI personally don’t see a problem with this being changed as antelope numbers are still low because of the spring we had in 2021 it impacted fawn recruitment heavily so yes one type 1 license seems far and possibly a cap of one full price doe/ fawn tag and one reduced tag as some hunters like myself are truly more interested in the experience and the meat for our family.
11
Russell Kirlin None8221085/15Yes
12
ChrisBannor As long as total amount of non resident licenses stays the same or increases I have now problem. Regional quotas would be fine with me.Yes, 1 type 1 license is plenty
13
Moseley Middleton82601Keep the cap, split the regions to reduce are crowding Only if you drastically reduce the quotas even more than you have already.
14
DavidPendleton82520NoYes
15
PaulThrelkeld82604No! Absolutely not! We do not more people hunting bulls in general areas. The crowding is already bad in general areas. This is more outfitter tactics for more clients. Sy Gilliland has been presenting this idea to the Game and Fish for years. Its BS!No i do not think the task force should make this recommendation! I don't believe the task force should spend ten seconds on this. This is not a top-priority issue as well as separating the whitetail and mule deer. Needless! The legislators should be spending time on needless legislation nor do they want to.

Question to the task force.
Why is the public comment period so limited in time? Its seems that public comment really isn't wanted from your group. That is what a lot of people are saying.
16
BrianKellyNo, to removing the 7250 cap. In 2018, the guides and outfitters (WYOGA) tried to push this issue through the commission, but it was voted down. Public input was overwhelmingly against removing the cap or changing anything with the elk license allocations.

Yes, to the regional elk quota system but not at the expense of removing the 7250 cap. 		Yes, but it will have not have an impact in the hard to draw western Wyoming antelope areas.
90/10 would help residents gain more hunting opportunity for type 1 antelope licenses. Any increase, even a minuscule percentage increase would be appreciated by residents.
17
CaylNorris 82435YesNo
18
DaltonHerediaMember of RMEF82070No, do not change this. Even as a resident I believe a general tag should stay just that. You should be able to hunt any general hunt area on a general tag. Not restricted to a region. I think you should revisit this for deer if anything and make the non resident deer tag a true general tag. Non residents pay the most for their general tags why shouldn’t they be allowed to hint all the same places?? Just because Wyoming isn’t their home state doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to hunt all possible public land! Why would it be fair for me to hunt the snowy range by Laramie and if I’m not satisfied go up by Dubois, when they would be confined to one or to areas? They pay the most for their tags, let them get the full experience. It’s not like an out of stater can draw a tag every single year anyway. I know this is an opinion most Wyomingites who hunt will not agree with but it’s the truth! Yes! Allow those tags to be allocated to more hunters! There have been years I haven’t drawn a single tag and my buddies drew three antelope! Or better yet, make the antelope a general tag again. It’s BS that the one animal that has a higher population density then humans in this state gets restricted to draw only but you can go get a general elk or deer tag at Walmart. It’s a joke!
19
ToddBouley Sportman82225Leave the cap at 7250, no change needed. I thought this group was formed for the resident hunter in mind, it doesn't seem this is the case so far. It's looking like how can we help each other make more money off the states wildlife. NO TO SET ASIDE TAGS.We should only get one type 1 tag, our animals are disappearing at a quick rate, I would be willing to bet the antelope population is a quarter of what it was 15-20 years ago around the state.
20
HydnMcdermott 82941Seems good as isYes. Or consider not allowing those who draw a tag, be able to apply for the late Over the counter tags online. I know many residents that haven’t been able to get an antelope tag in many years. The updated over the counter online system dramatically changed that as well and no one likes it. the online over the counter system of 2019 is absolutely ridiculous and takes opportunities away.
21
JustinSmith82009YesYes
22
BethSmith82009YesYes
23
LoganWood82516No change. Every non resident tag you hand out is less opportunity for residents. Generally we need the meat, and aren't "trophy" hunting. Also we feed them all winter in our fields, non residents don't. Only change for non residents. There isn't much meat on those pronghorns, but I sure do enjoy eating it year round. It takes a few to fill the freezer. They eat our hay, drink from our trough, residents should have more opportunity than tourists. Conversely, more tourists for the same amount of non resident tags would fill more motels and help our economy more.
24
Stephanie MelzerNone82727No, as a hunter I feel like the current status of nonresident tags is acceptable and seems to work well. Let us not go down the path of Montana with large changes that don't work well. Yes, that seems acceptable and a fair change.
25
Clayton Niss82007No, as a resident I think the nonresident cap should remain. Even if the the license allocation is changed to a 90/10 split it will only increase draw odds for limited quota licenses by 0.5-1%. This very slight increase in draw odds is not worth the potential overcrowding of general areas that could result from removing the nonresident license cap. Yes, with the species being hit hard by drought in recent years I think this a good idea.
26
JeffreyMuratore82604This idea wouldn't address over objective elk herds because any additional nonresident hunters would be hunting general area bull elk. Consequently, if this recommendation would put more nonresident general elk hunters into the field without science based evidence that more bull elk need to be harvested in general areas, I am 100% against this idea.Is this really the only other idea that the Task Force wants online public input on this month? One buck antelope is enough.
27
JustinStarck82727I do not support removing the cap on non-resident full price licenses without knowing more information. How would number of non-resident general elk licenses be determined (by region)? The cap should be reduced if 90/10 is passed so that non-resident general licenses do not increase (assuming less limited quota licenses are issued to non-residents so the balance would be made up with additional general licenses).

I agree with issuing non-resident elk licenses by region. This would would allow for better management of elk and hunter numbers.		I do not see the need to make this change. The second Type 1 tag cannot be obtained until the leftover drawing. In the leftover drawing everyone, including non-residents, have equal opportunity at these licenses.

Issuing 'leftover' resident licenses to non-residents in the initial drawing needs to be stopped. These leftover licenses should be issued through the leftover drawing.
28
JeremiahGilliganN/A83127The cap should stay except for in limited areas. Our elk herds are the healthiest they have ever been and most likely because we have had these caps. I think that we should reduce the non res quota from 16% to 10% like other states No. Seeing as you can only get one through the draw then getting a second leftover type 1 isn’t a problem. If they want to reduce the number of animals killed then lower the number of tags issued
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100