Page 81 of 84 FirstFirst ... 31717980818283 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 836
  1. #801
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    719
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 352 Times in 150 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 4 Times in 3 Posts
    It would help those of us who put out information on odds and units if G&F pulled the landowner tags out from the beginning.

  2. #802
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    914
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 40 Times in 33 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Topgun 30-06 View Post
    No and yes to your two questions, respectively! I also agree with your comments, but that's not the way it works in Wyoming! Each landowner, whether resident or NR, that has 160 acres of contiguous deeded land that has 2000 animal use days per species in a calendar year can apply for one full price and one reduced price license for each species that qualifies. Those licenses are then removed from the resident and NR pools before the draws are held. That's why there are two different dates that the resident or NR has to apply for them due tio the differenc ein draw dates. The area Game Warden handles it and you can bet that as long as they own 160 acres that they aren't going to look at the other restrictive qualification very close to give them the requested licenses.

    EDIT: What is really bad about this landowner tag situation is that they can divide up their ranch into a number of 160 acre sections and put them under different family member names as owner in the tax rolls and then each of those 160 acre sections qualifies for the two licenses! That's what I understand the Carter family near TenSleep did a few years ago to get extra licenses. They ran/run an outfitting/guiding operation and got caught allowing nonresidents to use those tags when they can only be used by the owner or a close family member. At least two or three were sentenced under the Lacey Act along with some nonresidents who took animals kiiled illegally with those tags, but even though there were some pretty good money judgements, it wasn't nearly enough to compensate for the crimes and all the time State and Federal agents spent on the case.
    False. They actually do look closely at animal use days. Where I'm from anyway...
    Arise... Kill, Eat! - Acts 10:13

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Elkoholic307 For This Useful Post:


  4. #803
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    871
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 194 Times in 161 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottR View Post
    It would help those of us who put out information on odds and units if G&F pulled the landowner tags out from the beginning.
    ***Yep Scott, as I forgot that Eastmans basicly puts out the same kind of information in the MRS sections us subscribers get in the magazines as Huntin Fool based on what the G&F provides and they don't readily provide that landowner information. The big difference is that the latter also have that tag service and make a lot of money off of it and the big money they charge for a yearly subscription to their service.

  5. #804
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    871
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 194 Times in 161 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkoholic307 View Post
    False. They actually do look closely at animal use days. Where I'm from anyway...
    That could be in certain areas, but I know from what I just mentioned in my edit section that supposedly many locals knew what was going on with the Carter Ranch properties and many doubted that the G&F did things properly and didn't at least have a clue as to what was happening there. I know the area Game Warden, and although Tom is a very nice guy, he's told me more than once that he doesn't like the law enforcement duties of his job and much prefers to do his game biologist duties the bulk of his time in the field. That, he stated, requires he keep a good relationship with all the landowners so they will let him on their properties to do his studies because they can refuse at any time for any reason.
    Last edited by Topgun 30-06; 06-17-2014 at 09:12 AM.

  6. #805
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    4,675
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 536 Times in 469 Posts
    Congratulations
    5
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    With all of the tag cuts we are really seeing the LO tags come out of the quota now and 87 is a good example of that. In 2009 87 had 200 tags. 16 tags taken off the top of 200 doesnt change things all that much but 16 taken off the top of 25 makes a huge difference.
    Keystone 1, Over!

    " I am lost in the dust of the chase that my life brings"

  7. #806
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    871
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 194 Times in 161 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Musket Man View Post
    With all of the tag cuts we are really seeing the LO tags come out of the quota now and 87 is a good example of that. In 2009 87 had 200 tags. 16 tags taken off the top of 200 doesnt change things all that much but 16 taken off the top of 25 makes a huge difference.
    Yep!!! The problem is that these landowners are paying taxes on that property and are voters, so it probably will not change much, if any, in the near future. The best I think we could expect to get would be to have G&F only put the draws total up on the site with the landowner tags excluded so at least everyone knows the true odds to get a tag in each unit. I would be a very unhappy camper right now if I had wasted a year with a bunch of PPs thinking I had 87-1 in the bag and already had plans made to hunt it, only to see that not a single tag was issued to a NR when the results were posted!

  8. #807
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    4,675
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 536 Times in 469 Posts
    Congratulations
    5
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I agree they could atleast take the LO tags out of the quota so a guy could see if he actually had a chance at a tag or not. I hope things get better in that area soon.
    Keystone 1, Over!

    " I am lost in the dust of the chase that my life brings"

  9. #808
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bend, Orygun
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottR View Post
    It would help those of us who put out information on odds and units if G&F pulled the landowner tags out from the beginning.
    they do...

    1. Total Quota is obtained for each hunt area

    2. Quota is split between Resident and Nonresident Share (84% NR; 16% RES)

    3. Nonresident Total Quota available for each hunt area is split for Landowner Draw

    75% (Round UP) Preference Point Draw—Landowner Draw

    25% (Round DOWN) Random Point Draw—Landowner Draw

    4. Landowner Preference Point Drawing is conducted

    Quota balance is held

    5. Landowner Random Drawing is conducted

    6. Quota balance from Landowner Preference Point Draw and Landowner Random Drawing are
    combined to a new total quota available for each hunt area.
    Last edited by WapitiBob; 06-17-2014 at 11:11 AM.

  10. #809
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bend, Orygun
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    The LO draw is part of the whole draw process so they can't post totals after one segment. Not knowing the LO tags drawn in previous years shouldn't be a problem.


  11. #810
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    871
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 194 Times in 161 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    So Bob, where did you get that stat sheet? Was that asked for and received from your "girlfriend" up at G&F or is that readily available on the G&F website somewhere because that's the first I've seen anything like it! Also, from what you're telling us it looks like you're saying that LO tags are limited in number and I have never heard of that before and I believe everyone thinks as I did that they are limitless as long as the 160 acres and 2000 animal days per species is met for that acerage. Could you please, with your vast knowledge of everything on the G&F draws, explain in more detail about these landowner license questions we're talking about and how they affect the draws. I guess the main question would be is if there is any way before the draw to actually know how many tags are left for the draws after landowners get theirs out of the Final regulation totals posted on the G&F website. I, for one, had no knowldege of landowners even being in the draw process since there is nothing to show that they are! You might start by explaining how deer 87-1 that had 25 total tags allotted to it in the 2014 Final Regulation only shows 9 resident tags given out in the draw and none to any of the NR draws. Thanks man!
    Last edited by Topgun 30-06; 06-17-2014 at 02:03 PM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •