CHEYENNE—Laura Pearson’s sheep ranching family has had a rough go of it lately.
Woolgrowing is an industry that’s shrunk dramatically from its heyday, including in Wyoming. Modern disruptions and hardships, like the brutal winter of 2022-’23, were a gut punch to operations that have hung on, even knocking some woolgrowers out of business.
“Ranchers are hurting right now,” said Pearson, a Republican state senator and school bus driver from Kemmerer who’s new to the Wyoming Legislature. “In May, my sister was sending us messages, saying, ‘This is all the money that we have left to get through the end of the year.’”
Pearson cited those hard times as inspiration for bringing a bill, Senate File 118, “Landowner hunting tags-amendments,” that would allow her family and other Wyoming landowners to generate some extra cash by creating a new market for the special hunting licenses they receive.
“It’d give ranchers and farmers the ability to … sell or give those tags to whomever we want,” Pearson said.
A dozen Republican members of the Legislature lined up behind the idea, most associated with the hard-line Wyoming Freedom Caucus and its Wyoming Senate allies. (See the list of co-sponsors at the end of the story.)
The legislation they signed would task the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission with creating rules and regulations governing the resale of landowner tags.
Critics, including hunting and wildlife advocacy groups, say the changes could overwhelm Wyoming’s license allocation system, giving wealthy non-residents an unfair advantage over ordinary resident sportspeople.
Landowner tags basics
Property owners are eligible for a Wyoming Game and Fish Department landowner license if they possess at least 160 contiguous acres that provide habitat for elk, deer, pronghorn or wild turkeys. Recipients can possess two licenses for each species, and they’re good throughout the hunt area where the property is located. To be eligible, landowners must demonstrate 2,000 “animal use days” (for example, 1,000 elk on their property for two days or 40 mule deer for 50 days).
Currently, landowner licenses must be kept within the family, though there are workarounds, like subdividing land, that have exploited the system currently in place.
The program is growing more popular. Between 2014 and 2021, the statewide count of landowner licenses spanning all species rose 26%, from 2,800 to 3,518, Game and Fish License Section Manager Jennifer Doering told WyoFile in 2022.
There are Wyoming hunt areas where landowner tags are eating into and even dominating the total number of hunting licenses that are available. Elk hunt zone 124, located south of Interstate 80 in the Red Desert, is an example: Special landowner tag recipients have dominated the few limited-quota licenses available for non-resident bull elk hunters during recent hunting seasons.
The system’s growing popularity and existing problems explain why SF 118 is running into stiff resistance from the hunting lobby.
“It’s essentially the privatization of a wildlife resource,” said Jess Johnson, government affairs director for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation. “This system allows someone to bypass the tag system.”
‘Pay-to-play’ model?
When Game and Fish runs its lottery for Wyoming’s limited-license hunts, landowner licenses come “off the top,” Johnson said. In other words, they’re drawn before the rest of the public gets a shot. If the legislation was enacted, those tags could then be turned around and sold. In essence, it’d put wealthy non-residents — those most willing to pay big bucks for big bucks — at the front of the line.
Hunting organizations lobbying in Cheyenne also worry that the bill would open the floodgates and create more interest in the landowner license program.
“A lot of landowners don’t apply for or get landowner tags, even though they’re eligible for them,” Johnson said. “Because they [could] sell them for however much money, this [would] incentivize them to put in for landowner tags.”
Other western states have gone down a similar path. Cheyenne resident David Willms, who directs western wildlife issues for the National Wildlife Federation, cited New Mexico as an example. Some 38% of all the elk hunting tags in that southwestern state are issued via transferrable landowner tags, he said. And three-quarters of those end up in the hands of non-residents.
“It reduces the overall availability of tags in the draw for [New Mexico] residents,” Willms said.
In Wyoming, he said, the change could “stress and pressure” lotteries for licenses in hunt areas where the number of landowner tags has already taken off.
“You could see situations where there would be potentially zero tags available in a public draw,” Willms said. “The only way you can hunt this is by purchasing a license from a landowner. The going rate, from what I understand in New Mexico, is roughly about $10,000 for a bull elk tag.”
Wyoming’s red-shirted game wardens also oppose the bill. The state’s wildlife “belongs to all and is held in public trust” by the Game and Fish Commission using sportsperson license dollars, Wyoming Game Warden Association President Levi Wood said in an emailed statement.
“Transferable and sellable landowner licenses are a step toward the privatization of this public resource and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation,” wrote Wood, who acknowledged the “critical role that landowners play in stewarding wildlife habitat. “
“However,” he wrote, “the association does not feel this is the appropriate method to show appreciation to those landowners and change such as this will come at the detriment of Wyoming resident sportspeople.”
As of Wednesday morning, SF 118 has not yet been assigned to any committee — a requisite first step in the process. If the legislation does move forward, Pearson, the primary sponsor, said she’s considering watching from the sidelines because of the conflict of interest.
“I’m probably going to have to recuse myself,” Pearson said, “because we are landowners in southwest Wyoming.”
Senate File 118 co-sponsors are: Sens. Brian Boner, R-Douglas; Bob Ide, R-Casper; Troy McKeown, R-Gillette; Darin Smith, R-Cheyenne; Cheri Steinmetz, R-Torrington; and Reps. Marlene Brady, R-Green River; Scott Heiner, R-Green River; Jayme Lien, R-Casper; Darin McCann, R-Rock Springs;, Mike Schmid, R-La Barge; Nina Webber, R-Cody; and Bob Wharff, R-Evanston.
The deadline for Pearson’s bill to be reported out of a Wyoming Senate committee is Feb. 7, according to the legislative session calendar.
Correction: This story has been updated to correct Sen. Troy McKeown’s district. -eds.
I see the hearing for this bill regarding was taken away from the Travel, Recreation, and Wildlife Committee and was given to the Agriculture Committee instead, where it has a better chance. Why wouldn’t a bill about hunting and wildlife go to the Travel Recreation and Wildlife Committee?!? The Ag Committee includes the rancher/politician who introduced it and stands to benefit as a large landowner in SW Wyoming. This change certainly appears to be improper and corrupt.
I would like Wyo File to identify all legislators who have grazing Permits adjacent on Public lands. Each one should recuse themselves from voting on this proposed bill. I’d also like to know how much each of receives annually from federal grazing and other hand- out subsidies. I’m a firm believer that if you can’t make it on your own, then our government (citizens) shouldn’t have to bail you out, especially for ranching.
How is it our WY government allows subsidies for cows and sheep but can’t help families with medical needs, day care, housing and Medicaid expansion? Cows/sheep over humans??
This is a very poor bill , this is going against that wild life belongs to the people, not the Kings that own the land! As it is now most land owners charge a very high fee to trespass, now want to sell the wildlife from their property? I hope this doesn’t even make it out of committee!
Hunting access is already for sale. One with most cash wins.
This is counter to the North American Conservation Model. All the Wildlife in Wyoming belong to all Wyoming Citizens. Wildlife is managed by the Game and Fish Department for the citizens. Landowners don’t own the Wildlife that live on or move through their property. They should have to abide by all the same rules and regulations regarding Wildlife that any other Wyoming resident must follow. This proposal is a simply a government subsidy to benefit landowners. It will not benefit the Wildlife or all other Wyoming citizens that enjoy that Wildlife. It’s just like requiring non-resident hunters to have a guide to hunt in Wilderness Areas in Wyoming. Just a government subsidy for outfitters and guides. Interesting that the Freedom Caucus is supporting this. Don’t they oppose government subsidies and not picking “winners and losers”? The vast majority of Wyomingites are opposed to this, but it will make no difference. Anything that the Freedom Caucus and WSGA agree on, will fly through the Legislature. Truly sad times.
Maybe I should buy 160 acres in WY I know plenty people here in CA who I could resell my elk tags to and make some serious $$$. I don’t want nobody on my own property though they will have to shoot them on public land or someone’s HMA / Walk In Area instead.
These aren’t the king’s deer. This is crazy and completely goes against the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and Wyoming values. If we are going to allow landowners to sale their licenses, then the purchaser should only be able to hunt the animals in the confines of the private property of the landowner selling the license.
Wow! For those complaining about “greedy ranchers” charging for access to their private property, how much public access do you allow to your home and property? You would never complain if your found your dog or cat or even tires full of shot gun pellets would you?
Apples and oranges. You keep using this example like it’s some profound answer. It’s not. It only shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Read more and post less.
What do you not understaqnd about private property? No one in either case likes to find pellets in their animals nor uninvited people climbing their fences. I grew up a few miles out of Riverton on a sheep ranch and we found pellets even in the bum lambs!
Very interesting topic… I find it hard to believe this isn’t already happening with some landowners… some questions that probably need to be considered: Why do landowners want this? Aren’t there G&F programs in place to reimburse for wildlife damage/grazing? Does wildlife grazing really hinder ranchers from feeding their own herds with natural forage from their ranches? Would they have to bring in hay even if wildlife grazing wasn’t a problem? If this landowner tag pay to play practice is allowed, then does G&F get to drop their wildlife damage reimbursements and use that funding to benefit the sportsman in other ways? I agree with many commenters here, this will only take more licenses away from WY residents and that is a problem.
This passes, expect a lot more landowners applying and far fewer lottery tags issued to the rest of us. You want to hunt Little Mountain, the Red Desert, Green Mountain, Ferris, or Shirleys some day? Unless you can shell out $10,000, forget about it.
One pertinent fact the article doesn’t mention that not everyone is aware of, is that Wyoming landowner tags are valid for the entire unit. They do not limit the tag holder to hunt only their private property. Many landowner tag holders in Wyoming use them to hunt public land. Also, many of our state legislators are large landowners who would benefit from passing this bill. I respect Ms. Pearson’s decision to recuse herself from voting on it due to conflict of interest (even though I think that her being the person to introduce the bill to begin with is a conflict of interest), but I question how many other legislators would have the same integrity.
This bill is BS. More tags need to go to Wyoming residents NOT LESS.
make the license only valid on the private land and not the whole area and see what that does to landowner support
These ranchers base their living on livestock and sometimes minerals, not on public owned game animals. Already they get more from state and BLM land use than any others. Who else is allowed to make money using public lands ? Wyoming game should not be for profit by special interest. Already ranchers are catered to by commissioners in Uinta County. The county will maintain roads to ranches and ignore the needs of other home others. Enough already with the cronyism and special interest.
While the freedom caucus gets some things very right, anyone backing this bill is very wrong. Taking public resources from the public to benefit the wealthy sounds like it was taken right out of the Communist Manifesto. Stealing is always wrong, regardless if from the rich or poor. A principal most politicians (regardless of party) intentionally refuse to grasp. However stealing from the poor to feed the rich is down right reprehensible.
Wrong. it is the public resource – wildlife — that is taking privately owned property – in this case forage – away from the private landowners usually without compensation. Its more of a case of private property being appropriated for the benefit of the public. There is actually a legal term called “takings” which refers to government taking private property from individuals without compensation. You seem to indicate it is the opposite – wealthy private property owners taking away from the public – no way, it is their private property which supposedly is protected in the USA – except for private land owners being required to graze the public’s wildlife without fair compensation.
Lee, wealthy land owners take away from everyone in this state one way or another. Be it tax havens, land locking public land, buying off politicians to make decisions on THEIR behalf, not ours, the citizens of this state and so on. I don’t have any sympathy when they want to whine and complain about their grass being eaten by some elk on their hobby ranch or if someone corner hops.
I know the answer to this, NO.
I love Wyoming because of the public land hunting opportunities. Instead of taking away from hunters like myself try doing something for the people you serve and not to line your own pockets. Pass this and it will show our legislature is all about what is in it for them and not the people they are supposed to serve. You complain about out of Staters coming to WY, but what do they think this will do?? This is wrong and the sponsors know it. Shame on you for even proposing taking away from us for your own personal gain.
Rick: You have it wrong – when the publicly owned wildlife is removing the forage which the rancher depends on for his livelihood – it is the public taking away from the private surface owner without compensation. The public is not being wronged – it is the private surface owners/ranchers who are wronged by not receiving fair compensation for their lost forage. And, if the wildlife take too much forage, the rancher has to buy hay in order to get through the winter – out of his own pocket although some animal damage compensation can be claimed under strict conditions. Ranchers have the right to fair compensation – bottom line.
Right back to the basic questions – should private landowners be obligated to graze the publicly owned wildlife on their private surface without compensation??? Of course they could construct 8 foot high deer, antelope and elk proof fences to keep the public’s wildlife from grazing their private land but that won’t work due to our fragmented land ownership pattern. Their best source of compensation is being able to sell licenses to willing hunters at considerable fees. We just went through this with compensation for large herds of elk which resulted in a complicated animal damage payment system. This article mentions 2000 animal grazing days as a threshold for issuing landowner licenses – thats a lot of publicly owned wildlife grazing on private land. The notion that publicly owned wildlife can graze on private surface without compensation is totally akin to private property rights in Wyoming and other states. Game and Fish however, will utilize bureaucratic interference in order to maintain their stranglehold on wildlife in Wyoming – they want total control and a monopoly. Currently, Game and Fish pays landowners $16 for each coupon returned for deer, elk and antelope tags.Peanuts!!! The only realistic compensation for landowners is to charge hunters significant dollars for access to their private land and a lot of this is going on. however, they could offer more exclusive hunting experiences on their private surface via sale of landowner licenses. The public obviously, still has the opportunity to hunt on the vast tracts of publicly owned surface such as BLM and USFS and can do so at reasonable rates.
In eastern Wyoming, which is predominately private land, some outfitters obtain exclusive hunting rights from ranchers and pay the landowners $1,000 for each deer and antelope harvested on their ranch. The landowner does not provide the tags – its up to the outfitters to guide hunters who have successfully drawn tags. This approach seems to more fairly compensate the landowners for the publicly owned wildlife they graze although they still do not have control over the tags. Please note that $1,000 is a lot more than the $16 the ranchers receive from Game and Fish for each coupon. Bottom line is that private enterprise treats the landowners fairly while Game and Fishes meager compensation is next to nothing.
Its all about private property rights. The Rock Springs Grazing Assn. recently won a federal court case affirming their right to graze on the private sections in the checkerboard. Their issue was with the wild horses grazing on their leased private land. I believe this is the primary reason wild horses are being removed from several Horse Management Areas – the horses don’t have the right to graze on private surface – they are Federally owned versus State of Wyoming owned wildlife. But the main issue is the same – publicly owned critters shouldn’t have the right to graze on private surface without significant compensation to the private surface owners – and $16 coupons is peanuts.
The price charged for grazing on public land is also peanuts.
Remember providing food for America requires an investment from the rancher and he must also be able to make a living for his family or quit producing food for others.
In this state he should stop producing. If you can’t make it on your own you shouldn’t be in business. Any other business would be out of business.
Yep, I cannot think of a better idea than eliminating food producers to make more free land to play on. I’m sure that would bring the cost of human food down.
What about the 1000s of public acres that are landlocked and only accessed by private landowners like Elk Mountain? That landowner even puts road gates blocking access on public land, this is one example. I am tired of private land owners abusing private property rights. We need to do more to allow access to public land. If you don’t like elk and other animals eating your grass then allow me to hunt them. Yeah, that isn’t going to happen. If hunters were allowed to hunt private ground it would move more animals off to public grounds. The private land owners not allowing access to hunt is screwing up the system.
Lee, some of what you wrote is very misleading. For example “however, they could offer more exclusive hunting experiences on their private surface via sale of landowner licenses.” You make is sound as if landowner tags are valid only on private property, which is not true. A lot of hunting with landowner tags occurs on public land. And then there’s this: “The public obviously, still has the opportunity to hunt on the vast tracts of publicly owned surface such as BLM and USFS and can do so at reasonable rates.” The public doesn’t necessarily have the opportunity to hunt public land because landowners block access to millions of acres of public land.
Where is any documentation of Wildlife in Wyoming “overgrazing” or even significantly reducing forage for livestock grazing? There are a lot of claims from ranchers that Wildlife “damage” their range. Really? I’ve seen a lot of range damaged from overgrazing, all by livestock. The only “wild”, over-grazers are feral horses. No rancher has been put out of business due to grazing competition from wildlife. It’s a common complaint from ranchers and there range is being eaten out of “house and home” by wildlife and their whole operation is in danger of collapse because of wildlife. Where’s the credible proof? Trophy bulls or bucks that these tags be sold for, are a tiny fraction of the Wildlife population, and won’t reduce herd numbers one iota. No one is going to pay a premium for a doe or cow elk tag. If there is true “damage” it comes at the stackyard, with doe whitetails in haystacks. That is simply taken care of with a lot better fencing, which the State can pay for, and increasing the number of doe tags (or giving the landowner the right to target and reduce just those animals).
Mr Campbell, I always enjoy reading your comments. Sometimes I agree with your inciteful comments, sometimes not. This is one of those times that I disagree. It has been my experience that most large acreage landowners do in fact charge a “trespass fee” to allow hunters to hunt on their property. And yes, outfitters gobble up access to some of the best hunting land available. A lot of cash changes hands during these transactions, how much of that is reported as income is anyone’s guess. I did a quick search on Wyopen.gov to search transactions that the Game & Fish Commission paid landowners for coupons turned in for last years hunt season. I only noted those entities that had at least one line item that was over $1000. (landowner coupon payments are broken into 3 line items, antelope, elk and deer) There were 11 landowners that met this criteria and the total $$$ paid to them was $21,648. The landowner with the largest number of coupons received $4,784 and that was Wagonhound Land & Livestock. Check out their website, I think you’ll come to the same conclusion that I did; Nope, they don’t need to be selling any landowner tags to the highest bidder to make ends meet. Ranchers or large tract landowners, whether resident or non-resident are not stupid. They have worked the “free money” programs for generations. Allowing hunting on their private land is just another cash cow. Limiting landowners to use those tags only on their land is great in theory but unenforceable. My question to Senator Pearson, would these same ranchers that are struggling now, forgo the ability to sell their landowner tag when times are better? LOL at that suggestion.
I vote no; no additional compensation is necessary. There are already programs in place that pay landowners for damage caused by wildlife. and, as far as “a taking” of private property, well I submit that the grazing fee charged by the Federal government at $1.35 per AUM is “a taking” from the public by private land owners. Maybe those grazing permittees would like to pay current private lease rates in exchange for being able to sell their landowner tags. LOL, probably not!
I guess they are not happy with being able to charge hunters to access their land. Now they want to stake a claim on the wildlife on their land. I would like to see ranchers stay in business, but this proposal seems pretty greedy.
Just another subsidy for welfare ranchers. How about sending people who do not hunt some welfare, too…
The landowner paying the taxes on the dirt+furnishing the feed to sustain this wildlife should be able to reap some benefit.
Ag property taxes are pennies. Industry, mining, petroleum and residents carry the tax burden to protect the welfare rancher. Plus, these landowners are guaranteed hunt licenses every year which I as a resident haven’t been able to draw in a lifetime. Their welfare sob story worked well enough now that the G&F has to pay the rancher for damages for rangeland too. These new damages will be paid for by hunters. Is it okay for them to only pay a couple dollars a year for livestock to overgraze public land? Hell no! I just can’t seem to feel sorry for these folks.
And the public should be able to ‘reap’ some benefit for the almost free grazing these people receive
I wonder ,back in the day when these ranches were purchased were the Elk and Deer all Hiding somewhere ? there were no fees paid then and ranches survived.
Now all of a suden they showed up and are eating us out of house snd home ? Seems to me the problem seems to be Management. If ranchers dont alow Public hunting to at least Locals ,then they should not recieve Public Money .