| 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 | First Name | Last Name | Comment #1: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that, if adopted by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, would limit the number of type 1 antelope licenses to one (1) per person (current regulation allows two (2) per person). This recommendation is being considered in the interest of potentially providing more hunter opportunity to more sportspersons each year. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | Comment #2: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would establish ‘High-Demand (HD) Antelope, Deer, and Elk hunt areas. On an annual basis, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (herein after the “Commission”) shall designate and publish high-demand and standard-demand hunt areas for antelope, deer, and elk. These hunt areas shall be determined by averaging the previous three years of resident drawing odds for each individual unit for Type 1, 2, and 9 licenses. High-demand, or HD hunt areas, shall be those whose three-year average is 30% or less, and all others shall be designated as standard-demand, or Standard Demand (SD) areas. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | Comment #3: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would create a ‘90/10 Quota Split in HD areas – Status Quo Split in SD areas. The Commission shall establish regulations that designate 90% of available Type 1, 2, and 9 licenses in HD Units to residents and 10% to non-residents. This quota split will be only for the initial drawing. Any licenses remaining unallocated after the initial drawing shall be made available in the Leftover Draw. In all SD areas the quota split shall be as it is currently established by Commission Rule, with 80% of Type 1, 2, and 9 Deer and Antelope licenses available to residents, 20% to non-residents, and 84% of Type 1, 2, and 9 Elk Licenses available to residents and 16% to non-residents. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | Comment #4: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would create a ‘Waiting Period After Holding a HD Unit Type 1, 2, or 9 License’. The Commission, through its rules and regulation, shall establish guidelines that impose a mandatory waiting period for any individual, excluding a qualified landowner holding a landowner license, who possessed a Type 1, 2, or 9 antelope, deer, or elk license for a HD Unit. Those individuals shall be ineligible to apply for another Type 1, 2, or 9 license for the respective species in any HD area for a period of 3-years after drawing one of these licenses. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | Comment #5: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would create an ‘Outfitted Non-Resident License Pool Drawing’. The Wyoming Legislature shall establish in statute, and direct the Commission to develop and promulgate any necessary rules and regulations, an Outfitted Non-Resident License Pool Drawing. Through statute, rule, or regulation change, eliminate the non-resident “special license” designation, and create a pool of an equivalent amount (40%) of the available non-resident licenses that shall be awarded in a competitive drawing. Only non-residents who are contracted with a registered Wyoming Outfitter shall be eligible to enter into this drawing. Increase the license fee for this pool in amounts sufficient to cover the anticipated reduction in revenue associated with other actions by the legislature. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | Comment #6: The Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce is considering a recommendation that would establish a ‘Resident Preference in Leftover License Drawing’. The Commission shall establish rules/regulations, and direct the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, to implement a system where residents receive preference over non-residents in a competitive drawing for any unsubscribed (leftover) licenses from the initial drawing. Should the Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce recommend this change to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission? | ||||||||||||||||||
2 | Cody | Carlin | Yes, antelope demand has increased significantly while the populations have declined in recent years. | No | No, as this would hurt local economies who benefit from NR hunters. It would also lead to more crowding in General Elk units. | Yes, this is fair. | No. This will hurt DIY Non-residents and residents alike. It will result in outfitters leasing more rancher with the increased tag demand, which would like reduce walk-in-area acreage or hand-shake access that is currently available to DIY R and NR alike. It will put outfitter pressure in areas that haven't had it previously (lots of easy access antelope areas that anyone can hunt DIY come to mind). | I respect the right of residents to have first preference for leftovers. | ||||||||||||||||||
3 | Carl | Smith | Yes. I think this is a good idea. | No, I do not agree with this. Not enough information is given with this question. What is the purpose? Would there be a waiting period for hunters who draw a license in one of these areas? Would these designations change from year to year as draw odds change? | No. I do not agree with the separate designations of HD and SD areas. | No, see previous answers. This is complicating the system. | No, absolutely not. I do not agree with outfitter set asides. I do not believe outfitters should be catered to and given priority for licenses. Why should they be given preference over DIY hunters? This goes against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and is one step closer to privatizing wildlife. | I think any leftover resident licenses in the initial draw should only be available to residents, either via a second drawing or first come first serve. Likewise, any leftover nonresident licenses after the initial draw should be available to only nonresidents. | ||||||||||||||||||
4 | Anthony | Naples | Yes | Not sure the benefit to doing it. What would change by renaming them ? | Strong NO | No. They still have to compete to draw the next season. | No this would force more people to use guides and hunting already is too expensive for many young people. I use guides when I choice too. But I have done many DYI hunts and enjoy them more. | Residents already get most of the tags. They don’t need more advantages. | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Johnny | Bergeson | I support this as it would allow other opportunities to other hunters. | No, this one makes my head hurt! | I do not support this regulation. If you want to do the 90/10 rule I believe the wilderness regulation regarding non residents should go away. | I would support this regulation. This would allow others including residents to draw HD tags only if this was for the HD tags only and not the general pool. This regulation I believe would work well if you allowed those that drew HD tags to hunt general in their waiting period. | I am a licensed outfitter in the state of Wyoming and would not support this regulation. I think it would limit public access to wyomings HMA and walk in access on private lands. I think land owners and other bigger outfitters will lease more property in which this will ultimately make the land owners decline or leave the programs that are currently set for public land hunters! | I don’t support this as the reason there are left over tags is because most of the residents currently don’t want any of those tags. Let it be open to all applicants. | ||||||||||||||||||
6 | Josh | Stevens | Great idea | Yes | I am just a average guy from the Midwest and absolutely love your state. Your state is very generous to us nonresidents and do understand if you really need to go 90/10. I would absolutely pay more for the tags me and my kids draw every other year if that would help keep the 80/20. We would not be able to afford the high outfit prices though just my thoughts thanks | I like the idea | Would rather pay double the price for tags keep the money in Wyoming game and fish. small percent of the people getting really big percent of tags | Yes residents first then nonresident | ||||||||||||||||||
7 | Shane | Sanderson | yes this is a good idea. More people should have any opportunity. | Not sure what this is meant to do. | yes I think residents deserve more opportunity to hunt these areas. | Yes. I prefer a random draw to a preference point system and this would help spread those licenses out. | NO, why would you make people go through outfitters. Let them decide on their own. Outfitters don't need anymore government assistance. | Yes residents deserve first chance at left over licesnses. | ||||||||||||||||||
8 | Jeff | Orvin | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No. It should be zero percent. I don’t think people should be forced to patronize businesses. This is just another form of outfitter welfare. If these businesses want someone’s business they should earn it. I know this will fall on deaf ears as The Taskfarce is a conflict of interest in itself. | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
9 | Steven | Priest | This is in line with other big game animals. I support this idea | Moving areas from “high” to “standard” demand based solely on resident numbers of applicants seems like missing the whole picture. There may be much more demand on an area when looking at the entire picture of resident and non resident applications. Another question would be of only certain types of the licenses in an area would be considered high demand or if the entire area would be high demand. Elk area 11 for example, the type 9 license would be high demand, the type 1 may not. Would all of area 11 be high demand or just area 11 type 9? | If we do go qualifying areas as High Demand, I would support having a 90/10 split in those areas. | This would allow more people to draw the high demand areas more often. My question would be, if I drew a high demand area (I.e. elk area 16) could I apply in another high demand area (i.e. elk area 100)? | This is a bad idea. We already do enough to help out the outfitters with our wilderness rule that requires an outfitter. Giving 40% of tags to outfitters would price out many that want to come hunt and support other local businesses such as restaurants, hotels, etc. This is not a good change at all for Wyoming. | As a resident I would enjoy preference in the leftover draw. However, I can also purchase general deer and elk if I wish. If a NR gets a tag over me in the leftover draw, I am not upset. I am not sure this is necessary. | ||||||||||||||||||
10 | Shane | Palmer | No, every year their are left over tags on the east side of the state, if they want one they can have one | No | No, if you keep taking away the non resident tags, are tags prices will increase threw the roof. Non residents pick up the tab for the g&f and I’m good with that, keeping resident tags affordable | Hell no, every unit where I live would be considered a HD, I would rather have a opportunity to draw a tag every year than play the waiting game | No, g&f sell every allotted license to NR right now, stop messing with their tags | No | ||||||||||||||||||
11 | Irvan | McLean | Yes, for the regular draw, a second type 1 tag should still be available through the left over draw | No, the information is already available | Yes, although HD units should be determined at 50% odds or less | No, would be a yes for HD units at 10% odds or less | No, unfair to diy nonresidents | No, give them all to nonresidents and make that money, they are only leftover because no one wanted them | ||||||||||||||||||
12 | Joshua | Sunberg | No | Yes | No | Yes | No Outfitter Welfare. | No, don’t want to draw it 3rd or 4th choice you didn’t want it to begin with. Wyoming doesn’t need to make more money on PP. | ||||||||||||||||||
13 | Deanna | Wise | Yes I would support this ad a Wyoming resident | Yes I would support | Yes I support | Yes I would support | No would not support | Yes I would support | ||||||||||||||||||
14 | Rodney | Wise | Yes I would support this as a resident of Wyoming | Yes I would support this... | Yes i would support this | Yes I would support this... | Would not support Outfitter Non Resident Pool | I would support this.... | ||||||||||||||||||
15 | Robert | Fair | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
16 | Justin | Smith | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
17 | Chris | Bannor | I think this is a great idea. At least until the population rebounds. | Yes they should. | I think this sounds fair. | I think this is a good idea to help more people draw HD tags. | Absolutely not. I an strongly against this. Outfitters that run a reputable business don't have a problem getting clients. This type of rule has impacted New Mexico already. | No it should not be recommended. Residents already have many chances to draw tags. They are leftovers for a reason. | ||||||||||||||||||
18 | Robin | Wise | I like this idea and only drawing such a tag every couple of years. | Not a bad idea for moose, sheep, and Goat. Leave the Elk, Pronghorn and Dear alone!!! Most residents apply to the same high demand units every year and wonder why they don’t draw. That’s their choice and they still get a general tag. What are they bitching about. The same lazy people don’t research or do any scouting. They want it handed to them. A LE tag is not going to help them. They won’t scout or do any research, won’t kill a trophy animal and bitch about it!! The focus should be on opportunity to hunt period!!! Residents have all the opportunities in the world. | I like this. | I do not agree with this!!! This is outfitter welfare and should never be done!! All they have to do is support hunting forums and start some conversations. I see it on Bowsite every year. Outfitters will start a thread documenting their success weekly during a season. Good outfitters don’t need hand outs!!! Their reputation speaks for itself. Does Wagon Hound need handouts?? They could sign up on a list on WGF website!! They already get the wilderness handout, isn’t that enough!!! I hope that gets challenged next, by the way. | I like this idea! | |||||||||||||||||||
19 | Andrew | Nielsen | I recommend making this change to allow more opportunities for more hunters. More opportunities to appeal to residents and non residents . | This is creative and could be used as a negotiation landing point. | I’m in favor of 90-10 across the board, however when negotiating this would be a fair and creative way of making progress towards more reasonable resident draw rates in highly demanded areas. After being a resident for 7 years and never drawing a high demand elk tag I feel the frustration many residents feel. We should be looking to make this comparable to Montana’s allocations. | Waiting period of 3 years seems reasonable and appropriate. | Seems reasonable. | Yes. | ||||||||||||||||||
20 | Todd | Bouley | Allow the second after left over drawing | NO, LEAVE ALONE everyone already knows what is high demand and what's not. | Leave things the way they are. There's no preference or splitting with the State Lottery, why aren't we crying about not whining, it's the same system, everyone has a number and they draw numbers. People need to GROW THE HELL UP. | Definitely not, we should be able to try our chances every year, if they are worried about not drawing then put in for a lower demand, THERE'S NO HELP TO WIN THE STATE LOTTERY, WHY UPEND A SYSTEM THAT'S WORKING EXCEPT FOR SOME. | This should not go thru, no preference should be given, should remain the way it is, if you draw and it's an individual choice to hire and outfitter, no tags or quota should be given here. | Agree here, while leaving the 90/10 out of play. | ||||||||||||||||||
21 | Wayne | Buckles | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
22 | Tony | Ostheimer | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
23 | Brad | Jones | I am not opposed to this change as it would increase hunting opportunities. | I do not believe areas need to be designated HD or SD. We as residents, don't have preference points, which is a good thing, I believe it is up to the individual sports person to decide if the odds of putting in for a more desirable area is worth the chance of not drawing a tag. There are great animals in every unit which can be drawn with much better odds. It's up to the sportsperson to research and scout areas. Designating HD and SD areas will only lead to less opportunities for resident hunters and will probably be a gateway to a residents preference point system, which I, as many others greatly oppose. Also, this question is obviously a direct precursor to the following issues as a mandatory waiting period and the 90/10 spilt. Which I am opposed to because it will limit hunting opportunities. I oppose this recommendation. | For this to take effect, first the HD/SD area recommendation would have to be approved, which I am against to begin with. For the majority of areas this will have no effect to anyway as there would be more SD areas than HD areas. For some of what would be HD areas there are so few tags given, than there are already no non resident tags available. And once again, the choice should be left upon the individual sportsperson to research and decide what to apply for based on draw odds that are currently published. I am opposed to this recommendation as there are more areas this would not affect than it would. I also believe this is just another part of the plan to bring about a waiting period to draw the most desirable tags in the state which I am also opposed to. I oppose this recommendation. | Firstly there are currently no HD/SD areas, so that would have to go into effect before this could be enacted anyway. I have already expressed my objection to that recommendation, and I object to this recommendation as well. We do not have preference points for residents in this state, and it should remain that way. This recommendation only penalizes people who are lucky enough to draw a desirable tag and further reduces possible hunting opportunities. Since we do not have preference points, which we never should, there is no reason to limit the possibility of what tags may possibly be drawn. The burden should be placed on the individual sportsperson who is applying to determine what odds of drawing a tag they are comfortable with and research the draw odds of what they wish to draw, as well as understand the possibilities of not drawing. I oppose this recommendation | I object to this recommendation. Any governing body, WGFD included, should not actively benefit private companies such as outfitter businesses. This recommendation only provides benefits to outfitters and takes away from all others. Local businesses will also be negatively impacted by the decrease in DIY hunters. There is not a single benefit to anybody other than outfitters with this recommendation, therefore I greatly object to this. I oppose this recommendation. | I approve of this recommendation | ||||||||||||||||||
24 | Bob | Winney | I concur, type 1 licenses should be limited to one per hunter. | I'm not sure I agree with this one. Maybe worth consideration, but I need to understand it better. | 90/10 needs to be used statewide, regardless of hunt area or HD/SD. | Disagree with this for residents. Nonresidents should be required to wait after successful drawing but residents live here, pay property, sales, fuel taxes here. | Sounds a little confusing and clumsy to me. I like the system that is in place now. | Yes, I can agree with this. I feel residents should have preference in all competitions for hunting licenses. | ||||||||||||||||||
25 | Don | Coulter | Yes | No | No | No | No no no- this is welfare for outfitters | No | ||||||||||||||||||
26 | Kyle | Kennedy | I do not feel that this is necessary. | I think this would help out tremendously. It would increase odds and take away the <5% tags being drawn by the same folks year after year. This will give more opportunity to more hunters. | Yes! I do believe residents should have the greatest opportunity and first choice to hunt in our own state. | |||||||||||||||||||||
27 | BRADFORD | KNUTSON | YES | NO | NO - Absolutely not | YES | NO! No more Wyoming Outfitter Welfare! | Sure, why not? All states should take care of their residents first | ||||||||||||||||||
28 | Christian | Wiseman | I agree with this | I agree with this as well | This is great as well | This is way better than preference points | No, non residents shouldn't have to use an outfitter to draw a tag. Make it 10% that way people who do use outfitters have a better chance at drawing to support then but it doesn't take away as many tags for people not using outfitters | No leave it as it is. If a resident wanted that tag he shouldve put in for it as a second choice. Residents shouldn't get priority after the initial draw | ||||||||||||||||||
29 | Michelle | Shumaker | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
30 | Tony | Shumaker | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
31 | Tony | Shumaker | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
32 | Riley | Timmins | 1 tag per person. | If it’ll stop all the whining and bickering then fine. | Yes | Absolutely not. This is a terrible idea. I don’t need a guide nor do I want to pay for one. I already wait 3 years for a general tag. Do this and we’ll all be waiting 6 years. | No | |||||||||||||||||||
33 | Robert | Winn | No. The only way for anyone to get 2 type one tags is if the second tag is greatly under subscribed. The second tag obviously is a left over as you can not draw 2 type 1 tags in the draw… | No not at all. People who care can easily find the draw odds and determine the odds etc. the only thing this will accomplish is inflate demand on all units. We do not need the state pulling an Eastman are rating units and manipulating demand. | No this is not necessary. Sorry but leave thing alone. There is no need to overly complicate the system. | No waiting periods. No picking winners and losers. Let us just play the random odds. I am greatly opposed to any things that will deviate from the random Draw. No wait period, no points, nothing. Just let us play the random draw and let the chips land where they lay… | Absolutely not. Not a chance at all. This would destroy all public access. Passing an outfitter allocation will destroy access yes, and it will destroy HMAs and worse. This is not acceptable at all. Outfitters do not need any well fare. Our public resource is not meant to fund the private entities. This will ruin access. | Yes left over draw should attempt to maintain resident/NR split. | ||||||||||||||||||
34 | Beth | Smith | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |||||||||||||||||||
35 | Gary | Shoupe | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
36 | Andrew | David | I don’t think the current law of two per person is bad. You are only able to get one through the initial draw and one in the second draw. Currently leftover tags are primarily difficult access or private land only tags. May be better for the people that have access to the private to have 2 tags to better manage the population. Rather than joe shmoe having a tag that can’t find access to fill it. | Yes this would fall in line with other states. Potentially separate price costs between the two as well to make high demand tags a little more expensive. This would especially come in handy on a 90/10 split to make up lost revenue from the NR tags. | Absolutely, with the demand for tags rising and quotas dropping more tags should go to residents. This is no different than what most states have already done. Again I wouldn’t mind seeing a price increase for high demand licenses to make up the difference in revenue. | No keep it 100% random. Odds are you will be waiting three years anyways lol. If you are fortunate enough to pull a tag more than that’s awesome. | I don’t agree with this one. I am not a fan of outfitters getting any special laws in their favor. As a resident it dosnt really affect me unless outfitters start becoming more profitable and leasing more and more land making access for DIY guys more difficult. Also has a DIY hunter that goes to other states this is extremely impactful for draw odds. New Mexico has an outfitter draw and odds are higher to get a tag in that drawing than the regular draw. You shouldn’t be forced to pay an outfitter for a better shot at a tag so you can go hunting. | Man this is a tough one. I would say yes keeping the current system maybe establish a split in tags similar to the initial draw. However I would say that the bigger issue at hand regarding leftover tags would be to allow tags leftover in a unit in the resident initial draw to go to the leftover list and NOT roll over into the NR initial draw. This would create more licenses and opportunity at a better leftover tag. I realize that it is far more lucrative to just dump those tags into the NR draw rather than allow them to go to the leftover list but I feel it’s borderline tampering with that initial 80-20 split. You can say residents had an “opportunity” at them and didn’t claim but it would be nice to have the option at one of those tags in the leftover draw if you are unsuccessful in your initial plan. | ||||||||||||||||||
37 | Chip | Hood | Yes | No | No , but make every area limited quota . | No | No , outfitter pool is not good for diy hunters . | Yes , or make more hunt choices in the initial drawing to pick up to 10 choices . | ||||||||||||||||||
38 | Timothy | Betts | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
39 | Nate | Creek | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
40 | Robert | Porter | I am good with this one. | There are already high demand areas. So leave quotas to science and health of the herds. | The current quota is fine. Yes would increase demand for tags if changed. But with numbers cut no need to change. Keep out of state money coming in. | No keep it a basic lottery. Waiting periods for made up high demand areas just trys to make it look like we are trying to be fair. Just someguys will be lucky some guys won't. | That will close off more land as this will make it a rich mans game for non residents. Look at Montana. Elk are pushed off public on to ptivate. But outfitters with tags have leased it up. This is a subsidy for the outfittet and will hurt mom and pop diners hotels and so on. The outfitters in any good will get customers regardless of tags alloted to them or not. | Left over tags should be split the same way the initial draw was. That being said some tags are impossible to hunt. No public land access. So those often will not sell. | ||||||||||||||||||
41 | Nate | Creek | yes.. limit to 1 per hunter | NO | No | YES | NO | NO | ||||||||||||||||||
42 | Randy | Newberg | As a non-resident, I support whatever Wyoming citizens feel is best for their state. | As a non-resident, I support whatever Wyoming citizens feel is best for their state. | As a non-resident, I support whatever Wyoming citizens feel is best for their state. This seems reasonable. | This would help with the "point creep" issue facing non-residents. I support. | I strongly oppose this proposal. This impacts non-residents, but will also impact residents. My home state of Montana had an outfitter setaside that was eliminated via citizens' ballot initiative. In Montana, the outfitter setaside reduced business risk and enhanced revenue streams to such a level that leasing increased dramatically, displacing many resident hunters and making it hard for our public access program (Block Management - similar to HMA/WIHA) to compete for access. Resident hunters were the most impacted by this outfitter setaside, to the point that resident hunters eventually got a statewide ballot initiative passed to change this program. I am supportive of Wyoming doing whatever it feels is best for resident hunters, but history in Montana shows an outfitter setaside is not good for resident hunters. | As a non-resident, I support whatever Wyoming citizens feel is best for their state. | ||||||||||||||||||
43 | Patrick | Pacheco | Yes, limit | NO | No... please do not | YES | NO | NO | ||||||||||||||||||
44 | Derek | Babcock | I agree | I agree | I strongly DISAGREE with this, this will hurt the chances for NR to hunt. | Yes | Absolutely NOT | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
45 | TRINA | SMITH | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | ||||||||||||||||||
46 | Cody | Metz | yes | yes | no | yes | no | yes | ||||||||||||||||||
47 | Howard | Mcdonell | Yes | No | No | Yes | No way there should be outfitter welfare tags | No | ||||||||||||||||||
48 | Jesse | Hammett | Yes, but resident only | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
49 | TODD | COGLE | Yes, with tags being cut nearly every year. One per hunter is reasonable. | No | No | Yes, would spread out opportunity | No. Public resources should not be used to enrich special interests. | Sure. | ||||||||||||||||||
50 | Seth | Franke | Yes. With the recent large increase in demand for Wyoming antelope hunting, especially among non-residents, it could also be helpful to reduce the total number of any type of antelope licenses to 2 for residents, and 1 for non-residents. The $34 Type 6 and 7 license fee for nonresidents is severely undervalued. I would suggest raising this price to $125. | Yes. Resident hunters should have a greater chance of drawing the most desirable units for antelope, deer, and elk in their state. | Yes, as long as the recommendation does not include an outfitter set-aside. | Absolutely not. So-called "penalty box" rules are built on the premise that tag-holders who are lucky enough to draw a premium tag are less-deserving than others who were not lucky to have drawn them. There are MANY other, arguably better alternatives available for spreading out demand for premium tags. For example, restrict everyone to applying for a maximum of one HD tag per application season, i.e. pick a species. | No. Other western states such as New Mexico have implemented a similar system, which effectively scuttled the state as a hunting destination for all but the wealthiest non-residents. Many WY nonresidents come to WY to hunt with family and friends. There is a qualitative value lost in transforming WY into a hunting destination for the wealthy only. WY outfitters currently do not outfit 40% of NR hunters. In 2019 they outfitted 20.5% of NR elk hunters, 9.1% of NR antelope hunters, and 8.9% of NR deer hunters. The creation of the NR outfitter pool would actually expand the amount of WY land contracted for outfitting, leading to a loss of resident hunting opportunity, and an increase in the WY outfitter industry at the expense of WY businesses frequented by non-outfitted NR hunters. Once an industry is legislated into existence, the incentive to provide a good service is dramatically reduced, as the clientele is guaranteed rather than earned. Free market capitalism allows supply and demand forces to determine the size of the WY outfitter industry. The WY legislature should change all NR licenses to the "special" price, in keeping with increase in demand. | No. There is a MUCH better solution to this problem. Currently residents put their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice of deer, elk, and antelope tags on their applications. Invariably, every year there are residents who don't draw any of these 3 options, while other tags they would have been happy to buy are rolled over to the non-resident draw, and thus lost to residents. Add a 4th, 5th, and 6th choice to the resident deer, elk, and antelope application, and this problem is solved. Under this system, the chance of a tag a resident would want being rolled over to the NR quota effectively is reduced to 0. | ||||||||||||||||||
51 | David | Kearns | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
52 | Nicholas | Kapral | Yes | No | Yes | No | No. Absolutely not. | No | ||||||||||||||||||
53 | William | Hardie | Yes, I think that this is a prudent choice given current demand. | Yes, I think this is a great step to give preference to Residents but balancing NR opportunity. | Yes. | Yes, I think this is a good measure. | No. | Yes. | ||||||||||||||||||
54 | Bryce | Harvey | No, we should leave it the same, the only way to get 2 is by leftovers. Historically the only left overs are private land and this helps the land owners. | No, we have the best draw system in the western states. Our draw odds are far better than other states. We should not mess our system. People that apply for these areas with 30% or less no what they are applying for. People can buy a general tag if they want a tag every year. | No we should leave it they way it is. Why make it harder for non residents to hunt here they pay the most of our conservation. | No. Every one should have an equal chance every year. And also stop giving land owners special rules. | This has got to be the single handed dumbest thing I've ever read why push non residents away and give money to your outfitter buddies. This is a hard no from everyone in the state. | No equal chance for everyone | ||||||||||||||||||
55 | Ryan | Caillet | Yes. | I'm not sure what the point is. Draw information from previous years is already available. People can find out for themselves which areas are in high demand. | Sure, if you go with the HD/SD idea, but I don't see the point of HD/SD. | No. | No. I strongly disagree with this idea. As a resident, I would rather give up 90/10 than see an outfitter pool. This effectively prices out blue collar nonresidents for a significant portion of NR tags in favor of those who can swing the cost of an outfitter. I do not feel this is in line with the North American Model of wildlife conservation. I have run into many people who camp, fish, and hunt birds/small game in Wyoming because they fell in love with our state on a DIY hunt. Those people spend money at our gas stations, hotels, restaurants, etc. | Yes. I think residents should have priority at each step of tag allocation. | ||||||||||||||||||
56 | Thomas | Barnes | I have no issue with this plan, in the past few years my brother and I have each drawn 2 tags, and the other has drawn none. I think it would be fine to even out that opportunity a little bit, especially given the trend of the state's Pronghorn resource. | I do not like any plan that starts ranking areas like that outside of existing statistics. It has the potential to create further preference point bottlenecks, point creep, and reduce general opportunity. There is nothing wrong at all with the current unit and region system. Any changes or tweaks should be made with the consultation of population level monitoring by biologists. | I am against the HD and SD idea, but I have no issue with WY protecting its resources with a 90-10 shift. | I am against the HD and SD idea, and I worry that mandatory waiting periods would increase the baseline for point creep, but I am kind of unsure on this one. | As a DIY hunter I am deeply opposed to this plan. I vehemently oppose any plan that puts tags in the hands and control of a small group of consituents, in this case, guides. NR already have to register for a guide for a wilderness area, there is absolutely no reason to give guides more control over Wyoming tags. NRs can already choose to register with a guide if they choose, that shouldn't be mandated. There are many folks who cannot, or choose not to, use the services of an outfitter. Allocating a large portion of the non-resident tags to a specific group negatively impacts the majority of non-residents, most of whom have diligently applied to Wyoming over the last 17 years of which a preference point system has been in effect. I also worry that this change would increase the number of guide leases in the state, which could directly impact the HMA/Walk-In system, which is amazing. Why wouldn't landowners just choose to leave that system when they realize that guide leases pay much better? | I have no issue with WY protecting their residents' interests however they see fit in terms of R-NR allocation and preference. | ||||||||||||||||||
57 | tim | faubert | No | No | No | It should be oil | Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||
58 | tim | faubert | No | No | HELL NO | Hell yes | Yes I also think that land owners whom provide big game habitat and feed should be allowed to transfer/sell land owner tags to help compensate for the loss damage done by tolerating wild game on their land Out fitters /& land owners deserve a bigger piece of the pie they run a business pay taxes but supplies keep businesses in business their money keeps people employed which generates taxes taxes that help keep the economy moving | Absolutely not | ||||||||||||||||||
59 | Jason | Hohlt | I generally support this as it allows more people to a participate. In the event there are leftover tags that have not been bought, i don't see why it would hurt to let someone buy a second license. | I don't see the need to do this. I think it complicates the system. I don't like the idea of a waiting period after drawing a tag if that is the reason for creating this designation. I think waiting periods are likely to negatively impact hunter participation and support for natural resource management. | I think the status quo is fair and generates a healthy amount of revenue and nonresident/resident interest. I would not make this recommendation. | I would not recommend doing this. I think a waiting period will hurt hunter participation, interest, and support for wildlife. | Absolutely not. I do not support subsidizing outfitters. Let these businesses stand on their own two feet without captive clientele. These strategies promote wildlife access to those with the most money which is bad for wildlife in our country. We need maximum access to the masses, to the average people with average means to maintain and improve support for wildlife and responsible hunting. I would go out of my way to ever use an outfitter in a state that has an outfitter set aside tag pool. | If demand is so low that there is a leftover, I say let everyone compete for it in the same pool. I would not support this change. | ||||||||||||||||||
60 | Mark | Cufaude | No problem with this at all. Fully support. | Seems wasteful. Residents know what is hard to draw differentiating hard or standard won't change anything. Do not support. | No. Do not support this change. This will not help anything. Short term fix and is just opening the door to go 90/10 across the board. | Support with modifications, 3-5 yr wait period. Not specific to HD or SD units but unit specific. Make it the specific unit that an individual cannot draw. It could shift pressure making what would currently be an SD area to an HD unit. Example being Platte Valley deer units. This system could make all the Platte Valley deer units HD eventually by forcing those who want to hunt the Platte Valley to apply for 79 or 80 if they were to draw the the HD 78 or 81. | Absolutely not. This will directly impact non resident DIY hunters who are currently willing to pay the special fee. Outfitters have made the choice to work in that profession and this is welfare for them no different than the wilderness rules. | No real issue either way. I don't think this is going to help residents that much. | ||||||||||||||||||
61 | Nick | Hogberg | No. Hunters are already functionally limited to one type-1 because of draw demand. If a hunter wants a second type-1 in a low demand (leftover) unit, they should be allowed to buy it. | No | No. Maintain status quo for all units | A compromise would be for someone who drew a type-1,2,9 to not be able to apply for first choice the following year. They could still apply for tags on second and third choice | No. This is ludicrous. | Indifferent | ||||||||||||||||||
62 | Wyatt | Guthrie | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
63 | Jason | Hutchins | Yes | No opinion. | No opinion. | No | No. Highly opposed | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
64 | Nate | Fronk | Yes, it seems unnecessary for someone to possess two Type 1 tags while many folks go without one. | No, this seems like an unnecessary designation. The current system wprks for the most ampunt of people. Also, to me, this hints towards leaning towards an eventual point system or some other way to draw besides the current random draw and I would strongly object to that. | I would support this change. | No, this seems unnecessary. Draw odds are so low in what would be considered HD areas, that this is a non issue. | No, outfitters should not receive a special drawing. Non residents who choose to do a DIY hunt should not be penalized. Outfitters knew what they were getting into and should not receive a more predictable or easier way to find clients. | No, there should be no preference on leftover tags. | ||||||||||||||||||
65 | Dan | Fong | Yes | Yes. | Yes. | NO | No. WOGA members shouldn’t have state sponsored and guaranteed income. They should have to work for it through good business practices like the rest of us. | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
66 | Joseph | Bucci | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
67 | chris | king | yes | no | No | yes | NO! | yes | ||||||||||||||||||
68 | Sean | Harrison | Yes. | No. This creating a complicated solution to a problem where we already know a simple simple answer to. Resident hunters want a Random Drawing with bonus points. Bonus points (not preference points, resident hunters hate preference points) allow for a random drawing that skews towards people who haven't drawn a tag. Every hunter I know (which is a lot) want the random draw to be more fair for people who haven't drawn. Bonus Pts reduces the randomness of the drawing while allowing for luck to still be involve. People that haven't drawn a 30% unit in over 10 years should 100% have way better odds than someone who just drew. | It should be 90/10 for all license allocations but would accept this as general concession in a larger compromise. This is the only way I'd accept "Yes" on question 2. the HD/SD would only be considered for the 90/10 allocations | This is terrible. My unit is 31% and any unit close to the SD/HD threshold would see a dramatic increase in people applying that had previously drawn a tag in an HD unit. This would drive down the drawing odds of this unit and would not be considered HD until after 3 years. This is a bad idea. Bonus points is a proven way to give people who have not drawn better odds than people who have just recently drawn. The only way this would work is if someone in the waiting period was only eligible for units with left over type 1, 2 or 9 tags. Resident hunters want the bonus pt system. If you haven't drawn a 50% tag in 5 years, the bonus pt system would definitely take a lot of the randomness out make the system more fair. Bonus Pts is a proven system currently employed in other states and has been determined to be the most fair. Bonus Pts squared or even cubed would be preferential. After the draw results came out, I talked to tons of hunters. They all want a system that gives people who haven't drawn more of an advantage. This waiting period HD/SD seems to over complicate the solution when bonus pts (something the Taskforce just recommended for moose and sheep) is the simplest and best way to address this issue. This system works better when you're actually entered into drawings of both your 1st and 2nd choices. Maybe you could make 50% the threshold for HD/SD and make SD units non bonus pt units. That way people are incentivized to put in for them without losing their bonus pts? | I would oppose this strongly unless Outfitters make a concession for 90/10 split on limited quota tags. The fact that the cap on non resident tags and non resident regional elk management was not part of a broader compromise package is a travesty and further promulgates the idea that this Taskforce is stacked firmly against resident hunters. Even the sportsman's "representatives" continually act against resident hunters interests. | Yes. Give residents 24 hrs before opening up to everybody seems like a fair and reasonable request. Also, get rid of commissioner licenses or limit the number of licenses to 1 for non profits. The state of Wyoming should stop subsidizing "non profit" salaries at the expense of resident hunters and wildlife. | ||||||||||||||||||
69 | Doug | Furman | Yes | Yes | Yes, I think this is a good compromise that would retain 80/20 and the benefits it holds for non-residents and residents alike, while also giving residents a better shot at the HD units, which seems fair. | Yes | No! Wildlife is owned by the public, as are public lands where so much wildlife lives. Public access to hunting should not be restricted to subsidize private businesses that are profiting from public resources. Access to wildlife for the "common person" is a part of the North American model of wildlife management. | No | ||||||||||||||||||
70 | cory | smith | I agree. | I agree. | Disagree. | Disagree. | Strongly disagree. | Disagree. | ||||||||||||||||||
71 | Richard | McMillan | yes | Yes, as it relates to proving more opportunity for Wyoming residents to draw more frequently (90/10). Not in terms of creating a pricing structure between HD & SD. | Yes | Only for non-residents. | NR's that draw a tag are currently able to contract with an outfitter if they so choose and it should remain that way. Moving towards privatizing and monetizing a public resource for the benefit of a few people flies in the face of the NA model of wildlife management. Several western states have moved that direction and its been detrimental to the average hunter's ability to pursue the sport. Wyoming should not look to those states models as one to emulate. Adding money and private interests into wildlife management, or any public resource, has rarely been successful. It would not be a stretch to visualize much of the private land that is currently enrolled in your access programs going to exclusive leases to the detriment of all sportsman regardless of residency. To date the State of Wyoming has been the leader in wildlife management in my opinion in part because of putting the resource first - not private interests. | Yes. A resident should always have preference in drawing any tag. | ||||||||||||||||||
72 | Kris | Anderson | No | No | No | No | No, this is a government hand. This is absolutely wrong. If a business can not stand on it's own they must own it. Creating regulation to funnel business to a particular group is wrong. This creates winners and losers. Will you create regulatuon that forces hunters to eat at restaurants, stay at hotels, or use taxidermist? How about some regulation to make half of all NR hire a surveyor arbitrarily? This is needless regulation. Personally I am sad to see this is even up for discussion. This group needs to take a hard look at what is truly best for the state as a whole. You have the oppertunity to leave wildlife and hunting better than you found it, but it appears to me you are looking at funneling dollars and short term gains. I had very high hopes that the folks on this task force would look at long term solutions. I am very disheartened by this proposal. Please stop trying to peddle a solution to doesn't have a problem. | No. In the spirit of fairness. If those tags made it to a left over pool. Let the draw be without preference. There are still people that want to hunt for the sake of hunting, not just horns. Give them am equal shot at that point. | ||||||||||||||||||
73 | Justin | Coon | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No, as a non-resident college student who hopes to get a general season tag one day this would drive more people to general tags making them harder to draw. | Yes, Wyoming should put its own residents first. As a non-resident this makes sense. | ||||||||||||||||||
74 | Dalton | Banks | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | ||||||||||||||||||
75 | Darren | Rhea | Yes | Yes | No | Yes, only if landowners are included in the waiting period! | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
76 | Wayne | Perry | Yes | NO | No | Yes | No... worst possible decision. This is outfitter welfare. | No | ||||||||||||||||||
77 | Bart | Stam | Yes I support this. | No. Leave them as is. | The quota should be 90-10 with no other changes | No. | No outfitter pool. I’ve held a professional guides license for 15+ years. So I’ve worked for outfitters and am friends with several. I am strongly opposed to any outfitter tag pool. | I strongly support some system where residents get preference for leftover tags | ||||||||||||||||||
78 | Campbell | Black | Yes, I support a type 1 limit of one license per person. This will improve hunter opportunity. | No. I do not support this as I can't see a benefit. | No, as I don't see the benefit of this approach. | If the HD approach is adopted I support a 3 year wait period. | No. I strongly oppose this change. Wyoming wildlife is a public resource owned by the state of Wyoming and allocating it based on who will profit the most is unfair and partial. | No. I oppose this change. | ||||||||||||||||||
79 | Riley | Zavada | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
80 | Matt | Durks | Yes | No | No, leave it as it is. | Only for the big five should you have to set out a period of 3 years or longer before reapplying. | Absolutely not! Stop letting outfitters play politics with your decisions | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
81 | Martin | Wessler | Yes | Yes | Yes | I assume this to mean that if you draw in year 1, you are not eligible to apply again until year 5 (years 2,3 and 4 are ineligible). If this is the case then I am in favor of this recommendation | No. As a NR hunter, I feel the NR special licenses are already extremely expensive. To increase the license fee for this pool to cover reduction in revenue from resident hunters is unfair and inequitable. | This would make sense, however this could be a large revenue reduction if NR are not allowed to purchase leftover licenses. I would support this only if NR are allowed to purchase leftover licenses immediately and over the counter after the the competitive drawing for the leftover licenses, and the NR license fee does not go up. | ||||||||||||||||||
82 | Matthew | Young | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
83 | Phil | Stanton | Ni | No | No | No | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
84 | Steven | Jones | I see no problem with only 1 antelope per hunter. There are many people wanting an opportunity to hunt. I think spreading tags to more people is a good thing. | No. Every unit is already high demand. Just look at the number of applications. | As a non resident i do not approve the 90/10 split. A 90/10 split will.make it damn near impossible for a non resident to draw an HD unit. And look where the majority of your funding comes from, that is the non resident fees. I think this is a stupid decision and is an effort to please outfitters. | I dont have a problem with it. | Absolutely ridiculous this is only an attemt to benefit outfitters and take away tags from diy hunters. | More propaganda to destroy the non residents chance at hunting. | ||||||||||||||||||
85 | Christopher | Willhite | Yea | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
86 | Moseley | Middleton | Yes, spread out opportunity | No, this solves nothing but makes the regulations harder to understand | No,the state could use the extra income from the non resident pool to support wildlife. | No, also eliminate landowner tags. The amount of landowner tags that reduce residential draw already is crap. If there is a waiting period it also needs to apply to the property not just the one landowner. As it’s on a rotation for different family members | Outfitters do not need handouts, outfitters are a late problem with access in Wyoming and act like they own the national forest. Some will try to run you out of an area | Yes, as the majority of these tags are leftover from resident draw. They should be off limits to non residents as it doesn't keep the standard split for resident/non | ||||||||||||||||||
87 | Brandon | Kyniston | Yes and this should also apply to all antelope tags. | No | No | Nope. | Absolutely not. | Residence should have preference over the percentage of tags they are allocated and should have a second chance at them in the left over before rolling the excess resident tags over to NR. example antelope tags if the 80 percent resident quota is not hit in the regular draw those tags should go to the resident left over draw first then go to a nr left over if they are still not drawn at that point. If this will accomplish this I support it | ||||||||||||||||||
88 | Eric | Adams | Probably a good idea. I would think a no brainer until after the leftover draw. At least until the 2nd draw. After there are leftovers in the 2nd draw they should be available to whoever | This is a great idea and I support this fully. I would think the high demand units should for deer & elk should have at least a 5 year waiting period. For antelope should have a 3 year waiting period. | I generally support this with the caveat that we really look at what it does to overall funding, I would think because Wyoming has so few “high demand” areas that the impact to revenue would be minimal. I think it’s important to let non-resident enjoy hunting in Wyoming and we don’t want to come across as anti non-resident. This may not be the appropriate place to comment but we would absolutely need to change nonresident preference point system. Buy a hunting license in Wyoming for a reasonable price. Charge a small application fee that includes the “bonus point” or “squared bonus point”. If a private citizen did what the G&F does to nonresidents we would be thrown in jail for wire fraud or something similar. They are literally selling a “point” that in most cases does nothing to improve odds. It’s wrong. | I support this. In concept. 3 year waiting periods are not long enough for deer and elk 5 years for deer & elk; & 3 years for antelope. Just do the math, 3 years is better than nothing but even 5 years is questionable for the most coveted areas. The one thing is a 3 or 5 year waiting period and then a squared bonus point system would really straighten out the draw order. No preference points they are the worse point system out of all the western states and severely punish youth and new hunters. | I’m generally opposed to forcing anyone to do business with any group but I understand that this is in trade for 90/10 and it has no effect on residents. I also understand that a large % (close to 35%) already utilize the services of outfitters. For this reason I can support this because 90/10 is a benefit to residents. | Residents really need to learn how to play the draw. If these tags are leftover resident would get them if they put in for 2nd choice. I guess I could support 50/50 split because I imagine the amount of nonresidents greatly exceeds the amount of residents in the draw and it gives the appearance of preference to nonresidents. Any permits left after that should be a available to anyone. | ||||||||||||||||||
89 | Jennifer | Palmer | Keep it the way it is | No | No | No. Let everyone have a chance every year | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
90 | Adam | Brumfield | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No Absolutely no | Doesn’t matter much If it’s leftover then probably not worth having | ||||||||||||||||||
91 | Shane | Farella | Only 1 tag should be allowed | Yes | No. My elk area is 123 and it’s 70% deeded ground. Residents should not have 90% of the tags. So areas that have more public than private I have no problem with. But not when the private ground is a high percentage than public. I’m not feeding elk for free then taking the public guys to hunt for free. I need non residents to be able to get these tags. More public land hunters on public just make problems worse. Areas like 123 are areas Wyoming can put non residents to hunt and create state revenue and keep non residents out of other areas the Wyoming public guys like to hunt with better access. | I like this idea. It might need to be a 5 year waiting period but 3 years would be a great start. More people will hunt areas with tougher draws more often. | If we don’t go 90/10 no. If we want a 90/10 system the yes. | If the system wants a 90/10 then no. In the current system of 80/20 and 84/16 yes you could give residents a 24 head start. | ||||||||||||||||||
92 | Ray | Fertig | Yes. In ~2013 the number of resident applicants began exceeding the total quota of licenses. In light of this, limiting antelope licenses to one per person seems reasonable, particularly in the initial and leftover draws. | This does seem like a better way to distribute hard-to-draw tags, but I would like to better understand the potential unintended consequences of this. | Yes. The 90/10 split is what I face in other states and it's seems like reciprocity is reasonable. | Yes. As I said above, this seems like a reasonable way to more fairly distribute tags. | No. I think that outfitter set-asides will have significant negative consequences in regards to private commoditization of a public resource. | Absolutely! In addition, the rollover of resident tags to nonresidents in the initial draw needs to stop. Those tags should be first available in a leftover draw with resident preference. Remaining licenses AFTER the leftover draw can be taken on a first come first served basis by either resident or nonresident. | ||||||||||||||||||
93 | Randy | Davis | Whatever is best for the resource and equitable hunter opportunity. | This seems unnecessary (30% odds still seem pretty good). But in the grand scheme of figuring out the 90/10 split, it makes sense. | While I am disappointed to have reduced opportunity as a non-resident hunter, I completely understand Wyoming residents’ desire for this and am therefore in support of it—as long as the pool of available non-resident tags isn’t further diminished by special interest subsidies like outfitter tag allocations. | Yes, this seems fair. | Absolutely not. This goes against the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Hunters who want to use the service of an outfitter are already fully able to do so, and outfitters are already the only way for many non-resident hunters to hunt Wyoming Wilderness areas. Why should one trade group be able to essentially privatize a public resource? An outfitter allocation of non-resident tags would have negative consequences for both non-resident hunters like me (who cannot afford an outfitter and prefer to hunt diy) and Wyoming resident hunters alike. I personally would essentially be priced out of hunting in Wyoming, and I know there are many others just like me. In my home state of Oregon (where we unfortunately have an outfitter allocation and transferable landowner tags) most quality private land isn’t open to hunting because it is leased by outfitters or those purchasing landowner tags. I fear this proposal would be devastating to Access Yes, as guaranteed tags would make it easier for outfitters to lease more private land. | Yes, this seems fair. | ||||||||||||||||||
94 | Jason | Robertson | Completely agree on a single type 1 antelope tag. That will provide more hunter opportunity. | 30 percent average seems right, with a waiting period after you draw one of these areas. In that waiting period you cannot apply for another high demand area. Gotta hunt general. | Yes, completely agree | 100 percent yes | I personally dont agree with outfitter wellfare, but honestly dont care if you allocate 40 percent of nonresident tags to outfitted clients as long as that 40 percent comes without a decrease to resident tags. Id probably drop that number to 25 percent though. 40s alot. Montana just voted out this same system and has nothing but backlash from it. | Yes, id like to see a 24-48 hr first come first serve resident purchase period for leftover tags prior to locking the tags down and holding the leftover draw. | ||||||||||||||||||
95 | Zac | Cavener | Yes. Along with reduced herd size snd growing public interest this is a good idea | No. I believe the current point creep will eventually subside on its own | No. Residents enjoy far more hunting opportunities than non residents already. Residents have guaranteed deer and elk tags each year with the general tag. The 90/10 allocation would discourage many non Residents from applying to these areas, which would greatly decrease wyoming game and fish revenue. | If the HD units were to go into effect this would be a fair change in my opinion. | Absolutely not. Any person who seeks to do a do it yourself hunt should be granted that right. And any who wish to use an outfitter should be able to. This designation would have a chilling effect on diy hunter applicants. Which I suppose to be the majority of applicants in wyoming | No. Residents already have much higher draw odds in the initial draw. The leftover draws should remain fair. | ||||||||||||||||||
96 | Isaac | Kelsey | Yes | Yes | Not unless you offer non residents a full refund for all preference points previously earned. | Yes | No. You are already the only state in the country which requires nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt in federally designated wilderness areas. This change would also reduce both resident and nonresident hunting access because guides will acquire more hunting leases. That is inconsistent with the North American model of wildlife management and it adds to the problem of privatization of wildlife. | No. | ||||||||||||||||||
97 | Josh | Lane | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | ||||||||||||||||||
98 | Bill | Haeck | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||
99 | Levi | Jensen | I think the Commission and Department should be able to do this on an as needed basis, but shouldn't necessarily be the rule. | Yes | This seems like it would make such a small difference that I don't think it's worth the added complexity to the system. | I support this idea. | I think this is the first step on the slippery slope to transferable licenses so I do not support this idea. | Yes I think residents should have the first opportunity for leftover licenses. | ||||||||||||||||||
100 | Corey | Wheeler | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |