More Private Access For WY Hunters?

[tellico4x4]

Critics Say Paying Wyoming Ranchers For Grass-Gobbling Elk Could Break Budget

Critics worry that a bill that proposes to pay ranchers for forage that elk herds eat will break the budget of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Others say ranchers can't keep taking losses and deserve compensation.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[MidTennFisher]

Sure would be nice to see WGF work with those ranchers to create more opportunities for hunters to knock down some cow Elk. It's a win for everyone. Hunters get great meat for the freezer, ranchers have less crop damage.

The article does mention that ranchers might be more open to that if there was a greater presence of game wardens to monitor hunter behavior and keep them from doing stupid things like cutting fences, shooting towards houses, or taking a dump right near the sign in sheet. I added that last part from Matt Rinella mentioning that it has happened to ranchers in Montana that sign up for the programs allowing public access.

But unfortunately what will probably happen is outfitters will lock up those ranches and sell hunts for several thousand dollars.

 

[AT Hiker]

People are paying $1k plus to shoot cow elk, these ranchers are not letting us on for free. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

 

[MidTennFisher]

People are paying $1k plus to shoot cow elk, these ranchers are not letting us on for free. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

"These dang cow elk are destroying my livelihood, I can't financially survive if they keep eating my crops!"

"Sorry to hear that, I'd love to kill 2 of them to feed my family for an entire year"

"Sure, that'll be $5,000 cash or check"

 

[megalomaniac]

People are paying $1k plus to shoot cow elk, these ranchers are not letting us on for free. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

This exactly.

The best solution is for the state to quit paying for crop damage altogether, but issue transferable ranch specific tags to the landowner. They can then sell the tags to the highest bidder, but must allow access to their ranch. I bet good bull tags would bring $5-$7k each. The outfitters would LOVE this as well, as they could contract with the larger ranches and offer guaranteed tags to their clients who are willing to pay $10k every year to hunt elk.

Similar to what NM already does.

 

[AT Hiker]

This exactly.

The best solution is for the state to quit paying for crop damage altogether, but issue transferable ranch specific tags to the landowner. They can then sell the tags to the highest bidder, but must allow access to their ranch. I bet good bull tags would bring $5-$7k each. The outfitters would LOVE this as well, as they could contract with the larger ranches and offer guaranteed tags to their clients who are willing to pay $10k every year to hunt elk.

Similar to what NM already does.

I am not a fan of landowner tags, especially Western species that migrate and roam a lot. Not to mention that most of these landowners have a huge amount of public land locked up within their boundaries. They already have exclusive access and pay a nominal fee to graze it.

Your solution could work but the key is they have to offer public access for anterless tags, Id be willing to ignore my distaste for landowner tags then.

 

[DeerCamp]

Sure would be nice to see WGF work with those ranchers to create more opportunities for hunters to knock down some cow Elk. It's a win for everyone. Hunters get great meat for the freezer, ranchers have less crop damage.

The article does mention that ranchers might be more open to that if there was a greater presence of game wardens to monitor hunter behavior and keep them from doing stupid things like cutting fences, shooting towards houses, or taking a dump right near the sign in sheet. I added that last part from Matt Rinella mentioning that it has happened to ranchers in Montana that sign up for the programs allowing public access.

But unfortunately what will probably happen is outfitters will lock up those ranches and sell hunts for several thousand dollars.

What if they started a Sportsmans Stewardship program - a pertnership between the state game agency and landowners. To be in it, you have to take an in-depth sportsmanship and hunting regulations course, pass a background check and not have any game violations, and pledge an oath to abide by game laws, pick up trash as you see it, and treat the land with respect. When you are done, you have a certification as a Steward of Sportsmanship. It would cost the hunter a little money and time, but it would be way worth it if it opened up opportunities. You'd have to have this certification to hunt these private lands.

And then the Landowners out there could feel a lot more comfortable about who is using the property.

Bonus: You probably also feel a lot better about the other hunters hunting the same area.

 

[MidTennFisher]

The outfitters would LOVE this as well, as they could contract with the larger ranches and offer guaranteed tags to their clients who are willing to pay $10k every year to hunt elk.

Anything outfitters would love is bad for the future of hunting access and I'm against it.

 

[MidTennFisher]

What if they started a Sportsmans Stewardship program - a pertnership between the state game agency and landowners. To be in it, you have to take an in-depth sportsmanship and hunting regulations course, pass a background check and not have any game violations, and pledge an oath to abide by game laws, pick up trash as you see it, and treat the land with respect. When you are done, you have a certification as a Steward of Sportsmanship. It would cost the hunter a little money and time, but it would be way worth it if it opened up opportunities. You'd have to have this certification to hunt these private lands.

And then the Landowners out there could feel a lot more comfortable about who is using the property.

Bonus: You probably also feel a lot better about the other hunters hunting the same area.

I like that idea. In addition to this, as mentioned above, it would be nice if the state stopped compensating ranchers altogether for crop damage. That way they'd then be more likely to let hunters who have passed that course go in and knock down some cows. Win for everyone.

 

[AT Hiker]

I like that idea. In addition to this, as mentioned above, it would be nice if the state stopped compensating ranchers altogether for crop damage. That way they'd then be more likely to let hunters who have passed that course go in and knock down some cows. Win for everyone.

I like the idea too. Actually, I am all about doing whatever it takes to paint a better picture for hunters. If I were king we would all do some type of community service. Teaching hunter ed, bowhunter ed and 4-H archery was some of the best moments in my early adulthood. Imagine if practically every hunter had a resume that trumped any anti-hunter?

 

[AT Hiker]

The more I think about this the more irritated I get. It is not just WY either. Depredation permits here and in KY where I hunt is a scam.

So, I do a little auto insurance work. Comp claims on deer damages can be through the roof, should the state reimburse insurance companies or under insured auto owners in the event of a deer collision? No, most of us would consider that cost prohibitive and border line ridiculous.

What about when wild animals eat the wires on our tractors? What about deer eating Janes roses? Why shouldn't they get a check from the state, like the rancher?

Heaven forbid a family runs into a elk and someone dies. Is the state liable?

Or...what about when these welfare entitled ranchers have cattle escape and over graze my public land? What do they have to pay?

I just think this is ridiculous, especially coming from such a conservative state like Wyoming. Maybe if they exhausted all possible solutions I'd be on board. They haven't, they just want more welfare. If I were a G&F Nazi leader and a rancher bitched about wildlife damage, Id go on the ranch and kill every dang elk. Id issue so many tags the surrounding public lands would be void of wildlife. Then let the ranchers complain about not having any elk!

Edit to add, not all ranchers and landowners are welfare babies. I know several and all are superior stewards of the land.

 

[megalomaniac]

Anything outfitters would love is bad for the future of hunting access and I'm against it.

I'm not a fan, either... but the outfitters HAVE to be kept happy... They have so much pull in their states playing the sob story 'my livelihood depends on it'. So they push HARD to keep NR DIY hunters out of the western quarter of the state, deeming it a 'wilderness area that NR's are too stupid to wander into without getting lost'. In NM, they convinced the legislature to cut NR DIY tags down to around 2%. They were trying to do the same in Wyoming....

That hasn't happened much in Colorado, since the landowners are issued vouchers for tags they can transfer to hunters (usually contracted with outfitters).

I'd much rather see WY remain 80/20 split with landowners getting transferrable vouchers (right now they can get vouchers, but can't sell) than WY go to a 90/10 split with outfitters getting 8% of the NR tags and DIY guys getting 2%.

 

[megalomaniac]

Or...what about when these welfare entitled ranchers have cattle escape and over graze my public land? What do they have to pay?

I'm gonna make you REAL mad....
the ranchers are getting PAID when elk on your public land are grazing your public land if they have the grazing lease!!!! And they are paying pennies on the dollar for grazing rights on public land.

It SHOULD be the opposite... keep the public lands ungrazed, that way the elk don't have to go onto the private for forage. And the ranchers graze the holy crap out of the public, making darn sure not to overgraze their private!

 

[AT Hiker]

I'm gonna make you REAL mad....
the ranchers are getting PAID when elk on your public land are grazing your public land if they have the grazing lease!!!! And they are paying pennies on the dollar for grazing rights on public land.

It SHOULD be the opposite... keep the public lands ungrazed, that way the elk don't have to go onto the private for forage. And the ranchers graze the holy crap out of the public, making darn sure not to overgraze their private!

Boom the solution, as if they really wanted one besides money.
Pull all livestock off public land, build that habitat so wildlife don't need the wander onto private. And if they do..,,I'll gladly support paying a nominal damage fee.

 

[megalomaniac]

Boom the solution, as if they really wanted one besides money.
Pull all livestock off public land, build that habitat so wildlife don't need the wander onto private. And if they do..,,I'll gladly support paying a nominal damage fee.

Exactly... but could you imagine the uproar from the ranchers!

 

[vinootz]

What if they started a Sportsmans Stewardship program - a pertnership between the state game agency and landowners. To be in it, you have to take an in-depth sportsmanship and hunting regulations course, pass a background check and not have any game violations, and pledge an oath to abide by game laws, pick up trash as you see it, and treat the land with respect. When you are done, you have a certification as a Steward of Sportsmanship. It would cost the hunter a little money and time, but it would be way worth it if it opened up opportunities. You'd have to have this certification to hunt these private lands.

And then the Landowners out there could feel a lot more comfortable about who is using the property.

Bonus: You probably also feel a lot better about the other hunters hunting the same area.

Myself and many others have been good Stewards of Sportmanship. It's likely most have already taken a safety course. Why would we want to subject ourselves to more rules/laws for the bad acts of others. Gun control people have the same mentality. Sorry, I can't agree with your suggestion. Besides, if ranchers charge the amounts mentioned to hunt their land, let them hire someone to glass and photograph violations of stewardship; if it's as bad as they say.

 

[tellico4x4]

Elk and cattle both eat grass. Lawmakers mull compensating ranchers — for more than the grass is worth - WyoFile

Proposed changes to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s damage program come at the behest of the livestock lobby and cattle ranchers who live in parts of Wyoming with far too many elk.

wyofile.com

150% compensation out of wildlife funds!

 

[MidTennFisher]

I'm not a fan, either... but the outfitters HAVE to be kept happy... They have so much pull in their states playing the sob story 'my livelihood depends on it'. So they push HARD to keep NR DIY hunters out of the western quarter of the state, deeming it a 'wilderness area that NR's are too stupid to wander into without getting lost'. In NM, they convinced the legislature to cut NR DIY tags down to around 2%. They were trying to do the same in Wyoming....

That hasn't happened much in Colorado, since the landowners are issued vouchers for tags they can transfer to hunters (usually contracted with outfitters).

I'd much rather see WY remain 80/20 split with landowners getting transferrable vouchers (right now they can get vouchers, but can't sell) than WY go to a 90/10 split with outfitters getting 8% of the NR tags and DIY guys getting 2%.

Yea well it is hard for me to feel bad for them. I welcome any positions that might counter my feelings on what they do but I see them as nothing more than pimps who prostitute our wildlife for profit. That directly conflicts with one of the tenants of our model of conservation here that states wildlife will not be killed for profit.

Again I welcome any argument to the contrary but I've always had a negative view of outfitting. I don't see anything they do as positive for the future of quality hunting access. Matter of fact, I see them as extremely negative for it.

 

[megalomaniac]

Yea well it is hard for me to feel bad for them. I welcome any positions that might counter my feelings on what they do but I see them as nothing more than pimps who prostitute our wildlife for profit. That directly conflicts with one of the tenants of our model of conservation here that states wildlife will not be killed for profit.

Again I welcome any argument to the contrary but I've always had a negative view of outfitting. I don't see anything they do as positive for the future of quality hunting access. Matter of fact, I see them as extremely negative for it.

I agree 100%. But that being said, state game agencies seem to always cater to them. If they aren't happy, it seems the DIY guys get screwed even harder to make the outfitters happy.