SB 2155

[wct12]

Access is complete shit anyway. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Take away ALL GRATIS TAGS!! Fuck'em.....

Maybe you talk to the wrong people about access then or haven’t built enough of a relationship with them through the years.. it’s pretty fun when we (this was sent to my dad just a few days ago) get texts like this after season. I would be that what we farm/run cattle in would be considered pretty easily in the top 25% of habitat in a pretty decent sized area by us

 

[Jiffy]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....don't care.

 

[bravo]

Maybe you talk to the wrong people about access then or haven’t built enough of a relationship with them through the years.. it’s pretty fun when we (this was sent to my dad just a few days ago) get texts like this after season. I would be that what we farm/run cattle in would be considered pretty easily in the top 25% of habitat in a pretty decent sized area by us

LOL

 

[BrockW]

if this passes ,, what happens in years if good tag numbers,, land owners would get way more than 50 tags. Iam very leery about this. Might look good in the short term but if populations rebound ,, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?

Great question. The application data doesn’t seem to indicate this will be the case. Some units don’t have 50 landowners applying for pronghorn tags, so those would be unaffected. Others have significantly more LOs applying but, when I run a comparison on what tag allocation would’ve been in say, 2024 or 2023, It doesn’t appear it would negatively affect tags in the public draw. More tags still end up in the public draw. If LO numbers significantly increased, then you might have a point of concern.

Again, this isn’t a bone to pick with landowners. We don’t begrudge them at all for taking advantage of the opportunity to get tags available to them. But we would like to see a more fair allocation between landowners and non-landowners.