| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Public Input for July 8th Meeting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | What topics would you like the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce to address? | What other information would you like to provide to the taskforce? | The Taskforce will be discussing how to increase resident hunter opportunities for moose, sheep, bison, mountain goat, grizzly bear*, elk, deer and antelope. What would you like the members to know? *Currently, grizzly bears are considered an endangered species and are illegal to hunt in Wyoming. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Habitat management, bighorn sheep herd classifications, putting wildlife first in Wyoming | I'm happy to assist with whatever I can do to help. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Do not support 90/10 for elk, deer or antelope | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Non resident tag allocation | Please do NOT reduce big game tag/hunting permits to non resident hunters! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 90/10 tag allotment | The 90/ 10 tag allotment only benefits outfitters it’s not a positive for hunters or hunting in general. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 90/10 split for all species | I have now not drawn a limited quota elk tag for 8 years in a row in areas that maintain 24%+ draw odds. Not a big deal for people in allot of the state but for those of us who live on the east side general elk hunting is a pretty good drive away. Would be nice to be able to draw a tag around here more then once in 8 years and who knows how many more years itll be before i draw? The draw system and allocations need revised i know of several people in the same boat where as it seems like others draw pretty much every year the system doesnt seem that random some kind of preference system maybe as well as 90/10 allocation could be the answer. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 90/10 proposals need to be shot down as well as the limitations set on DIY hunters | I am greatly concerned about the restricting of Non Resident access to elk and other big game tags that is being pushed by some self serving entities in your great state. If this is pushed forward, it will only continue to make hunting a "rich man's sport" and take away opportunities for the average Joe. I'm greatly concerned about hunting's future as states continue to cater to outfitters at the expense of the DIY hunter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | High-level, but more comments below: Shifting to a 90-10 Resident to Non-Resident tag allocation for the big 5 and elk, deer and antelope. But, not doing this at the expense of Residents. Ultimately meaning Non-Resident tags may need to be cut and then higher prices (antlered elk as example). There is also the potential to make the Non-Resident tags more management orientated than just trophy at a lower cost. | Overall, Residents should always come first, and I think that 90-10 resident to non-resident should be the standard as it is in many other western states for the big 5 and elk, deer and antelope. Depending on what type of point system and rules are decided on, the 90-10 rule could potentially go lower for the big 5. Is there revenue to be made through an additional commissioner or governor tag? I think being proactive rather than reactive will be better. Western hunting pressure is way up with more and more people applying and hunting. I think residents would prefer Wyoming to stay as it is or get better for them rather than turn into Utah as an example. There needs to be some thought with this though. If licenses will essentially be taken from Non-Residents in quota areas and given to Residents in the quota areas but total Non-Resident licenses do not change (elk as example) that could create issues in the general areas. I think that the total number of Non-Resident licenses should go down as well. I do not think general hunting should be sacrificed (extra pressure, etc.) to get to 90-10. Tag price increases can offset a loss of revenue for this some. Overall, I think random draws are best, but a preference point/random hybrid that you currently employ is a decent compromise. Big 5 specific thoughts: Definitely 90-10, I prefer random, but understand the point of preference point/random hybrid. I do not think the random should go away. A waiting period may be OK, but there will be lost revenue for people that may draw a tag and then start applying again right away. I do not think these should be made a once in a lifetime. If someone is lucky enough to draw in the random they should be able to try again or build points. Or if someone built points and got a tag then draws in the random, good for them – they were lucky. Elk, deer, antelope thoughts: 90-10 as well. I like the random for Residents. Non-Residents should not have any tags in areas with less than 10 tags (math should dictate that) but that is not always the case. I think that there should be some version of landowner tags that come from the total Non-Resident pool, (not in addition unless this would incentivize or entice landowners to open up previously never publically hunted/outfitted private property) and there could potentially be outfitter tags for the areas that are primarily wilderness where a guide is required anyway, again coming from the total Non-Resident pool, not in addition. Or maybe these are in addition - as long as it does not degrade general hunting areas for Residents. General thoughts on Non-Resident hunting – I am a Non-Resident. I do not think the Non-Resident hunters inject as much money into the local economy as some of them may think. The outfitted hunts, sure, but in reading forums, etc. online, it is always about camping and how to do things as cheaply as possible and maximizing time in the field. When maximizing time in the field, the hunters are not in local areas spending money. General thoughts on Resident hunting – I am a Non-Resident, but hope to be a Resident. But, I do not know if that will happen. I do not really agree with once in a lifetime or waiting periods. But, if the general areas are maintained then perhaps a relatively short period after a very exclusive tag – low draw odds, under 10 tags, etc. could provide more chance for other residents to get that same tag. I also hear from residents in Wyoming that each year there is more and more pressure on public land, I primarily hear about the national forests. Another topic that I think should be given more thought is grizzly bears. Is Wyoming doing everything it can to hold USFWS accountable? I realize a poor ruling from a biased court picked by environmental groups is to blame. But, who can be held accountable to put pressure on USFWS or another means to allow states to effectively manage their wildlife? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Maintain and/or increase big game hunting opportunities for DIY non resident hunters | I am a DIY non resident hunter and my greatest concern is moves to decrease the tag allocations for non resident hunters in Wyoming. I have been loyally building preference points in Wyoming for all big game species over the past 5 years. I truly cherish the opportunity to hunt Wyoming in the future. I look forward to contributing to Wyoming small businesses when I am able to hunt there and want to continue to invest in Wyoming conservation though the sale of preference points and licenses. However, if Wyoming does choose to reduce non resident tag allocations to a even lower percentage I will have to reevaluate my position and no longer participate in the Wyoming draw and points system as my investment will be greatly diminished in value. Thank you for your time and consideration. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | 90-10 for the big 5 and for other big game species, explore ways to increase access to/across private land (especially to landlocked public land), ensure long term G&F financial stability, expand shed hunting season statewide to reduce influx of out of states shed hunters and protect herd health, get grizz delisted | This is great that the task force is happening, and I appreciate a public comment period. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Maintain the stats quo regarding nonresident tag allocations please | Hi, I hope that Wyoming continues to offer the same tag allocations to do it yourself nonresident hunters. We nonresidents spend a lot of money in Wyoming when we hunt your beautiful state. I don't want to see that change with tags given as welfare to outfitters and others. This would lessen the value of points in Wyoming and would move the goalpost to many hunters who have supported Wyoming game and fish with their hard earned dollars. Please keep things as they are. Thank you | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | retain non-resident hunting opportunities | Much of my family lives, or has lived, at least periodically outside the state of Wyoming. Our family reunions to hunt together is a special part of our heritage. While the price is already high for non-residents, and the point system problematic, we can make that work under the current system. Reducing non-resident opportunities further will do little to help those of us who live in Wyoming, but will severely penalize those who move out of state for school or employment opportunities, even temporarily. My uncle has 23 NR points for sheep, and he is considerably invested in supporting Wyoming wildlife. There are many other examples. Disenfranchising so many non-residents will be counter-productive in the long term. Support for our wildlife heritage comes from many parts of the country, and changing the license allocation at this time should be resisted. The system is working; don't change what isn't broken. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Non res tags | I will stop applying for non res tags if they goto the 90/10 or if they continue to raise prices I have stopped applying Idaho ,Montana, and New Mexico due to there changes they have e implemented recently . I have no issue paying more for non res tags but when they system gets changed to lessen my draw odds I will take my money elsewhere or juts stop applying all together. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | No to the 90/10 split on deer elk and antelope | I can’t even draw a tag and take my son hunting in Wyoming. Areas that were 58% draw 2 years ago were 10% this year | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Non resident tag allocation | I am a non resident hunter that has been purchasing preference points and licenses at a considerable investment and the idea to reduce the number of premium tags to non resident hunters is unethical and does not represent the purpose of fish and wildlife management, which is to manage the wildlife for all to enjoy not based on demographics or financial gain. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Nonresident tag allocation. | I hope the state understands the radiating effects of a major change in nonresident tag allocation. I know there is an increase demand in permits, but I bet there are better and more creative ways to deal with these small issues. Residents blaming nonresidents for their lack of success is ridiculous; There has always been a fixed number of nonresident tags. The lost revenue for G&F and many small towns is huge. One of the major issues will be an influx of people moving to Wyoming. As hunting opportunities are decreasing for nonresidents in the Western U.S, I am ready to make adjustments accordingly. Wyoming is my favorite state to hunt and I can easily make the move. I live in an area that is seeing significant growth due to a great economy, open space and fishing/hunting opportunities. I can liquidate and live a great life in Wyoming. I can quit worrying about changing draw odds and preference points.... I don't want this to appear to be a threat. I get excited about the being guaranteed an elk tag annually and living in the west again!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Maintaining the current N/R big game license allocation/ allowing non resident hunters to access wilderness areas without a guide. | Your outfitter welfare program | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Allocation of nonresident archery tags | Have you considered a system whereby nonresidents can also buy bonus points such as Utah does for archery deer (general) in addition to their limited entry deer? Might also work in Wyoming for doe antelope. Thanks for this opportunity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | I'm hearing rumors of stripping non-residents of the ability to do do-it-yourself hunts. It was bad enough to require outfitters for non-residents in wilderness areas but I understand there's a push to require outfitters for all non-resident hunts. | The federal lands belong to all Americans, not just Wyoming residents. Non-residents should have tags and access to all federal lands without having to hire an outfitter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | 80/10 on all big game species... | A waiting period after drawing a LQ trophy area on all big game species 3 to 5 years.. No sit aside outfitter tag or transferable landowner tags.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Non Resident Opportunities | As a non resident who thoroughly enjoys Wyoming, I just ask that the panel doesn’t forget about us. We do bring a substantial economic impact to Wyoming. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | I was born in Wyoming and am a life long hunter and I have no plans of ever leaving this state. My biggest concern whenever new legislation is proposed is that it will eventually lead to a worse system than is currently in place. 90/10 seems consistent throughout the west but I would strongly oppose any outfitter set aside tags or additional species added to resident preference points. A random draw system is much more sustainable long term. If anything I think Wyoming needs to move away from preference points altogether, more towards a total random draw like Idaho or a bonus point system like Nevada. A bonus point still rewards long term applicants and allows a chance for younger hunters to draw. With point creep it will be essentially impossible for most applicants to ever draw a tag unless they are near the max point group. You can also increase draw odds by making slight changes to what applications are possible. Again I think Idaho is a good example of this, where they make you choose one "big three" species to apply for instead of all three in the same year. This would greatly decrease the applicant pool and increase odds for a person's chosen species. I think separate archery and firearm licenses also make sense. You could have the same number of tags and reduce pressure at the same time, at least for the trophy species and limited quota elk, deer and antelope. Whenever there is a limited resource there will be conflict over how that resource is allocated and often no one group will ever be completely satisfied. There are more hunters that want tags than there are tags available. The only way to increase draw odds is to reduce the number of applicants or increase the number of tags. There are several ways to do this, but my biggest fear is that short sighted legislation could actually makes things worse than they are now just to appease more vocal user groups. Please do not take your recommendations lightly. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | 90/10 tag split across all species with no outfitter tags. Fully support higher resident prices to make up difference. | Offer non resident tags to residents first at non resident prices if residents so choose. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Resident waiting period after drawing deer, elk, antelope. Create a waiting period based on past 3 years draw odds of up to 5 years after drawing limited quota elk, deer, antelope tags. | Preference point systems can break down if demand is too high. Waiting periods would help flatten the bell curve while still maintaining a random draw. Giving new hunters and young people an equal chance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Solutions/ideas that put more animals on the landscape. It seems that much of the discussion is about who gets to shoot the last buffalo instead of how to put more buffalo on the landscape. That is somewhat concerning as a sportsman and conservationist. | The hot topics on the task force seem to be resident tag allocation. I am admittedly a nonresident and realize that my thoughts will not carry much, if any, weight. I am also not arguing that they should. It is Wyoming's wildlife held in trust for its residents. I will say that I support the idea of 90/10 for the big five you have listed and furthermore some of those possibly being 100/0. I think there will have to be some alterations to the nonresident random/pp draw splits to make any tags available to non maximum point holders. The most complaints I hear from residents is the fair opportunity at the deer, elk, and antelope licenses. When considering elk and deer I do believe that being able to buy a general tag at the local gas station to hunt some of the best units in the west every year while some are taking NR years (even near a decade in some instances) to draw is a pretty big incentive/luxury for a resident. In addition to the OTC opportunities residents still having an 80% allocation of Deer and 84% of elk for limited licenses is nothing to scoff at. In regards to antelope I think current splits are satisfactory just based on how many hunts go undersubscribed in the resident pool. Maybe adding 5 choices to the resident application would give more opportunity for residents to pick up tags in the undersubscribed units before they are rolled over to the NR draw. I hear NRs talking about the financial implications of 90/10 and that just isn't true and a weak argument at best. The monetary loss of 90/10 could easily be made up by very small license increases to conservation stamps or the ridiculously cheap doe antelope licenses. The last item on your agenda seems to deal with some sort of transferable land owner tag or outfitter sponsored license. I think if done correctly it could be a viable option, but I have concerns over a NM type repeat where a NR that hunts without an outfitter basically has no chance to draw a license going forward. With all of that said, I would like to see more focus on ideas of growing wildlife herds in WY instead of arguing over who gets to shoot the last one. If the herds are thriving the allocation issue takes care of itself. Lastly if anyone would like to discuss this I can be reached by email, or we can exchange phone numbers. Id definitely welcome the chance to get your thoughts and exchange ideas that could benefit residents, nonresidents, and most importantly the wildlife. Thank you for your time and have a great day. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | With all the discussion about 90/10 for the big 5 and potentially elk, deer, antelope, I would like to voice my complete opposition to landowner tags or outfitter set asides as any bargaining chip for WYOGA. As a resident, I care more about stopping the monetization of our wildlife resources than I do R/NR tag allocation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | First, thank you for allowing me a platform to share my opinion on a topic that is important to me as a non-resident Wyoming hunter. I am writing to express my thoughts concerning antelope tag allocation. I would like to see the Task Force consider a special modification to the draw process for antelope that exists independent of a change to the base allocation percentages. In my humble opinion, a simple change from an allocation of 80/20 to residents and non-residents respectively to 90/10 for the same will not be sufficient for realizing maximum resident hunter satisfaction moving forward. I would argue that implementing a modified draw process for residents that allows them more margin for error in seeking tags in desired units is a better way to achieve that goal. As you know, undersubscribed tags within the resident-allocated portion of the whole are made available to non-residents. This of course means non-residents gain well over their 20 percent share of tags, a fact which will not likely change should the allocation for non-residents decrease. Meanwhile, residents can consistently draw "an" antelope tag, but perhaps not of the quality they desire. This also is not likely to change with the marginal increase in total tags an allocation change would provide. To solve this, the Task Force should consider allowing for either: 1) Five unit choices for residents instead of three when applying for antelope tags Or 2) A "Resident leftover draw" allowing residents to apply for a tag from their portion of the total after their initial draw but before non-residents gain access to those "rollover" tags. These types of changes would, in one form or another, give residents the chance to try for units like those in the Red Desert with low odds of drawing success, and then for a medium-quality unit with high odds of resident draw success before having to resort to a leftover tag in a unit of marginal quality. Proper implementation of a plan similar to one of these I've outlined would, in my humble opinion, do more for resident satisfaction regarding antelope hunting than an allocation change alone. In fact, it may prove an allocation change unnecessary in the first place. Thank you again for the opportunity to express my opinion on this issue. | I am a non-resident hunter looking forward to my first year applying for deer and antelope in Wyoming in 2022. I hold points for both and my spouse holds points for antelope. I am especially passionate about antelope hunting and support Wyoming resident hunter satisfaction in regard to it, as I recognize that my opportunities to hunt antelope in Wyoming are a privilege, and that privilege is threatened when residents (the stewards of the resource in concern) are dissatisfied with its management. I also strongly support resident prioritization in all states, in part because I benefit from the same as a hunter in my own home state of Georgia. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | 90/10 split for all licenses, not just the BIG 5. | Wyoming has been far to generous to nonresidents with license allocations & fees for far too long. It's about time to end our generosity with tags for Wyoming's Wildlife. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Public Access | The 90/10 licensing will only go so far if even locals can't access public land. Access should be tied to grazing leases for those of us that can not afford to hunt private land (or do not have the connections). Especially for those of us that are disabled. More so with so many of the roads and trails be closed so often during the hunt season. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | I would like to see the task force focus on healthy habitat, and not specifically on private lands. I would like to see a statewide plan over and above what already exists focusing on landscapes and landscape health which benefits all wildlife, our residents, and our recreation industry. | I would be happy to provide information on the above, starting with why I am advocating for the "Golden Triangle" which is a part of the Red Desert. There are wildlife habitats here of national significance and we should be considering the need for protection and enhancement...and a way we can work with federal agencies to achieve these goals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | 1) Over-pressured general areas 2) Ways to increase game density | I am strongly in favor of moving the big 5 to a 90/10 allocation -- this is consistent with other states in the region. This will, to a small degree, make up for some of the overall decline in license numbers. If deer, elk, and antelope (DEA) go to a 90/10 split, which I'm also in favor of, I would also like to see the number of required non-resident elk tags reduced accordingly otherwise it would significantly increase pressure on general areas that have already seen a tremendous increase in pressure. I would like to see rollover licenses for non-residents go away. As a resident, I shouldn't be wondering if I'll draw my antelope tag while non-residents in some areas take more than half of the tags. This could easily be done via a resident-only leftover drawing. After that, all licenses remaining could be first-come at any license dealers or online. I am in support of mandatory harvest surveys, which would lead to improved accuracy and corresponding herd management. I do not want to see DEA licenses for residents go to a point system -- I am already stuck in no-man's land with moose and sheep wondering if I'll still be young enough to hunt them by the time I draw. One way to expand resident opportunities that struck me as I was watching some season setting presentations was to increase whitetail hunting opportunities. It seems like the numbers are increasing with little effort from WYGF but we're still trying to cull them for the sake of mule deer. At least here in SE WY, I would love to see some additional whitetail opportunities (this would require some additional access to the rivers), which would take some pressure (at least from me) off of mule deer. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | 90/10 for elk, deer, antelope. Resident Hunter preference for leftover tags | Do all that is possible to increase opportunity for Wyoming's Resident Hunters | 90/10!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Increase deer, elk and antelope numbers. | Going to a 90-10 split does not make more animals for residents. Increasing wildlife numbers increases animals for residents. Stop focusing on 90-10 and focus on increasing wildlife populations. | I would like the big 5 to go to a 90-10 split for residents. As a small business owner I don not want to see elk, deer and antelope go to 90-10. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Increasing big game populations. | Stop worrying about resent opportunity and focus on improving big game numbers. | Stop worrying about increasing opportunities for residents to get more tags and focus on increasing big game populations. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Larger populations of animals. | I would like the members to know that residents are more worried about the population of animals than they are about how many tags are available. If you increase populations you can give out more tags. Stop wasting time on who should get tags and worry about larger populations of animals. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Preference points for elk, deer and antelope. Being able to plan out our fall hunting schedules would be nice. If you have an idea of how many points it will take to draw in a certain area and you don't have that many, then off to general units. Some people hunt all over the globe. Knowing when you area going to draw said unit will make for a more people out hunting, because they can better plan their lives. I schedule my time off at least 6 months in advance. If i draw a local unit, then i have less time away from my job. if I don't draw a tag, then having enough time to go out to general units does not happen and i don't go afield. I don't purchase a general tag. Less monies coming into G&F. Having preference points will also keep everyone on a fair playing field for opportunities. For example: Unit 45 draw odds for a type 1 elk tag are for 2021 are 21% . There are people who have to wait 10 to 13 years to draw a type 1 tag due to being unlucky. Yet there are people who draw this tag in back to back years. Its not an equal opportunity to enjoy our resources. the only way to make it fair is to have preference points. We do it for non residents, why not residents. | Corner jumping would increase access to lots of public land. we hunters are on foot. GPS technology is such that stepping from public ground to public ground is easily accomplished | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Preference point system and allocation in the draw. Random draw process with respect to points. Ability to return/surrender licenses. Point creep for residents and non-residents. Wilderness rule for non-residents. The non-resident elk draw period. Potential 90/10 split for resident/non-resident allocation. The abolishment of the special draw for non-residents for elk, deer, and antelope. | We have 8 full time hunt advisors here in our office at Huntin' Fool willing and able to consult with any member of your team. We also have a full staff dedicated to submitting thousands of Wyoming applications each year on our client's behalf. We are more than willing and able to provide specific feedback as it relates to license and draw processes, poll our members (subscribers), and provide any other ideas and comments related to your mission. | We believe that the residents have the first-place right to opportunities and should protect their opportunities as such. We also believe that whereas non-resident funds support the majority of the license sale funds, their voices should also be heard. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Shed hunting , make us buy a shed license $10,$20, also other surrounding states need to have the same start date as each other! | You need to regulate how many hunters guides can take in areas, you do all these damn studies on how it’s the “winter” that determines the deer numbers and that’s fine but eventually no one is going to come to this state to hunt deer to shoot a 140” buck because all your guides know how to hunt, know where the deer are and have a good success rate of shooting every 150” to 170” buck in the area. Area 144 for deer will go down as one of the best general units for deer but in the future will also go down as one of the most miss managed units by the game and fish! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | I live in Green River Wyoming and have hunted in this state for 45 years. I would like to see the Game and Fish look at the following: *I believe all sportsmen in Wyoming would support a small increase in the license cost. Its my belief that resident sportsmen would support the increase as long as residents are getting something in return. Two things: reduce the number of tags going to non-residents. 10 percent of the allocation should go to non-residents for all species. Residents would support an increase in license fees if this were implemented. Also, do not deduct the landowner tags from the pre-draw number. *Second: In general deer areas only, hold a resident only November rut hunt. Game and Fish would determine the number of licenses available in each area. Cost to enter the draw is 100 dollars, and its for residents only. If you draw, you get the tag. If you don’t draw the tag, you get 50 dollars back, and the other 50 goes to the Game and Fish bottom line. Two benefits to the Game and Fish, and a big benefit to resident deer hunters. Benefits to the game and fish. Revenue generator, and secondly, you will have hunters in the field during the rut thus preventing poaching in all general license areas in Wyoming. *Third: I believe we are not getting our youth to take up the sport of hunting because its difficult for them to draw a tag, especially antelope. Do some type of youth only draw for some of the antelope tags in each hunt area. You could also add Elk and Deer. To many youths are not drawing tags. I would give up my area 89 antelope tag I drew this year to a youth, I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that statement. In fact, why not allow a resident adult, who gets an antelope tag, be allowed to transfer that tag to an immediate family member. IE, I draw the tag, I can then transfer it to my 12 year old grandson. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | I can’t make your round table in Rock Springs, however it is a great idea. I know my cousins 5th wife didn’t get an antelope license for 12 years.....Thank you for serving on this task force. I know some good things will come out of it but you’ll have some other BS. Anyway, my beef is with the price of non-resident fishing licenses, particularly a one-day license is $14. These people pay from $300/day on up for guide service. And the 5-day license they started few years ago, without a stamp, is not right. You do have youth licenses and I feel they should be looked after. The fish division is a losing enterprise for G&F. However, we have the best fishing in the country because of the fish culture laboratory, stocking and brood programs. And, I don’t know if everyone is paying their fair share. I don’t have to tell Albert the drift boats that hit the Green and New Fork. I don’t have the answer for the increase in traffic but looking at the costs of Fish Division and the benefits derived from the public is a starting point. Again, thank you very much for your service. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Please keep Wyoming as an opportunity State. We are currently the best place to be a resident in the lower 48 and have amazing opportunity. We have great trophy potential for anyone who is willing to work hard for it. From my experience in other states, when we start to focus more on trophy quality, opportunities go down and prices go up. | I am very opposed to a point system for any species that does not currently utilize points for residents. | I see no changes here that need to be made other than continuing to delist grizzly bears and providing the State an opportunity to manage them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Strongly hope they will look at requiring black bear hunters to remove meat from the field. Right now it's not required and it is terrible optics for bear hunting. | Increasing tag allotments for elk in the Cody region is pointless. All the elk in units with increase are on private land. General hunting opportunities for elk and deer are dwindling. Would love to see a separate non resident quota for black bears. Outfitters cannot book hunts with our quota system and resident hunters often have less hunting opportunities as non-resident hunters are taking up the female mortality quota. | Strongly against resident points for deer, elk, and antelope. Would like mountain goat to not be once in a lifetime. At best I think a waiting period for deer, elk, and antelope if successful in a less than 20 percent draw unit. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | The insane amount of non-resident licenses we give. Residents already battle with limited area to hunt due to private and draw only land; when you add in thousands of tags, the general land is swarming with people and the non-residents kill anything! Wyoming people are frustrated that we can't hardly hunt in our own State. The Game and Fish care more about making money rather than the quality of the hunt! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Residents have ample hunting opportunities. Please dont pay mind to the whiners who think its not fair. Tag allocations are great as is and a random draw is the most fair option available. I would recommend mandatory reporting so the state can better manage herds. | Thanks for representing sportsmen. | Make them a true once in a lifetime. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | This issue. Regulations say the G&F may issue the tags, they are not required to. Resident hunters deserve better than this. | Whatever other data or research they may need. | The current practice of giving non-residents approximately 50% of the antelope quota in NE WY (areas 1-29) in the initial draw has to stop. There is a leftover drawing system in place that is being circumvented and needs to be used. Give residents an opportunity to draw one of these tags. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | My Background - 32 years old, 23 year WY resident, (mostly) public land hunter, live in NE WY, hunt throughout much of the state | There are only two ways to significantly increase opportunity to hunt the big 5; increase numbers of animals (tags) substantially or reduce number of applications substantially. Animal Numbers - Increasing the population of these animals is something we should always be striving for. We have saw the opposite happen with Moose populations since the reintroduction of wolves. We have had to reduce available tags is some of the best historic units of the state and in some cases, shut down moose hunting in the unit all together. If we can turn this around for moose and sheep, drawing odds and opportunity could increase. Resident/Non-Resident Allocations - Increasing (resident) tags by changing the resident/non-resident allocation may be a feel-good measure for residents, but it will do almost nothing to help with draw odds and point creep. Take sheep unit 2 for example with 20 tags; if you reduce the NR allocation from 25% to 10%, it shifts 3 tags (of the 5 NR tags) from NR to R. With 2021 application numbers, you have 425+ residents putting in for 18 tags vs. 15 tags with the 75/25 split. Under a 75/25 split, it theoretically takes 23 years to get through the applicants. Under a 90/10 split, it takes 28 years to get through the resident applicants. I do not feel that this small increase in drawing odds is enough to offset the disadvantages of changing this allocation (severely limiting NR interest and opportunity in Wyoming, essentially eliminating NR random tags, reducing outfitter opportunity). Application Process - I would like to see a reduction in the time from draw deadline to draw results; 1-2 weeks from draw deadline to results should be sufficient. If quota cannot be set until a certain time of year, adjust the draw deadline accordingly. However, like the current draw result dates, I would still prefer to know the results of the “big 5” applications prior to putting in for deer, elk, and antelope. Once in a Lifetime - As it is right now, we still have a good opportunity to hunt each moose, sheep, goat, and bison in our lifetime if we make it a priority and apply throughout our lifetime. I am fine with that recognizing the increased demand to hunt these animals. However, I feel that the 5-year waiting period and preference point system is enough that implementing a once in a lifetime rule is not needed. For the most part, if we are looking at 20-30 years to draw these tags and a 5-year waiting period, it is already essentially a once in a lifetime tag. Applicants who pull multiple sheep tags in their lifetime are statistically insignificant. Prioritization of Applications - I understand that most everything I have touched on up to this point has offered no policies that might, “increase resident sportsmen’s opportunities for the Big 5”. This brings me to my only possible suggestion if we really want to increase draw odds significantly, but it comes at a cost. The cost is giving up the opportunity to draw tags for game animals you prioritize less in turn for increased odds to draw tags for the game animal you prioritize most. When you take an applicant who prioritizes sheep most (but also currently applies for moose) and make them choose sheep only, they are no longer in competition with another applicant who doesn’t have much interest in sheep but would love to hunt moose. This would reduce the applications for each of the Big 5 species by at least half. This has been Idaho’s solution to help with draw odds and is the only real solution I see to improving draw odds for residents. Still, I’m not completely is support of it at this time because as I said earlier, we still have a good chance to hunt each of these species in our lifetime. (comments on deer, elk and antelope will be provided separately) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | I was in attendance at the June 29th meeting in Rock Springs, WY. There are a laundry list of topics that were covered and some that didn’t have a whole lot of backing from the group. The important takeaways from this was the overwhelming support from the group for a “waiting list” when drawing a highly coveted, limited quota license. I, along with the vast majority of others in attendance, overwhelmingly rejected the idea of any kind of preference point system but we are all very positive on the idea of a waiting list. It keeps us out of any kind of preference/bonus point program but still let’s the tags filter through outdoorsman in a fair manner while letting us keep our random draw system. I have thought about this long and hard since far before this meeting took place and there were numbers thrown out at the meeting that I didn’t necessarily agree with and hope to be able to bring a group together to discuss these waiting periods at a later meeting. To me, what makes the most sense, is a waiting period of 7-10 years for any tag drawn that had a less than 10% chance of drawing. The “less than 10% chance of drawing” units need to be calculated at a 5 year running average before the introduction of waiting periods. By the end of the 10 years (if chosen) you could see highly sought after tags draw odd percentage more than double. The increase in drawing odds, however, isn’t nearly as important as not seeing the same people draw these tags year after year. So to move on, the <10% chance is somewhere between a 7-10 year wait. 10-20% chance is a 3-5 year wait. I don’t believe extending waiting periods longer than that is necessary but I wouldn't be against a 1 year wait on a 20-30% tag. There are a whole lot of specifics that need to be ironed out on this issue to move forward. It needs to mathematically make sense as well as make sense realistically. | At the June 30th meeting there were pick your weapon and pick your region purposed. I believe both of these ideas have a lot of value but need clarification. Again, hopefully at a later date we can iron out our ideas. For a long time I’ve wanted a type 9, archery only elk tag in the desert units of southwest Wyoming, and when we finally got them, they were antlerless tags and not attractive to me. Judging by the amount that are leftover, they’re not attractive to many folks. I don’t know that I, as well as the other residents of Wyoming want a pick your weapon restriction in the general units we love so much. Our elk herds are at all time highs throughout many units and having the freedom to chase them with multiple weapons is the highlight of my hunting season. Where I do think we need restrictions is in deer hunting. The deer herd in western Wyoming continues to drop and the freedoms we enjoy of being able to chase them for the better part of 2 months, needs addressed. A gentleman mentioned a “choose your region” stipulation. While this is something I would support, I believe it could be simplified even more by making “mule deer season” one set period. Example- October 1-14. That is the mule deer season through the state of Wyoming. It would force people to focus on their one core area and stay there. Right now I have the freedom to hunt bucks in the high alpine in mid September. I then can head down to the desert and hunt them starting October 1st. There are then seasons that open in the central and eastern parts of the state on October 15th and run through the end of the month that I can hunt. While this freedom is fun it doesn’t keep me focused on my core areas and let’s me hunt all through the state. Something along these lines is what I feel would be the best solution for our mule deer herd going forward. Thank you for involving us in your decision making process, | I agree with the task force’s priority in making these resident/nonresident splits 90/10. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Wolf issue. Raise the quota. (For example) quota gets filled in an area, the season is closed in that area. Later on in the winter a pack from that area get into trouble and get a kill order put on them and the Govt trappers take them out. That just took opportunities away from myself and other sportsman. | Region G and Region H deer needs to be special draw to residents to cut down on hunting pressure. Nonresident elk hunters should have to choose a region just like nonres has to for deer. I am a hunting guide and local sportsman so I can see thing from both sides of the fence. Can call me anytime Thank you | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | The main issue I feel we should tackle or address is the general hunting pressure, resident or non-resident, mainly on Mule Deer. I propose two different methods here in Southwest Wyoming. Number one item - open/close all areas/regions on the same hunting dates. For example, start region H and G both on September 25th through October 6th. Align the dates so that people are forced to spread over the land scape, this will reduce centralized hunting pressure and also provide some relief for the mule deer as well. I'm against being able to hunt region H, then head over to region G and if those two fail head up to the North East side of the state and smack a mule deer or whitetail buck there. I would be lying if I said I don't do it almost every year and that's why I hope my thoughts are taken seriously. I know from personal experience. As I have gotten older I realize its less about what I want and more about protecting the resource for my kids future. My second option I propose if we choose not to have a same opener/close date is "Select your Region" method. You either select your region online when applying or when you pick up your license up at a kiosk in a store. You simply ask for general mule deer tag and the system prompts you to pick which region. I would then select region H for example and the license would be issued. I really like this because you could keep the general hunting concept open to residents but yet make them pick on region to hunt annually. These regions are so big that a person wouldn't be able to hunt the whole region annually anyways. The Game and Fish already has these regions setup for non-residents, so developing this method for residents would be pretty simple. This would disburse the hunting pressure and give the deer a break from hardcore hunters, which is now a new standard. Everyone is more lethal now days and has more lethal equipment as well. This rids the problem of hunting H, then moving to G October 1st and then blowing up to North East Wyoming in November. We have to step back, protect the resource and stop being so greedy before the resource is gone completely. Down the road from one of these options, maybe a pick your weapon should/would follow as well. This would also break up hunting pressure per year, per season. I'm not for point/bonus system of any sort, 100% against it. Lastly, because the point system is such a failure in other states, we should implement something else. I have applied for an area 63 tag for seven years with zero luck every season. How do we fix this without a point system? I say a waiting period. Sheep and Moose are five years, so lets make Deer and Elk limited quotas the same. You draw a 63 elk tag you can't apply for any limited quota Elk tags for five years. This gets rid of the log jam in the system and allows others across the state a chance. I have some friends that draw a 63 almost every year for the past 10 years. Although a random system, this doesn't feel appropriate but once we dive down the points system there is no going back and that is a failed system at best. | I'm a 36 year Native, speaking from experience, I'm honest and real world. Some of my comments even through myself under the bus but that's who I 'am. We have to do what's right for the resource, not Zach Key or anyone else, feelings have to be set aside. | I don't think the 90/10 structure really addresses anything. I know its a big push right now. I'm not necessarily for it or against it, I just don't understand what it solves, other than a feel good thing. What I don't like about it is the fact if my son or daughters go to college and re-locate to another state later in life, the 90/10 is going to make it tough for them to come back and hunt with their dad. It's something to take into consideration. The last element is the Game and Fish budget. They need 80 million a year to run appropriately, if the non-resident revenue isn't there, then who foots the bill? The residents I presume. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | A qualifying license in order to hunt shed antlers. Whether it be a fishing or hunting license, or a shed hunting specific license. | I’d like to see a 90/10 split in tags. I’d also like to see Wyoming require hunters to buy a hunting license in order to apply or hunt shed antlers. Something like Nevada and Arizona does. The state is losing out on a lot of revenue by remaining one of the only states that doesn’t require a license in addition to a tag. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | The issue that 90% of any and all available tags should go to residents of Wyoming. | The other 10% will go to nonresidents. | 90% of all tags should go to residents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Public land access, for far to long large portions of public land have been inaccessible to the public. The land surrounded by private has essentially turned into extensions of the private. While most of it is leased for grazing, it also allows for a few wealthy landowners to take advantage of the public. Outfitting and allowing access through hefty trespassing fees, has taken advantage of tax payers and sportsmen. The wildlife is held in trust by the state, and the residents are essentially the owners of the resource. If public land can not be reasonably accessible, it should be closed to all recreational activities including hunting and fishing. The state continues to pay large amounts of money for damage to land caused by wildlife, but public access for opportunity to take the wildlife is restricted. If the state would stop paying for damages to land that does not allow access, would give landowners a reason to allow respectful sportsmen a opportunity. For far to long the state of Wyoming had been controlled by the large landowners. | If the Wyoming Game and Fish is as concerned about the mule deer population as it claims, why is there still general tags? Why isn’t there a discussion about a limited tags with set quotas? Choose your weapon and choose a area would be a good start. | Reducing non-resident tags to 10% to align to the surrounding states, and doing away with the regions for deer and general for elk (non-residents). This would force non-residents to choose a area and limit the pressure in over crowded areas. It feels to most average Joe residents, that Wyoming’s wildlife is being monetized for the benefit of the elite and wealthy. Turning Wyoming’s wildlife (citizens of Wyoming own the wildlife) into a big business and not compensating the citizens is unjust. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Overcrowding. Most general hunt units are over-crowded...big time! Perhaps we could address the overcrowding issue with split seasons or limited quota. Here's a few suggestions myself and others have discussed over the past several years: (1) Split seasons. For example; a ten-day season could be split into 2 5-day seasons. This could either be done through a drawing or declared when you purchase your license. (2) Region tags for residents; same as nonresidents. Too many opening days creates hunter overcrowding. For instance in region G, there's a Sept 15 opener and an Oct 1 opener. Maybe the openers could be all the same. (3) 3 separate draws-1. Elk. If you draw an elk tag...you're OUT of the deer and antelope draws. 2.Deer-If you draw a deer tag, you're out of the antelope draw. 3. Antelope-Your chances of drawing an antelope tag just greatly improved! We all know folks who have drawn 2 or even 3 tags from the "Other 3" group. This is unfair, especially if the whole family of 4-6 draws all 3! Why should premium tags be hoarded by one person?? Or worse yet...a family of 6?? I would be ecstatic to just draw one of the three! Of course, this idea would be for LQ areas only, and whitetail deer, cow elk, and doe/fawn tags would be excluded. Add to that a waiting period of at least 3 years to apply for the same species in the same unit LQ( could be only instituted for units with low draw odds: say 10% or less). This would prevent drawees applying in a different unit same species for a few years. After all, we can buy deer and elk licenses OTC. I would also assert that the party permit needs to be drastically dropped to 2 or 3 from the present 6. Quit killing fawns in areas where deer and antelope are struggling. Quite simply, why are we killing off our future? Don't landowners already get compensated for crop loss? I've been an active member of several conservation groups in my life. MFF is one that I was very involved in for several years( as well as MDF). I remember going to a WGFD meeting with new buttons that we had especially made for that meeting! This was in response to G&F telling us how important the fawns are to herd growth! They read: WE LOVE FAWNS. There's some irony in that statement. We love fawns, but let's keep killing them. Let's give the fawns some love. After all...isn't that what makes our herds grow? Also, let's not forget where the fawns come from. Yet we still kill does. We build over/underpasses to save deer (does & fawns) then turn right around and kill them during hunting season. While I do realize that in certain instances killing does is an important management tool, why do we keep killing them when we are trying to recover what seems to be ever-falling deer and antelope numbers?? Timely predator control in areas where the "predator pit" is occurring. MFF did this for 2 years in areas that were specifically pointed out by regional G&F. It sure seemed like we were having some success after only 2 years! Then the plan was deemed unsuitable and dropped. We killed over 100 coyotes in less than a week. Every single den that was found during this time had fawn legs there...some as many as 7. The very next year, the crew( chopper pilot and shooter) couldn't find coyotes in those same basins. Instead, they found...guess what? DEER!! Does and fawns. Just some ideas I've been rolling around for a long time. Thanks for your time. | I would like to see 90/10 for all species. That includes deer, elk, and antelope; not just the "Big 5". Really, why not just call it the "Big 4"? We can't hunt grizzlies..yet. I'm a bit concerned that the heavily outfitter weighted Task Force could be using the "Big 5" going to 90/10 as a bargaining chip in regards to landowner transferable tags or outfitter set-aside tags when we move on to the "Other 3"(I'm referring to deer, elk, antelope). At this point in time, I am opposed to any type of set-aside or transferable tags that would result in a net loss of tags for Wyoming residents. What good is 90/10 if we lose the 10% we just gained to outfitters/landowners? If another alternative arises, I could be swayed to change my opinion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | I'd encourage the Taskforce to consider strategies to seek and support fully funding the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund. This program has been one of the most effective, influential, and thoughtful funds supporting wildlife conservation, habitat improvement and restoration, and research in Wyoming. All along the aim was to eventually have it fully funded, but for whatever the reasons, full funding has never been achieved but would serve our natural resources well in Wyoming to seek doing so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Would love to see the WWNRT Fund to be fully funded. This fund does some critical things for wildlife and habitat around the state and is critical in leveraging funds through private, non-profits and landowners. Would like to see this discussed because all the changes to tags, licenses, etc. won't mean a thing if we don't have the healthy resources around the state. | Lifetime Wyoming resident and have had very little success drawing limited quota tags. Would like to see some sort of waiting period after being successful. Not sure what the parameters of that would be as it's a bit more complicated than just sitting out X number of years but that should be explored. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | I would like the taskforce to address the allotment of tags for non resident and resident hunters. I am a Wyoming resident happy to pay $50-$100 more a year on my licenses if it means keeping more of those in Wyoming. I also would like them to address the frequency of tags drawn and find a way to disperse those tags more evenly. Its a shame to see someone or a family draw tags year after year and see someone live in WY over 60+ years and NEVER draw a Wyoming elk tag. I personally know someone who passed away this last year and in his 60+ years in Wyoming NEVER drew a Wyoming elk tag? That right there is enough to show the system is flawed and needs adjustments. | No additional info besides we need to strongly look at what other states have done well and what they could improve on, as well as consider the effects of these decisions 20 + years from now. | The taskforce needs to take into consideration the rarity of these hunts, and the demand not only from in state but out of state hunters to draw these tags. Things like the 90/10 rule would drastically help keep these amazing animals in Wyoming residents hands. Also when speaking of premier hunts outfitters should be able to charge non residents a premium price when only 10% of tags are left for non residents. The waiting period after drawing is also a strong idea that should be considered that can make residents also have a chance and let the point creep not be as drastic. 2-3 years for residents and 3-5 years for non residents. As far as grizzly bears go, they need to be taken off this list. The numbers are more than enough for us to consider public hunting as another management tool, if we wait any longer on this the numbers are going to become overwhelming and unmanageable. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | To whom in concerns, I would like to make afew comments about the issues the task force is addressing. I may get alittle long winded but these are my view points. First, background. Im a non resident of Wyoming. I live in Montana. I apply in many states through the west for big game tags, including Wyoming. I have been in the fishing/hunting industry since I was 5 years old growing up in the outfitting operation with my parents buissness in Canada, until the last 7 years now working the guns/sporting goods at a sporting goods store in Miles City Montana. I am 40 now. I have drawn many deer tags in Wyoming. Afew antelope and elk tags. Ive also drawn a moose tag, sheep tag in the past, and this year drew a mountain goat tag in Wyoming. All as a Non Resident. I am very pleased Wyoming gave me the chance and oppurtunity at these awesome hunts and spend time with my father. These memories will be cherished for all my life. Warning, I do not plan to proof read this or take days to complete. Its basically an outline in the rough. So I do applogize if my grammer isnt totally up to speed or whatever..... I understand and I agree residents should get there fair share of tags in there home state with the whole tag allocation talks. No arguement here. I do believe there needs to be a balance. I also believe decision with whats on the agenda needs to thought out, based on facts not feelings. However, some of the things I read online about non residents that some of these residents of Wyoming are saying needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Which does not surprise me, Ive heard all the same stuff for years in the outfitting and sporting good store. Theres always tons of jelously/angar the residents have towards non residents hunters or fishermen. I understand it..... Some of the points Id like to share. 1) Economy. The revenue non residents bring in. Online there saying the residents would spent as much as a NR person...... I see it in the store. Non residents spend way more than the local guy. Yes, the local guy spends money and they spend the money year round which keeps our doors open but its sure a nice influx of money when out of staters come into the area during various hunting seasons. Also, economics. A dollar turns hands about 10 times in the local economy before it leave the area. Its sure nice to get "fresh" money coming into town to boost the "10" times theory that a Non Resident brings into the local economy.... I understand every person is differnt, some people will not spend much while on vacation while the next guy will dump alot of money... Another aspect to look at. My brother still outfits in Canada. Talk about what NR brings in terms of economic impact money into a local area….. Ask any Canadian outfitter or general buissness owner that question right now. You’ll get your answer what NR's bring into a local community. Considering the border been closed last season and still is. Just food for thought. 2) I realize a government agency can do what ever they wish or sees fit. Say, change allocation in tags to who gets the tags. As far the the big tags. As mentioned, Ive drawn the big 3 tags. So Im out of the game now in Wyoming chasing those tags so its a non issue for me personally. However, what I got a issue with. Non residents who have built and paid for points all these years. Be kinda like pulling the rug out from them. My father is one of them, Hes trying to draw a sheep tag. He 69 years old. Government can do what they want as I get there was no contract about the tag allocations who gets what. I get it. I understand it. However, Im old school. Its kinda like doing a hand shake. Word means something. People of Montana, Wyoming, etc, are basically good people and honnor that system. If I pulled something like that in my line of work, its simple, I would loose customers. Its that simple. If they cut the NR alloication, I believe there should be somekind of buy back option on the points or exchange them for another specie. Or I will also say, if 90/10 is coming, to help sooth the blow to NR, a window needs to be put in, like wont take effect for X amount of years. Gives the NR's who've been faithful to the system for years a chance at drawing a lesser area before the 90/10 goes in effect. Example, like my father. 69 years old. At the current rate, he "should" be able to draw a sheep tag yet while hes able to still climb the mountain. Cut the tags, Id say odds are not???? I get the whole $7.00 a year for a point while back that Wyoming was charging wasnt much money, but then theres quit a few years of higher costs too of the points in recent years. Reguardless, the cost of the point is irrelevent as thats what the state was asking for that point and the people paid it. Even so, all those guys have been "faithful" to the system that the fish and game put into place. Then the system potenially changes the rules??? and essentally screws them over (mabey if this 90/10 comes into effect). One guy online said, guys with such as 20 points which is where my father is. Could draw another area. Yeah, he could have, and I would agree. But, now lets get into the whole wilderness law for NR and cost of guided hunt is near the 10,000 grand mark in order to draw that tag for those areas......for which those areas in which are easier to draw...... I do have a question, in general. Mabey you know mabey you dont. What Id be interested in. Does the fish and game give the ages of the people who are holding points for all these tags????? Mabey as the task for, you could request this info from the department. Now, example of my father. If theres a bunch of the "baby boomers", who many might say.... Screw it. Quit applying. Im guessing if theres a high number of baby boomers within these points. There will be a high rate of drop outs??? Be a interesting tid bit to find out to know what kind of drop out rate would be expected so a figure could be seen for amount of money would be lost in the application/point fees that would need to be made up for. As far as resident spending as much as non resident. Lets say that is true. Missing one fact. Just an example. OK, the tag goes to a NR. The resident still is pry gonna be in the state doing his every day living, or mabey go to a football game, go shopping, or something else.... Spending money doing something else.... The Non Resident comes to the state and spend money. So the resident mabey isnt "hunting" if he got that NR tag in a reallocation of the tags, but hes still spending money doing something within the state.......In that senerio 2 people are within the state spending money instead of 1. To continue on the allocations. One comment was, WY should be on par with neighboring states like Montana or Idaho. I dont disagree with that fact. However, acouple of angles against that aguement. Nebraska. Only residents can apply for a sheep or elk tag tag. Same with South Dakota. South Dakota there mountain goats and only residents only can apply. Nebraska as a Non Resident I can buy over the counter muzzleloader deer tag in December. Another thing I can counter that aguement. If thats the theory. OK, Montana needs to consider what its neighbors do as well. North Dakota Mule deer Only 1% of there deer tags go to Non Resident Mule deer tags. So Montana needs to drop there allocation or North Dakota needs to up theres to meet Montana. So if Montana drops it to 1%, now Wyoming would need to do the same since it borders Montana, right down the line. In a nut shell all 50 states would need to do the same with that arguement since we all border each other if you consider that agruement. Colorado has certain season over the counter for elk tags that a NR can partipate in. North Dakota does only residents for there elk. My first though on that arguement is if we need to do as our neighbors. If my neighbor jumps off the bridge into a nasty river, should I do it because he just did???? Each state is unquie in its own way, so whatever they decide should be good, but the arguement what my neighbors do we need to do should not be considered into the equation. Should be based on whats the best for the state and its own circumstances. Waiting periods for draw tags. I was aware Mtn Goat is OIL, and moose sheep on the 5 year wait. I would be totally on the side of once in a lifetime for them big tags. This is Montana, not Wyoming, I know a guy who has drawn 2 ram tags for the Missouri breaks, and 3 mtn goat tags. 7 year waiting periods is how Montana does it. Not saying Wyoming needs to do it because of Montana as what I just talked about above, but heres my thought. Glad for him who drew these tags in Montana, however, kinda crappy someone else could not get a chance to expirience what that tag has to offer after he did. Not many people have that kind of luck. But, Id say the OIL status your talking about would be a good thing to help spread the tags out in those circumstances like I discribed. I would not even mind seeing LQ deer, elk, antelope tag holders needing to be a short term waiting period either. 2 years or 5 or whatever number in that range of some sort. Ive seen this in the store many times, example. The owner that I work for. Took him 17 years to draw a rifle elk tag for the Missouri Breaks here in Montana. His 2 sons between the 2 of them have had 2 tags each during that time. Good old fashioned luck, but a short waiting period would spread that out some. Ive heard many stories like that over and over. where some people draw tags all the time then the next guy cant draw anytime, Again, I get and understand both sides of the 90/10 conversation. I believe resident should get some good benifits, This all Should be based off facts not feelings. I doubt many people care what a NR guy from Montana says but neverless thought Id share my points. Ive also learned. If this has enough traction by the residents of Wyoming. Change will be coming sooner or later to some degree. However, Negiotions need to be in place, which Im assuming is what is gonna happen at some point. Ive been taught, if both sides are not happy with the outcome. It was pry a good deal. If one side is happy, means the other side got screwed. Thanks for reading. If you have any questions or whatever, feel free to let me know. I wish the time and effort in these dealings here, instead to be put towards trying and finding ways to better help the herd (s) and habitat. If that was done, be in theory more animals therefor more tags to go around for everyone. That would be a win win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Habitat improvement and access projects | Consider the long term affect of your decisions. | I would like the task force to know that I'm opposed to the 90/10 change. I'm currently a nonresident but hope to become a resident soon. The change only benefits a few inidividuals but hurts many including the towns and communities that count on nonresident dollars spent on food, lodging, gifts, etc. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Lowering hunter age to 10 y/o. By 12 kids are into sports and we have missed the ability to instill hunting as one of their passions. Lowering the age to 10 will help to recruit the next generation of outdoors women and men. Change elk management in Area 7 to a ranching for wildlife system. Give the landowners more control of a limited number of tags in exchange for public access for both bulls and cows. | I would like them to support the 90/10 split for resident/ nonresident tags. This will help to ensure that those who live here and ultimately invest the most money into the economy, year round, will be able to enjoy our wild resources more frequently. This is one way we can ensure our natural resources are available to the next generation of Wyomingites to enjoy. If we can recruit the next generations, then money will continue to be available to fund resource projects, research, and habitat improvement projects. Non resident money is not sustainable. Invest in the local hunters and next generation of local hunters as they are the ones who will be investing for years to come. The more local people who care means more long term investment in Wyoming’s way of life and the wildlife that we cherish. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | I am a non-resident who has been hunting in Wyoming nearly every year since 1993. It is my understanding that the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce has been formed to address hunting issues, including the allocation of big game tags between Wyoming resident and non-resident hunters. I am concerned that this may result in drastic reductions in, or higher costs for non-resident tags. I and thousands of other non-residents have spent thousands of dollars in Wyoming, not just on license fees, but also for hotels, restaurants, convenience stores, sporting goods retailers, clothing shops, car rentals, gas stations, outfitting and guide fees and much more. In other words, when I and the thousands of other hunters come to hunt in Wyoming, we spend millions of dollars that surely benefit resident business owners and employees, as well as the employees of county, city and state government agencies (including Game & Fish) throughout the state. Hunting is just the beginning; we also become tourists in spring, summer and winter. We fall in love with Wyoming. We bring our families, visit the bighorn mountains, fish the rivers, visit regions such as Jackson and Yellowstone, Devil’s Tower and many other sights, spending hard earned money everywhere we go. I urge the taskforce to consider the likelihood of loss of economic benefit to all the aforementioned Wyoming stakeholders. Consumers have choices. Any reduction in the availability of tags for non-residents or any increase in the cost of tags force hunting consumers to choose between Wyoming and another state. I submit that there are not enough residents of Wyoming who will be willing to pay a fee high enough to offset the loss of non-resident fees. Those same residents will certainly not replace the economic loss to the all the stakeholders discussed above, let alone the loss to Game & Fish. Consider the impact on employment. Service-related business and industry rely on tourism. Consider the hunting outfitting business, one that is directly impacted by the influx of non-resident hunters. Many of these Wyoming citizens guide part time to add to their meager annual incomes. Please consider how many of these employees and other service business workers will lose jobs due to any policy that discourages non-resident visitors. Even though I love to hunt in and visit Wyoming, if I face reduced opportunities or higher costs, I will surely consider other options. Please consider the economic impact of the policies you adopt. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Preservation of quality hunting. Optimum game numbers. | This will be a tough decision for those of you involved in the process. I don't envy your position at this point... but we all know, as unfortunate and difficult as it may be, what the solution is. Thanks for stepping up to the plate on this. | We have vacationed in Wyoming for 25 years. We have also fished and hunted as non-residents. During these past two-and-a-half decades we have noticed a decline in game numbers and a large increase in hunting and recreational pressure. We built our new home (now retired 35 years military) in Buffalo. My wife grew up here. I do believe something needs to be done to ensure quality hunting experiences and to preserve optimum numbers of animals. I do not have a perfect solution as that is a unicorn that escapes all of us. Even though I will be applying as a resident next year, if I were still a non-resident I would support the 90-10 proposal in order to preserve the quality hunting experience. It is a travesty that a non-resident must apply in other states in order to try and secure a tag to put meat in their freezer or to enjoy the challenge of a good hunt. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | The investment that long time point purchasers have made to WY, with the understanding of the current ratio and staying in the game due to this understanding. We have already endured multiple price increases,based on the probability of drawing at the current ratios. | Please don't cut tags so much for the non-resident that the blue collar hunter either gets to old or can't afford to stay in the points game. I realize demand for tags in your great state is high, but folks that have invested for all these years shouldn't just have the rug pulled out at the finish line. | I am very concerned with the proposed 90/10 split. As a non-resident who has spent 18 years applying for moose, I have seen multiple point fee increases. I have weathered these increases without complaint, even with prices going from 14$ to the current prices. Throughout this I've already had to drop my sheep points about 10 years in, due to these increases. I am not a young man and am afraid if WY goes through with these changes, I will never have the opportunity at my one chance to experience a Shiras moose hunt. I already stretch my budget just to have a chance to experience hunts that only the wealthy elsewhere get to experience. Please consider all of us who have invested in your great state for all these years, with the understanding that if we stayed the course the opportunity would eventually come. As proposed these opportunitys are pretty much gone. I also have many points invested in elk,deer and antelope and will strongly consider using all asap and drop out of WY as one of my annual applications. I realize WY is generous to us non residents and I truly appreciate every opportunity I get to hunt, but long time point purchases for species like moose should not hve the rules changed right as they've earned a once-in-a- lifetime adventure. Please consider other options that aren't so detrimental to long time high dollar point purchasers. I am noy sure what the answer for resident hunter opportunity, but please don't punish some of your most loyal customers. Thank you for your time and consideration, | |||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | There are ways to increase resident opportunities that would have less of an effect on nonresident opportunities than simply going to a 90/10 split. If nonresident hunters were only able to apply for 1 of the big 5 species per year, there could potentially be a significant reduction in applicants across several of the species. If you were to further limit nonresidents to apply on odd or even years (depending on their year of birth) applications would be further reduced. Neither of these options are perfect, but if combined with the 90/10 split the nonresidents (on years when they were eligible to apply for a single species) would face better drawing odds. Preference points could still be purchased annually. Leftover Tags could be distributed in the drawing to eligible applicants in a second drawing as they are currently. With the growing number of applicants, we as hunters can face improved odds by going to an odd/even year system. While I would love to hunt big game in Wyoming every year, I'm certain that there isn't enough opportunity for everyone to do the same. I'm not asking for more than ten percent for nonresidents (although that would be nice) I'm asking for additional changes that improve drawing odds for every nonresident involved- even if that means that I would only be able to hunt every other year. Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | As a nonresident I get the opportunity to hunt Wyoming every couple of years. It is truly a special place and it would be a shame to face further limited opportunities if this 90/10 rule is passed. Point creep in my lifetime has made getting to hunt Wyoming increasingly difficult. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | As a non resident changing to a 90:10 split will effectively eliminate any chance for me to draw a tag. I have 6 years of preference points saved up for antelope, mule deer and elk. Point creep has already significantly limited the opportunities I have in Wyoming. The impact will be even worse for new hunters. They’ll need to apply for dozens of years just to have a small chance to draw any tag. I believe residents deserve the lion’s share of the tags. However hunting our public lands in different states is one of the great privileges of this country. If the proposal passes I’ll no longer consider Wyoming for my next adventure. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | 90/10 split res/nonres Waiting period after drawing a limited tag for elk deer and antelope, not by area either but a straight waiting period preferably 5 yrs sit out of draw for that species in all LQ areas, Land owner land should be a whole section to receive tags I feel to many people getting 160 acres and that’s the only use as some nonres only come for hunting season. | As a resident I feel the nonres wilderness law is uncalled for, I really Think it would spread out the crowding especially in region H If the law was abolished!! Thanks for taking on this task of trying to find solutions to the residents/ nonresident concerns. Has to be a pretty tuff task. Thanks again and I’m sure as a task force you will be able to find some solutions to some problems!! | I feel that the 90/10 quota proposal should go through especially for big 5, the amount of these tags is really unjust, it really shows on the mountain goat hunts. Also think no nonres tags should be available on hunts with 10 or fewer permits available. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Nr access to wildernesses | Don’t cut tags to nr. Open access to wilderness areas to nr. It’s public land, stop having rules against access. | Na | |||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | A resident preference point system for limited quota elk, deer, and antelope. | It might be worth considering offering "archery only", "muzzleloader only", or "handgun only" options to limited quota drawing areas. That would change the way everyone applies for limited quota licenses and may open more opportunities. | I think a preference point system to increase resident hunter opportunities for elk, deer, and antelope is worth considering. To offset the financial impact of reducing non-resident opportunities, I think resident hunters would be willing to pay more to improve their chances of drawing a tag in their preferred, limited quota areas - this could be accomplished through a preference point system. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Is the perception skewed because of some rough winters/dry summers/fires? | I understand that residents are entitled to a bigger slice of the pie than nonresidents, but cutting nonresident tags back even more would likely take Wyoming completely off many NR list of states to hunt altogether. Sure, that looks good to residents, but they better be ready for a large increase in tag cost, because the NRs front a LOT of money into the system. What is the answer? Does anyone know? But right now, Wyoming has, in my opinion, the best system as far as tag allocation, quality of animals as well as quantity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | I don’t think it’s fair to nonresidents that have invested thousands of dollars to change it all at once from 25 to 10%!!! I believe Wyoming residents should have more than 75% of the tags. But I would suggest shifting it 1% a year. That would take 15 years to accomplish & would give nonresidents a chance to get out of the system. To go from 25 to 10 in one year may cause you to have breech of contract issues! You collected a lot of money under a certain pretext! Thanks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | Why can't I hunt public land wilderness areas as ameican tax payer I am shocked that you are restricting me to hunt theses areas. I can fish I can camp I can recreate here without any issues but the minute I decide to hunt there it's not ok?! do you realize how stupid this is?! Stop pandering to these shady outfitters and open up wilderness areas to all americans | Resident fees should be raised. Non res opportunities should be increased they are paying more opportunities should should show this | 90/10 is stupid. Stop pandering to the guides and open up more area to nonres hunters | |||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Another problem I see is the number of people who can apply as a party, personally I think there should be no party permits but if G&F sticks with one should be no more than 2, spread it out a little even though we have profited from it a few times I don’t think it’s a good thing allowing so many in the party. | Also would like to see a mandatory Harvest reporting weather successful or not. And if you have a tag and don’t report one way or the other then can’t apply in the next years draw or even purchase any kind of license. Also think a system where residents have to pick a region for mule deer would also be a good thing. Try and keep Sportsman’ from bouncing around for different openers and hopefully that would take a little pressure off those Muleys. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Also I believe the big 5 should go to once in a lifetime, kinda sucks but I feel it would be a good thing, already probably is for most already so it wouldn’t hurt !! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | I feel that a 90/10, resident/non-resident, allocation of big game tags is too limiting to non-resident hunters and would have a negative impact on Wyoming's economy. | I currently hold two bonus points, with another point coming in November, for antelope, deer, and elk in Wyoming. I am planning on continuing to build points. If the 90/10 tag allocation passes, I will take my money and interest in western hunting to a state that offers a better chance of drawing a tag. | I feel that non-resident hunters provide an annual boost to a number of local businesses in Wyoming that would be sorely missed if non -resident hunters are limited to 10% of available tags. I have no problem with grizzlies being managed as a wildlife resource in Wyoming, however I feel that severely limiting access to non-resident tags is bad news for the state of Wyoming. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | NR not in favor of the 90/10 allocation of tags. Moving the finish line during the game is not fair. NR’s have invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars buying overpriced points patiently playing by the rules waiting for their opportunity to draw a tag just to have the rules changed. Stop charging for points in the future if the rules keep changing, because they will become worthless. Kinda like having your retirement age moved back or your roth dollars taxed after you played by the rules for years!!! | Go to a neighbor state to hunt, but you cant draw a tag because every game and fish is hell bent on restricting NR’s. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Management of wolves and bears! If Wyoming wants to increase opportunity for hunting then reduce the amount of animals that eat elk and mule dear. More elk and mule dear mean more tags for residents and non-residents. Many areas which once had thriving elk numbers no longer exist. Hunters refuse to hunt those areas. The biggest economic driver in Western States is elk hunting so why not do everything in your power to provide more opportunities, especially for the non-resident who spend the most on those hunts? | Are ancestors killed wolves and Grizzly bears for a reason. We are no smarter than they were. Like any other animal they should be managed which means hunting them. I am all for residents being able to hunt in their states but as I write this I am looking at a bill sitting on my desk from the federal government. I too should have a right to hunt on ground I am helping to support. The system Wyoming has in place has been working and so why change? Politics and money? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Our family visits your great state 2-3 times per year (summer, winter and when you issue us big game tags). If you decide to cut much of non resident tag allocation, we would understand but would also invest our vacation time elsewhere. Thank you | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | I am in favor of waiting periods for residents on any hunt unit where demand exceeds established quota. This would create more resident opportunity for hunt of choice. The nonresident is stuck with the point system as it was designed, flaws and all. I also support residents and nonresidents being required to choose a region to hunt on a general tag. This is more about creating data rather than limiting opportunity. Many advocates for reducing nonresident tag allocation (90/10) justify such by comparing Wyoming to other states allocations. What many fail to mention is that no other western state forbids nonresident to hunt wilderness area unless with a guide or qualifying resident. There cannot be an honest conversation about limiting nonresidents without considering other limitations in place. It’s my belief there needs to be discussion about mandatory harvest surveys to create hard data for game managers and allow for biological specimen collection when necessary. When game herds are in decline or diseased it is foolish not to consider specimen collection from legally harvested animals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | I would like to address nonresident hunting opportunities. I am sad to see that you are going the opposite direction of what many non-residents would like to see which is more hunting opportunities not less,Also consider with less money coming into your state from non-resident hunters will fees be going up on residents to make up for the missing revenue the services you offer will still need to be paid for somehow | I will be watching this closely I have hunted your state I was planning to return I’ve been buying points for several years but this vote may change everything, and I may have to start investing in another state | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | I live in MT and believe Wyoming residents have it better than any other state. What issues are you having? I have friends that have moved to Wyoming who say there is no comparison to MT or other Western states. Wyoming is hands down the best hunting for a resident. Hard to argue that in my opinion. You run your limited tags well for non res and its a wait for almost everything. The hunting is good when you get there though. If this were to change, what happens to those of us who have invested in points over the years? They become worthless? Please stay the course, no need to change. I don't see why you would want to push non res out. Just keep the limits as are as residents have it pretty dang good. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | I would like to see discussion on how to best work with landowners to retire domestic sheep grazing allotments in and near bighorn habitat so as to give our bighorn sheep herds opportunity to flourish. | I support the 90/10 allotment for the big 5 species in Wyoming for Wyoming residents since I support the same in my home state of Montana. However, if that were to pass I would like to see a change in preference point/ random draw allocation for those species so that someone who has not been collecting points for years would still have some chance of drawing one of those tags. I would support something like a 50/50 allocation that would provide more random opportunity in more units than the current allocation allows. That would cause someone like me to actually apply annually if I knew there was a chance, no matter how small, to draw. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | The true cost to the state of eliminating 1/2 of the non resident hunters from tag opportunities as well as the fairness of changing the rules after many of us have been sending Wyoming money for points for years (14 in my case), and making my points essentially worthless. | If the tag allocation ratio is changed to 90/10% I will probably stop applying in Wyoming as I have done in other western states that treat non residents unfairly. | Increasing resident hunter opportunity will only come from solid game management. Stripping 1/2 of the non resident tags will only result in a very small percentage increase in resident opportunity, on the nature of 1-3% while reducing non resident opportunity by 50 % and cutting G&F income drastically. I am in favor of keeping the tag allocations as they are. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | Advise the legislature to expedite passing 90/10 for the big 5 AND elk/antelope | There appears to be an over representation of outfitters and large landowners on the task force, I hope they put the desires of average resident hunters above their personal agendas. | Please recommend 90/10 for the big 5 but especially for elk and antelope. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | Dont take a non res chance away to hunt with 90/10 big loss of income to your state | Do not limit tags to 90/10 unfair , non res spend lots of money in Wyoming , you could be killing your future income | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | 90-10 tag split | We non-resident hunters of Wyoming I’ve been spending thousands of dollars to buy preference points for most of those species and if they cut the percentage of tags at nonresidents get it’s gonna take us many many more years to draw these tags. We find roughly 75% of the hunt program and if you’re going to only give us 10% of the tags that’s totally unfair Being Wyoming has a very large percentage of public land is another reason why this is totally unfair Please vote against the 90/10 split of percentage of tags I’ve been hunting Wyoming since 1988 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Keeping NR tag allocations as they are. And removing the wilderness ruling that require NR to hire a guide to hunt in any wilderness. | First I would like to thank Wyoming for offering great hunting to Non-Residents (NR). I know residents want more, but from the standpoint of a NR with over 20 sheep points I feel it is unfair to cut NR off at the knees. NR have been contributing the major portion of the Wyoming Game and Fish revenue. Of the $88 million WY G&F revenue NR contribute $44 million through license revenue. And the $19 million received from Federal Aid would most likely not happen without the NR revenue to match these funds. I would like to see the current tag allocation for R & NR stay the same. This is what I feel is fair. Thank you | First I would like to thank Wyoming for offering great hunting to Non-Residents (NR). I know residents want more, but from the standpoint of a NR with over 20 sheep points I feel it is unfair to cut NR off at the knees. NR have been contributing the major portion of the Wyoming Game and Fish revenue. Of the $88 million WY G&F revenue NR contribute $44 million through license revenue. And the $19 million received from Federal Aid would most likely not happen without the NR revenue to match these funds. I would like to see the current tag allocation for R & NR stay the same. This is what I feel is fair. Thank you | |||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | I currently hunt whitetail deer every year in Wyoming and antelope every 2-3 years. I hunt with a group of several other friends and we pay trespass fees to landowners for the areas we hunt. We stay in local hotels during our hunts. Eat at local restaurants, purchase gas and provisions at local stores, all of which adds up to each of us contributing several thousand dollars to the small struggling local economies. The vast majority of the other people we see at hotels, restaurants, and gas stations during our adventures are also nonresident hunters. In my opinion it would be a significant financial hardship to many businesses in small towns throughout Wyoming that rely on dollars from nonresident hunters every fall to make ends meet. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | As above, 90/10 percent licenses for residents on moose, sheep , goat and bison | Now non residents get an over whelming number of pronghorn licenses due to the roll over from resident pool into their draw. This needs to stop, keep those licenses available to residents in the leftover draw as well as NR. No preference points for residents for pronghorn, deer or elk. They do not work to guarantee anyone a license, they just make it impossible for those without PP to get a good licenses. Random draw is most fair and what I support actually for all licenses- sheep and moose included. | I am in favor of 90/10 spilt on sheep, moose, goat and bison I do not support making them once in a lifetime licenses. I would love top see under allocated antelope, deer and elk license for residents either go right into the leftover draw pool or into a leftover draw for residents. I do not support rolling those licenses right into the non resident draw as it is done now. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | I would like to address the 90/10 bill and impacts on nonresident hunters in Wyoming generally. I realize the taskforce is focused primarily on resident hunter opportunities, but I would like to share my observations of what is happening as Wyoming and many western states tilt too heavily against nonresidents. I am a DIY big game hunter. I apply for tags in my home state (Oregon) and several other western states. It is expensive to do so and frequently I spend years spending on application fees, licenses, and points before securing a tag. I am not wealthy. When I draw a tag, I do not spend thousands on a local guide for the hunt. I do my research and take my best shot. When I am lucky enough to draw a tag in a state like Wyoming, it is a signature trip for the year and gives me the opportunity to explore new places in our country. Nonresident hunters are under attack in many western states through reduced numbers of tags, limiting provisions of tags, and/or higher fees. I recognize why nonresident hunters would pay an amount nominally greater than residents and have somewhat more limited opportunities, but the relative difference has become stark and oppressive. I have no doubt that if Wyoming continues in the trend toward greatly reduced nonresident opportunities and greatly increased costs, the state will still enjoy good demand for nonresident tags. But that demand will only come from the wealthy and privileged. DIY hunters of modest means like myself will no longer participate. That shift will likely not impact the financial wellbeing of the Wyoming Game & Fish Department. But I would request that you consider the mission of departments of game and fish everywhere, which I believe includes a dedication to access to the public generally. I am a great proponent of the hunting tradition and enjoying our public lands. I would like to see the opportunities I have enjoyed remain strong for my children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, all of the current trends I am seeing in hunting regulation seem to be tilting less toward stewardship of a public good and more toward capitalizing on what the highest bidder is willing to pay. I would encourage you to maintain a sense of balance and long-term sustainability as you consider hunting opportunities for all interested parties. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | Please stay at the 80/20 split. | Changing to a 90/10 split is stealing the money I have payed to Wyoming. If the 80/20 split is changed I will no longer spend my money in Wyoming. | As a non resident hunter I want you to know I have been applying and paying for non resident preference point for 15 years. I believe it will be unjust to cut my odds in half. I have been paying for a chance at 20 percent of the tags knowing the odds were slim. I will not pay those fees for half the odds. At 20 percent I might never draw, going to 10 percent means I will never draw. So I will not apply. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | Hunter access | I have experienced 7-8 hunts in Wyoming and have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I currently apply for 4 species down from 6. The reason I have reduced my involvement is because of the Wyoming system. Based on the current situation the cost of applying has become cost prohibitive. Just for bonus points for it costs $300 for 5 species. This does not include app fees and convenience fees. Over the last 20 plus years I have contributed at least $5-10,000 dollars of fees to the state of Wyoming. This does not include tag fees. If you reduce non-resident permits from 25/75 to 10/90 (resident/nonresident) I am done applying in Wyoming. Your state will lose my $500 plus dollars per year. I believe there are thousands of other non residents that will do the same. COVID has created a false environment. You all believe that hunter interest will continue at this level but it won’t. This is a passing phenomenon. You have the opportunity to do the right thing and maintain the 25/75 tag allocation. It is a win/win. The state receives the funds they need to run the department And the animals receive the money they need to maintain research and Conservation of the species. PS I have contributed to underpass and overpass projects as well as other conservation projects to support your wildlife. I refuse to do so in the future if you choose to change the 25/75 allocation to 19/90. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | Non resident opportunities to hunt more. Make it possible to hunt without a guide in Wilderness. What a joke that is. | I love hunting in Wyoming. | Please remember us non residents. I have hunted in Wyoming yearly - enjoying the great state of Wyoming. Often staying in your state for a week at a time. I am not a trophy hunter and due to increase in costs, stay away from Sheep, moose etc. I hope it is still possible for me to enjoy hunting in your state every year and you value the income this brings to your state. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | See above comment- | Thanks for your time. | As a Non-Resident that has hunted Wyoming since the early 1990's. decreasing the opportunity for Non-residents by cutting the allocation in half to those that support the Wyoming Game and fish the most with their Licenses and preference point revenue is IMO cutting out the core of hunters that lend the most support to the resources from a financial stand point as well and helping with decision making and support of the resources from other avenues. I have almost 20 preference points for Moose and several points for Deer Elk and Antelope and if the reduction on non-resident license allocations is approved, I will leave my points on the table and hunt elsewhere. Hopefully the taskforce will look at improving non-resident opportunities instead of eliminating them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | That the Task Force (not) consider reducing number of Non-Resident tags for annual distribution. | In looking forward to a Hunt of a Lifetime, it would be extremely disappointing to be penalized after investing a large portion of money supporting the WYF&G Commission. | As a Non-Resident hunter, I have been purchasing Preference points over a period of 12-years with plans to make both an Antelope and Mule deer hunt in 2021. With my recent retirement, I would ask that the Task Force (not) consider reducing number of Non-Resident tags for annual distribution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | As a nonresident hunter who has spent years building up points for certain animals and had the pleasure of being able to hunt antelope many times all the way back into the 1970's I'm hoping you will understand the amount of time and money nonresidents have put into your state game treasury. I feel that if you go to 90/10 I may not draw several tags that I have bought points for since Wyoming started the nonresident points system. I'm aware of many young hunters that are nonresidents in the area that I've mentored that I worry will lose interest as their chances of drawing diminish. It feels a little like the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game. I realize the task force has the right to do this but I'm hoping they won't for younger not residents who are just getting their start and for old farts like me who are close to the opportunity that we've been planning for and saving for. | I thank you for many of the wise decision the game commission has made through the years and hope they continue. | As a nonresident I realize you don't have to listen to me but I'm hoping you will consider the opinion of nonresident hunters who have spent money lots of it and time in your great state. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | Habitat loss / improvement, increasing overall opportunity | The current system is a financial boon to Wyoming, and the negative impacts of making changes will be significant and far reaching | The only way to significantly increase hunting opportunity for big game species in Wyoming is to improve habitat and increase the carrying capacity of the land (primarily winter range.) Elimination or reduction of non-resident tags will have a negligible impact on opportunity for residents. There will never be enough sheep tags to meet the demand, for example, and a handful of non-resident tags converted to resident tags will not reduce the back log or demand. Reduction or elimination of non-resident tags WILL disenfranchise a hunting constituency which has historically supported Wyoming G+F in numerous ways. I currently have 23 sheep points, only 9 moose points, 6 deer points and 9 antelope points. I currently apply for all big game species in Wyoming each year. In addition to my yearly contributions through points and fees, I attend RMEF banquets (2-3) annually in Wyoming, support MFF and WSF both financially and in on the ground projects. While currently a non-resident, my roots are in Wyoming, and I happily participate and donate to conservation efforts in Wyoming. Changing the tag allocation method after this many years of increasingly high fees would be a slap in the face of all NR sportsmen, and do nothing to help residents. It is short-sighted, counter productive, and and emotional tit for tat strategy that should be beneath the great state of Wyoming. Fragmenting hunters and disenfranchising non-residents does not bode well for the future of conservation in Wyoming and across the United States. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | The potential harm to Wyoming's guide/outfitter industry if the 90/10 split is approved. | I am a non-resident hunter in Wyoming and have accumulated 14 years of preference points. This represents a fair bit of money to me. I completely understand resident hunters interest in the 90/10 allocation of tags and support it with some reasonable sideboards in place. My investment in the preference point system represents to me, an agreement with the state that I would increase my opportunity to obtain a tag in some future year. If Wyoming changes that agreement to support a profound different in the tag opportunity it would be a very underhanded way to cheat on an agreement already bought and paid for by me. If a 90/10 allocation can be created that protects non-residents that have already purchased preference points, I probably would support it. Not if it harms my finances however. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | NA | NA | If Non-resident hunting opportunities are reduced then I will no longer apply for any type of hunting tags in the state. I also will have no reason to go on my yearly fishing and summer vacations in the same area that I like to hunt. Wyoming residents already have far more opportunity than other western states. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | I think Wyoming residents already have the greatest hunting opportunities available in the West. | Make the grizzly hunt a top priority | I would like the task force to consider eliminating bonus points for these species all together. As a NR who has been buying points and hunting Wyoming every few years, the suggested adjustment in allocation will render the point system as it is constituted useless for all but a very small minority of hunters. Instead, abolish the points and allow every hunter young and old the opportunity at a tag. | |||||||||||||||||||||||