January 25th Public Comment.xlsx

	A	B	C	D	E
1	First Name	Last Name	Organization/Affiliation	Zip Code	What other information would you like to provide to the taskforce?

2	Tucker	Russell	General Public	83001	Would it be possible for the taskforce to produce written summaries/synopsis of meetings? Watching the recording is not necessarily feasible due to their length. Ideally, these summaries would review topics discussed, and important discussion points. Thanks!
3	Richard A	Carosone	None	83404
4	Angelo	Ripepi		15301	SUBJECT: Moose and Sheep possible 90/10 allocation Hello, I'm a hunter from Pennsylvania and have really enjoyed hunting in your state. Thank you for the work that you do. I have heard of a plan to consider moving Moose and Sheep to a 90/10 allocation in Wyoming, where 90% of the tags would go to residents and 10% to non-residents. My concern with this plan is that many non-residents such as myself are spending $300 in preference points every year for moose and sheep. A change at this point in the allocation of the available tags would not be fair to hunters that have been investing thousands of dollars over a number of years. How much money has been raised by moose and sheep non-resident dollars under the current system? Changing the allocation at this point would not be fair to the non-residents that have supported it for many years. I almost feel that if non-residents asked for their money back that they invested given the current allocation, a judge may consider giving some or part of their money back if the available allocation significantly changes. Please consider not changing the resident/non-resident allocation for sheep and moose.
5	Brian	Kelly	wyoming resident native	82901	Thank you for all your volunteer work and time you have dedicated to this task force.
6	Chris	Frost		20120	I recently read with some concern (and after the Task Force public comment period was over) that there is a serious push to change the bighorn sheep tag allocation system to a raffle starting in 2025. Unless I am misunderstanding it, someone like me with 21 preference points currently and finally on the cusp of having some chance of drawing in the next 3-7 years would effectively have my chances knocked down to a fraction of one percent (virtually zero). All the while not doing anything to significantly increase the chances of those who don’t have many preferences points. They would also still remain at a fraction of one percent (virtually zero chance) of drawing. So what exactly is accomplished by such a change? It has no meaningful increase to the chances of drawing for those with little preference points, and it only serves to knock those of us down who have spent many thousands of dollars over the decades following the promise of Wyoming that such preference point purchases would nearly guarantee a license one day. If this happens in 2025 and I still haven’t drawn a tag before then, then I’ll be left holding 24 preference points that even when squared will give me no meaningful increase above zero in my chance of drawing. What will I as a nonresident have gotten for that purchase and decades of following Wyomings rules? At just 45 years old and with 21 points currently I always felt comfortable my lifelong dream of a bighorn sheep hunt would come true, but this proposal seems to be snatching that away from me with nothing in return. Does Wyoming’s decades long word mean nothing?
7	Christopher	Wenner		56320	Hello- I am a DIY public land elk hunter and am concerned about WY considering further limiting access for Non residents without a guide. The western, ' can do' attitude of WY will be diminished significantly if non residents are forced (essentially) to hunt with a guide. I personally will choose to spend my hunting dollars in other states if this goes into effect. Thank you for your time and consideration,
8	Greg	Johnston	Hunting Public		How in good conscience can you do this to Non-residents? We made an investment in preference points based on tag allocation s and point growth on yr/yr basis. Now that the investment has been made (in my cases 1000’s of dollars), now you want to change the basis for the investment? How can this be looked at as anything other than fraud. Hunters understand tag allocations change due population objectives, winter kill etc., but this is a systematic change after the state already has the money in hand. This is reminiscent of dealing with a third world government.
9	CHANCE	MARQUETTE		82636
10	Dustin	Rosencranse		82414	I would encourage the task force to really push the Wyoming Game and Fish to actively manage wildlife. It would seem that all they manage today is people, unfortunately. To my knowledge there are no active habitat projects or predator management projects ongoing in northwest Wyoming that involve the Wy G&F. To my knowledge the Wy G&F does not have anyone monitoring winter range and working with the Forest service to ensure that grazing leases are held to mandated utilization levels. I know that this is not happening in Park County at all! This would be called management of our wildlife, not cutting season dates and tag numbers and sitting back and letting it go at that to see if numbers come back. How about targeting coyotes in these deer areas that have poor fawn survival? Nope too much work, cannot support that. I raised $11,000 to help fawn survival for the short term in Crandall. I approached G&F and asked how they could best utilize this money to help fawn survival. No answer. I contacted wildlife services and asked to use this money to control coyote numbers, they were glad to help. I went to the G&F and asked for their support for this project, and was told that they would not support it, and it would do no good. We completed 3 winters of coyote control and the Sunlight/Crandall herd went from the worst fawn survival in the basin to one of the best. This is unbelievable to me that they would not help with a project such as this. Don't even ask for them to come up with something similar on their own, or for them to cost share on a project such as this! We need management of our wildlife! Another thing they will not even talk about is the rattlesnake/bald ridge elk herd being way under objective. Their counts are well under 500 head and the objective is 900, and when asked how we get back to objective, they say they don't want to because of landowner conflicts! Again, lack of management! The public should not have to monitor grazing lease to ensure that they are not abused. We have hired wildlife managers, as well as land managers to do this for us. They are not doing their jobs! I do not blame the ranchers for this, they are doing what they are allowed to do. Furthermore, many of them do a good job of taking care of our public lands, and the wildlife benefits from them. However, we all know that there are those who do not. We need to address these and if they continue to abuse it, take away their lease. The rancher who is leasing North Crandall still has cows on that lease in January! I told him about some of them the first of December and he has made no effort to go get them. The Forest service does nothing, neither has the G&F. The public is tired of this lack of management period.
11	Dustin	Rosencranse		82414	In your list of topics #2 asks how to increase resident opportunity to hunt big game. You have a list of suggested options under that heading. Not once is increasing wildlife numbers mentioned. Why? In the northwest portion of the state, we have the lowest numbers of deer, elk, antelope, and sheep in my lifetime. Why is there no option to increase numbers as a way to increase opportunity? At lease come up with a way to ensure that G&F is trying to keep our herds at or near objective, and if we are below objective that they are required to do everything they can to get back up to objective. #5 is the distribution of Commisioner licenses. Sportsmen have been asking for this for years! Many have suggested a very simple solution of limiting those to 10% of the total number of licenses in any given area. We have also asked that those licenses have to be assigned to an area prior to hunting season opening. this prevents people from hunting several areas until they find the animal they want, then getting the license assigned.
12	Stephen	Sliger		82072
13	ANGELO	RIPEPI		15301	IDEA FOR WINTERING AREAS First of all I'd like to say thank you to the WY G&F for the excellent work that you do in the state of Wyoming. I enjoy visiting and hunting in your state. I know there have been multiple questions on feed grounds and wintering areas and questions regarding solutions that may be helpful to wildlife. Has the G&F considered using snow removal equipment that could be pulled by a tractor to clear swaths of fields for animals to feed in the winter? This may be spread animals out more than feed grounds by exposing large areas of fields that are present in wintering HMA areas or even private ground with permission from the landowners.
14	Pam	Bartush		82072	Residents do not want PP for elk, deer and pronghorn. We would like to see WG&F stop rolling over under allocated licenses from the Resident Draw into the NR draw. Put those right into a Resident leftover pool or draw. No transferrable landowner licenses or set asides for outfitters. Find ways to get more access to landlocked public lands.
15	Pam	Bartush		82072	Also, no choose your weapon. Residents do not want to have to choose between archery and rifle hunting, leave that alone for Residents. For those that bought lifetime archery licenses if you go choose your weapon and those of us who bank on the rifle for putting meat in the freezer will take that route and forgo archery hunting. Archery will take a hit in this state if choose your weapon is implemented.
16	Kurt	Imhoff	Member of the Public	82520	n/a
17	Gavin	Donnelly	Resident	82063	With incidents of CWD on the rise, hunters are encouraged to discard any meat from an infected animal they take. In order to encourage the culling of as many of these infected animals as possible it would be nice if an additional license was issued to a hunter who's animal tests positive for CWD and results in the loss of the meat. A hunter who loses his harvest to CWD without the opportunity for replacing it is less likely to buy a license again or in an area with high rates of CWD.
18	Jason	West	Passionate hunter conservationist	82520-9626	Thank you for your diligent work for Wyoming's wild places and wild life!
19	Jason	West	Passionate Hunter Conservationist	82520-9626	I adamantly oppose any squaring, cubing or more ridiculous ideas applied to bonus points as it further entrenches the points system and does not resolve the miserable situation of these point systems. I apply in most western states but prioritize states without points. We all know equal odds are good odds unless you have max points. Please move away from point schemes before the number of points to draw exceeds the life span of the hunter because that is where we are headed. The much better idea proposed is: points or random pools; must choose where you apply; no further points will be issued and the points pool will clear out rather than continue to compound. My other suggestion is to consider merit based requirements of hours served to enter any points pool such as the Dedicated Hunter program in Utah that requires service hours to be completed for participation. Thank you!
20	Chris	Frost		20120	I read your preference point draft statement for the January 25 meeting and I’m trying to figure out how you’ve “honored your commitment” to me? I’m 45 yrs old with 21 preference points. Every year I looked at the preference point information you all published to encourage people like me to spend money on points knowing that in my lifetime I’d be darn near guaranteed a sheep license. That was the implied promise you all published every year. Now you all snatch that dream from me. And even with my preference points squared, how does that give me a much greater chance at drawing than someone with 1 preference point? Knowing the number of all the preference points out there, with this proposed change I’d be at a fraction of one percent chance the rest of my life, just like someone with one preference point will be at a fraction of one percent the rest of their life. What did I get for my thousands of dollars I spent on points for over two decades?I feel scammed.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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