R
rwc101
Guest
That was something I suggested to Hicks. He usually responds, but I'm sure he's getting buried with emails about this.
And the Hits just keep on coming....WY now.
- Thread starter Trial153
- Start date
That was something I suggested to Hicks. He usually responds, but I'm sure he's getting buried with emails about this.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
With MSG I always wonder... so the odds for me as a resident are 1 in 300 so once in 4 lifetimes if I cut out all NR and then make the tag once in a lifetime for residents the odds go to 1 in 100 or once in 1.3 lifetimes.
So sure... my odds more than doubled, but I'm still not going to draw.
Does it matter? Maybe it does... I don't know
I buy Oak's raffles but I would even if he told me there weren't actually prizes but the money still went to sheep.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes...by regulation nr shall receive 7250 full priced elk tags in the initial draw. General licenses are issued to make up the balance between limited quota tags issued and 7250.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Gotcha, thanks for the helping me put that piece together, I didn't get that was how it worked.
R
rwc101
Guest
With MSG I always wonder... so the odds for me as a resident are 1 in 300 so once in 4 lifetimes if I cut out all NR and then make the tag once in a lifetime for residents the odds go to 1 in 100 or once in 1.3 lifetimes.
So sure... my odds more than doubled, but I'm still not going to draw.
Does it matter? Maybe it does... I don't know
I buy Oak's raffles but I would even if he told me there weren't actually prizes but the money still went to sheep.
That's where I'm at. My odds don't change much for those tags even if they were 100% resident.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Yeah I kinda see it that way too particularly given my point levels for M/S, but I think for most residents they hear their odds might go up (both moving through tag pools a little faster and a few more tags in the random), and they like the sound of it.With MSG I always wonder... so the odds for me as a resident are 1 in 300 so once in 4 lifetimes if I cut out all NR and then make the tag once in a lifetime for residents the odds go to 1 in 100 or once in 1.3 lifetimes.
So sure... my odds more than doubled, but I'm still not going to draw.
Does it matter? Maybe it does... I don't know
I buy Oak's raffles but I would even if he told me there weren't actually prizes but the money still went to sheep.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
The committee hearing is happening right now, no vote expected today. Vote likely Thursday.
The tag split doesn’t cause me one iota of heartburn.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Live Link to Travel Committee Mtg
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Since apparently I missed your point, let me elaborate a little better.
You're taking that idea to the extreme, but for someone to care less about elk or other western wildlife because they never got the chance to hunt elk (be in WY or elsewhere) is a thing, and to call that person somehow insincere or an unworthy advocate feels like a slap in their face and a deliberate attempt to reduce the size or our collective tent to only those that see the world as "I" do.
Sure, but WY antelope used to be on that list as well (any maybe in the end it still is... for now). How long until sage grouse are no longer on it? Or javelina or? I made the point previously, I know I care a ton about wildlife, I devote countless hours to their cause volunteering. But I also realize that I don't care about desert bighorns as much as I do mule deer specifically because I have spend weeks of my life living in a tent, on the side of a mountain, sweating my balls off, dirty as hell, slightly dehydrated, hunting mule deer. I am intimately connected to them in a way I never will get to with those sheep.
It is absolutely not the only way, but it is the BEST way.
Buzz: what is sacred about the 7250? Does that provide a budget figure necessary for the department?
Why couldn't that be changed just like the 90/10 percentages?
Link took to YouTube. They just referenced zoom call and public comment. How do I view that so I can comment. Stream cut out. Maybe they don't want comments
Last edited:
I'm guessing that is a nod to outfitters showing that total tag numbers aren't being cut. Good thing we have outfitters to advocate for us NR diy guys.
i see exactly what you're saying and i don't disagree.
i'm just sensing a black and white mentality in this thread that goes something like this: if we can't hunt elk, deer, and antelope every year in every western state how could the future of hunting possibly have ANY hope. the next generation of hunters might as well be considered lost. wild places and wild things are doomed.
and maybe i'm being slightly hyperbolic there.
but for starters, by and large, NR hunting has NEVER been an assured thing. you can't hunt deer, elk, and pronghorn every year in every state as it is! it has always been expensive and complicated for the most part. but now, all of the sudden, there is potentially another small pinch on NR opportunity when it's already quite limited across the board and apparently NR hunting is the only gateway we have to hunter recruitment and a passion for wild places and wild things? i say pucky to that. there are literally hundreds of ways and hunting opportunities, NR or R, to develop a passion for wild places, wild things, and hunting.
if the only way to get a kid interested in and passionate about hunting is take that kid to wyoming EVERY year with a pronghorn tag then that kid is doomed to be a hunter whether this bill passes or not.
get-n-birdy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 198
Don't blame Wyoming or other states for fee increases or reducing nr tag percentages. Demand is high currently and they are taking advantage of it. But just because demand is high right now, doesn't mean it always will be. Taking full advantage of demand, without great thought or care about the future, and trying to reproduce continued interest and demand down the road should be the goal. Not just capitalizing on current trends, which could backfire long term. There needs to be a balance that's beneficial for all parties involved or there will be bigger issues down the road.
Compounding problematic risks and future recruitment shortfalls seem inevitable. High costs for something that is not annually enjoyed, or even enjoyed once every decade in some cases, will lead to discontentment and disinterest. How can it not? It'd be like paying up front for your kids to play sports. But they had to apply for ten years to be able to actually get a chance to maybe play someday. With all kinds of changing rules and regulations in how they apply and shrinking opportunities because of high demand. It'll eventually lead to the number of people and the diversity of people shrinking, in an already small demographic of the population, to only the extremely highly motivated ones being involved. Yeah, the demand will still be high, but the overall numbers of people per capita applying will have shrunk dramatically. That is not a good, long term strategy for recruitment or the viability for conservation or the preservation of the hunting culture or the American conservation model that we are now currently blessed with. When as a group of people, hunters are already under the microscope of scrutiny by the masses. And yes, the ones left applying 20 years from now will have to have the disposable income to pay for something for years they may never actually be able to do or get to fully enjoy. For a husband explaining that fact to a young wife with kids is comical to think about. It's about as blissfully ignorant as it gets to not see the writing on that wall. It defines the law of dimensioning returns or risk vs reward analogies. For an activity that has so many variables that can change over the course of time from when a coveted tag is actually drawn and a season opens. Again the risk vs reward for putting in for an 8 year tag and having that opportunity ruined by weather, fires, a pandemic, health, etc. Those 8 years of applying for points and paying fees are lost out the window if the hunt is a bust for some reason out of the hunters control. How many average Joe guys are going to keep risking that over a lifetime of adulthood, with so many other things pulling at a person, with way less risk and way higher reward? Recruiting less people equates to less pull in an ever growing climate that is controlled in the political arena where numbers matter in voting or voices being heard when there's an issue that needs more horses pulling vs a tiny minority of highly motivated individuals.
Use to be an avid waterfowl hunter. Now that void is filled with photography and am probably going to sell a mountain of waterfowl gear, decoys and duck boats someday because it's just more fun to be able to scratch that itch all year, with no limit on the number of images I can take and very few regulations and no licenses needed. Or competition from a group dominated by a$$hat downwinder's. Minnesota's one state waterfowl group shut the doors because of many reasons but as the numbers of waterfowl hunters got pushed into fewer and fewer areas, competition for good spots became constricted. Like a big funnel sloping down to a bottleneck of pressure on fewer spots. When a sport gets to a point where every time out is a competitive battle of crazy groups seeing who can outdo each other, that's not what I'm after in getting outdoors. It's to get away from type A flat brimmers with products in their beards, who get a jizz buzz out of beating other people, drinking monsters and fist pumping after every kill, with little to no respect for the critter they just ended. The optics on types who resemble pro athlete attitudes verses conservationists like Leopold is concerning. Not that all are bad guys, but many need to learn from people like Randy Newbird or Steve Rinella. We live in a very visual world, where perception is 9/10th's of reality. As Minnesota's waterfowl hunter numbers have fallen, so has the desire to help out with what's viewed as a dying activity. Support and fiscal dollars for conservation dwindles. Yeah, we all get that just because you aren't able to hunt out west every year, we should all still be involved and help conservation efforts. But how many out west guys support out east conservation efforts that are also important? There's no applicable knowledge or support for it, because it's so far removed. But in the end the same thing will be inverted and as that happens, political clout and support for conservation efforts when needed won't be there. Then when bigger issues come up that affect resident hunters in states out west, non residents who use to be involved, will be focused elsewhere. It's not that they won't care, but their attention will be diverted to something they could actually be actively involved with. Other than just a distant observer, hoping and applying for and funding something they can only take advantage of every x number of years. The writing is in bold letters on the wall.
There will be a trickle down effect felt by anything otc in Colorado, Idaho, even Utah's archery spike hunts. People will be looking for any opportunity. That will cause those states to have to adjust, and re-adjust. Only making the problem worse. As the slope gets slippery'er, less people will want to shoot cows for increased fees. There'll be more need from agencies to give landowners more control over more critters forced onto refuge scenarios on private land. Hence giving private holders more control over public wildlife on private land. There's and inevitability to it. We've been heading in this direction for a long time and it'll hit a head where state agencies will need to alter their thinking as to how much of the current conservation model is sustainable. With more pressure from more affluent private stakeholders and outfitters. Again, the writing is on the wall. Sucks, because the issue of crop depredation and refuge scenarios on private land could have a solution that took advantage of hunters wanting to shoot stuff and land owners wanting to get rid of critters, but that seems so far out of reach it's almost pointless to address. Even though both parties have seemingly what could be a symbiotic relationship that was beneficial to both parties.
There's still opportunity and probably will be for another decade, but 2 decades from now things will look drastically different as a lot of the grayhair's age out. Most states are behind the 8 ball and are reacting verses being proactive. Not really sure how they could be proactive at this point in time? Funding is a problem state agencies need to address. Other than using non residents as a cash cow. Understand nr tag fees have remained stagnant or the rate of increase hasn't kept up with inflation, but what about resident tag fees? Can't fund conservation by nr tags, preference point and application fees alone. When the perception is their being cut off at the knees in regards to tag fee increases and dwindling opportunities. Imo nr resident tags need to be a percentage of resident fees, so if a nr tag goes up, so do resident tags. But again non residents have basically zero voice. Pretty surprised there's not a non resident out west hunting organization fighting for non resident hunting rights? Schnitzilla there's organizations for everything else.
Compounding problematic risks and future recruitment shortfalls seem inevitable. High costs for something that is not annually enjoyed, or even enjoyed once every decade in some cases, will lead to discontentment and disinterest. How can it not? It'd be like paying up front for your kids to play sports. But they had to apply for ten years to be able to actually get a chance to maybe play someday. With all kinds of changing rules and regulations in how they apply and shrinking opportunities because of high demand. It'll eventually lead to the number of people and the diversity of people shrinking, in an already small demographic of the population, to only the extremely highly motivated ones being involved. Yeah, the demand will still be high, but the overall numbers of people per capita applying will have shrunk dramatically. That is not a good, long term strategy for recruitment or the viability for conservation or the preservation of the hunting culture or the American conservation model that we are now currently blessed with. When as a group of people, hunters are already under the microscope of scrutiny by the masses. And yes, the ones left applying 20 years from now will have to have the disposable income to pay for something for years they may never actually be able to do or get to fully enjoy. For a husband explaining that fact to a young wife with kids is comical to think about. It's about as blissfully ignorant as it gets to not see the writing on that wall. It defines the law of dimensioning returns or risk vs reward analogies. For an activity that has so many variables that can change over the course of time from when a coveted tag is actually drawn and a season opens. Again the risk vs reward for putting in for an 8 year tag and having that opportunity ruined by weather, fires, a pandemic, health, etc. Those 8 years of applying for points and paying fees are lost out the window if the hunt is a bust for some reason out of the hunters control. How many average Joe guys are going to keep risking that over a lifetime of adulthood, with so many other things pulling at a person, with way less risk and way higher reward? Recruiting less people equates to less pull in an ever growing climate that is controlled in the political arena where numbers matter in voting or voices being heard when there's an issue that needs more horses pulling vs a tiny minority of highly motivated individuals.
Use to be an avid waterfowl hunter. Now that void is filled with photography and am probably going to sell a mountain of waterfowl gear, decoys and duck boats someday because it's just more fun to be able to scratch that itch all year, with no limit on the number of images I can take and very few regulations and no licenses needed. Or competition from a group dominated by a$$hat downwinder's. Minnesota's one state waterfowl group shut the doors because of many reasons but as the numbers of waterfowl hunters got pushed into fewer and fewer areas, competition for good spots became constricted. Like a big funnel sloping down to a bottleneck of pressure on fewer spots. When a sport gets to a point where every time out is a competitive battle of crazy groups seeing who can outdo each other, that's not what I'm after in getting outdoors. It's to get away from type A flat brimmers with products in their beards, who get a jizz buzz out of beating other people, drinking monsters and fist pumping after every kill, with little to no respect for the critter they just ended. The optics on types who resemble pro athlete attitudes verses conservationists like Leopold is concerning. Not that all are bad guys, but many need to learn from people like Randy Newbird or Steve Rinella. We live in a very visual world, where perception is 9/10th's of reality. As Minnesota's waterfowl hunter numbers have fallen, so has the desire to help out with what's viewed as a dying activity. Support and fiscal dollars for conservation dwindles. Yeah, we all get that just because you aren't able to hunt out west every year, we should all still be involved and help conservation efforts. But how many out west guys support out east conservation efforts that are also important? There's no applicable knowledge or support for it, because it's so far removed. But in the end the same thing will be inverted and as that happens, political clout and support for conservation efforts when needed won't be there. Then when bigger issues come up that affect resident hunters in states out west, non residents who use to be involved, will be focused elsewhere. It's not that they won't care, but their attention will be diverted to something they could actually be actively involved with. Other than just a distant observer, hoping and applying for and funding something they can only take advantage of every x number of years. The writing is in bold letters on the wall.
There will be a trickle down effect felt by anything otc in Colorado, Idaho, even Utah's archery spike hunts. People will be looking for any opportunity. That will cause those states to have to adjust, and re-adjust. Only making the problem worse. As the slope gets slippery'er, less people will want to shoot cows for increased fees. There'll be more need from agencies to give landowners more control over more critters forced onto refuge scenarios on private land. Hence giving private holders more control over public wildlife on private land. There's and inevitability to it. We've been heading in this direction for a long time and it'll hit a head where state agencies will need to alter their thinking as to how much of the current conservation model is sustainable. With more pressure from more affluent private stakeholders and outfitters. Again, the writing is on the wall. Sucks, because the issue of crop depredation and refuge scenarios on private land could have a solution that took advantage of hunters wanting to shoot stuff and land owners wanting to get rid of critters, but that seems so far out of reach it's almost pointless to address. Even though both parties have seemingly what could be a symbiotic relationship that was beneficial to both parties.
There's still opportunity and probably will be for another decade, but 2 decades from now things will look drastically different as a lot of the grayhair's age out. Most states are behind the 8 ball and are reacting verses being proactive. Not really sure how they could be proactive at this point in time? Funding is a problem state agencies need to address. Other than using non residents as a cash cow. Understand nr tag fees have remained stagnant or the rate of increase hasn't kept up with inflation, but what about resident tag fees? Can't fund conservation by nr tags, preference point and application fees alone. When the perception is their being cut off at the knees in regards to tag fee increases and dwindling opportunities. Imo nr resident tags need to be a percentage of resident fees, so if a nr tag goes up, so do resident tags. But again non residents have basically zero voice. Pretty surprised there's not a non resident out west hunting organization fighting for non resident hunting rights? Schnitzilla there's organizations for everything else.
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
Being a city dweller in Texas, I pretty much rely on out of state public land opportunities. I have all ready been priced out of the market here. It's not a requirement, but if I don't hunt out of state, I don't hunt.
NEWHunter
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. When I started looking to apply in the west several years ago I started with Wyoming as I felt it offered the best value for the money. Even with the price increases the value is still there. Selfishly, I can handle a price increase but the potential loss of opportunity is disappointing.
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Yes it was live streamed on youtube. The stream cut out and they halted testimony until it was restored. They still took public comments from anyone who wouldn't be available on Thursday for the next session. I'm not familiar with the public comment process via zoom, I've only ever attended committee meetings in-person.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Its in regulation so it would require a GF commission decision to change the 7250. If it is changed, I would guess it would be an increase to that number.
The allocation splits are in statute...
