Wyoming's landowner tag system has been evolving (and being fought over) for the last several years. What started in 2021 with the Wyoming Wildlife Task Force has now culminated in a decision that expands who qualifies for landowner tags — not limits. To understand the implications, you’ve got to see both the status quo and how it stacks up to neighboring states.
Wyoming’s Landscape: What’s In Place (Mid-2025)
These are the baseline rules for landowner licenses in Wyoming under the current regulations:
- A landowner must own at least 160 contiguous deeded acres within the specific hunt area. The land also must be habitat for the species in question (food, cover, water).
- The landowner must show that the species uses the property for at least 2,000 “animal use days” over the previous year.
- Only up to two licenses per species can be issued per parcel per calendar year. Immediate family members may use the tags, and both residents and nonresidents may qualify under the same rules.
- Lands that were bought or subdivided for the primary purpose of obtaining landowner tags are ineligible. However this rule is nebulous and often broken.
Moments of Tension & The 2025 Decision
Over the past ~4 years the wildlife task force, followed by Game & Fish and public meetings, tackled whether those baseline rules were still doing the job — whether they were fair, whether they needed tightening, etc. Some of the key proposals that stirred up dust:
- Raising the minimum acreage from 160 to 640 acres (or 160 acres of “cultivated land” in some proposals).
- Bumping up the animal use days from 2,000 to 3,000.
- Requiring that ownership interest in corporate/trust entities reach at least 20% (i.e. forcing stronger individual ownership rather than low-percentage stakeholders).
After massive public comment (including from small landowners, hunters, residents), the Commission backed off those stricter proposals. The changes not adopted include increasing acreage minimums, increasing animal use days, or adding that 20% ownership requirement.
What did happen:
- Some definitions were clarified (like immediate family).
- They reaffirmed that small landowners who meet current criteria retain ability to apply.
- No caps were instituted on how many landowner tags can exist in a hunt area. (this is a legislative decision not commission decision)
- Proposal to allow selling or transferring landowner tags (also a legislative decision via Senate File 118) has come up but hasn’t passed. It’s been controversial.
What This Means for Hunters & Landowners in Wyoming
- Small landowners are relieved, for now, that stricter thresholds didn’t pass. But many feel the threat looms in future iterations.
- Public hunters—especially those who depend on preference points or the general draws—are worried the expansion of eligibility will siphon off more tags, making draws even more competitive.
- There’s a perception (with some basis) that the balance between rewarding stewardship and keeping public opportunity accessible is tilting toward private land advantage.
- This decision flirts with a huge change to management by the North American Model of Conservation and introduces wildlife as a fiscal commodity not a resource.
How Wyoming Compares with Other States
To see how much of an outlier Wyoming is (or not), I checked how Montana and Idaho handle similar programs. These illustrate different trade-offs and models.
Montana
Montana’s system is more prescriptive and includes set-asides and preference programs that more directly reserve tags for landowners under certain conditions:
- Landowners who own 160 acres (primarily agricultural) in a hunting district can claim preference for deer / antelope licenses.
- For elk in Montana, landowners must have 640 contiguous acres used by elk, verified by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP).
- Importantly, around 15% of the quota in many districts is reserved or “set aside” for landowner preference licenses. That gives landowners guaranteed access (within that reservation) rather than just competing in the general pool.
- There are also sponsor programs, which let landowners sponsor hunters (sometimes nonresidents) to hunt on their land, providing additional flexibility, public access components, and reporting requirements.
Idaho
Idaho's model is a little more hybrid — balancing recognition of landowner habitat contribution with stricter thresholds and drawing mechanisms.
- The Landowner Appreciation Program (LAP) requires 640 acres of eligible property within a single controlled hunt area to be eligible for the initial controlled draw.
- Landowners with 320-639 acres in a given area can apply for leftover tags once the main draw is done.
- Only one LAP tag per species is awarded for properties in the 320-4,999 acre range; landowners with huge acreage (5,000 acres or more) may qualify for a second tag.
- There is species-use verification — the property must provide habitat and be used by the species.
Wyoming vs. Montana & Idaho: Key Differences
Putting these side-by-side shows some of Wyoming’s strengths, and also where its vulnerabilities lie.
| Aspect | Wyoming | Montana | Idaho |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acreage threshold (lower end) | 160 acres (contiguous) | 160 acres for deer/antelope; 640 for elk | 640 acres to qualify for drawn LAP; 320-639 get leftover tags |
| Animal use / species verificationa | 2,000 animal use days required; must show actual use by species | Montana verifies species presence and requires land used by species; agricultural land use condition; acreage verified | Idaho requires habitat and significant species use; property registration needed |
| Number of tags per parcel | Up to 2 per species per parcel; immediate family may use | Similar limits; preference set-aside per district helps landowners get access without overwhelming the general pool | One tag per species for middle acreage; two only for very large acreage |
| Set-aside / reserved quotas | None explicitly reserved; landowner licenses issue from hunts where quota is limited; but no fixed % of tags set aside | ~15% set aside for landowner preference in many hunting districts | No fixed % set aside (Idaho uses drawings + leftover tags) |
| Transferability / corporate ownership rules | Tags are nontransferable; ownership interest threshold proposals rejected; subdivision for the purpose of license acquisition disallowed | Some flexibility with sponsors; but preference generally tied to deeded ownership and land used | More structured: large acreage gets more tags; corporate/permit entities have certain registration requirements; but tags not freely sold. |
Why These Differences Matter
These rules aren’t just technicalities. They affect the opportunity landscape for public hunters, small landowners, and the long-term culture of hunt drawing.
- Access and fairness: States that reserve quota portions for landowners (like Montana) tend to do a better job allowing landowners access without eating too much into the public pool under tight quotas. Wyoming currently lacks that kind of guardrail.
- Stewardship incentives: Requirements like animal use, habitat verification, or sponsorship incentivize landowners to care about wildlife in ways beyond just owning property. Wyoming has such a requirement (2,000 animal use days), which is good, but some of the stronger proposals (raising it, or acreage) were dropped.
- Preserving public hunting’s social contract: The idea that wildlife belongs to all citizens is part of what draws people to states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho. When landowner tag systems start to look like perks for big landholders, it risks undermining trust.
The Bottom Line
Wyoming sits at a delicate place:
- For small to mid-sized landowners who meet the 160-acre + habitat + use standard, the system still offers legitimacy and reward for stewardship. They didn’t get cut out (despite proposals).
- But there’s increasing tension and risk. Without caps, without the stricter ownership or acreage proposals in place, expansions in eligibility can mean more tags going to private land, more tags removed from the public draw, and worse odds for the “average hunter.”
- Compared to Montana and Idaho, Wyoming is more forgiving in some respects (lower acreage threshold, fewer species-use or corporate ownership restrictions), but less protective in others (lack of set-asides, potential for unchecked growth of landowner tags).
For public hunters and small land stewards, the challenge going forward is: can Wyoming add guardrails without gutting the landowner incentive? Can it maintain wildlife and habitat quality, honor existing participants, and try to prevent the system from tilting too far toward private benefit?