Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

And the Hits just keep on coming....WY now.

Look, you can try to be a wise ass all you want.

Residents are wanting more opportunity its going to be one or the other either 90-10 or no more giving away under subscribed Resident tags to NR's.
They are BOTH coming in some form another. Just a matter time. Kinda like diamonds... time and pressure.
 
WYOGA tried to get the commission to increase the 7250 quota a couple years ago. They were not successful. This change will get them much closer to what they wanted.
And yet the only dissenters were outfitters saying they'd go broke. I still remember a commissioner telling Gilliland that about 50% of nr Elk tags were going to outfitted hunts and asking if that really wasn't enough for them.
 
And yet the only dissenters were outfitters saying they'd go broke. I still remember a commissioner telling Gilliland that about 50% of nr Elk tags were going to outfitted hunts and asking if that really wasn't enough for them.
If the average outfitter in Wyo could convince even a few residents to hunt with them, so many of their perceived problems would go away. But they seem to try their damnedest to get resident hunters to hate their very existence. I intend to hunt the mountains of western Wyo till the day I die. At some point I am not going to be able to effectively hunt the places I want to hunt. At that point an outfitter would be a great option. But the ones that run in that country are some of the most miserable people to be around on the mountain. I'll most likely stick to lower country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just received an email from SNS Outfitters & Guides (not sure how they got my email). Don't seem like they're in favor of this one:

"Dear Sportsman,

Wyoming Senator Larry Hicks has filed Senate File 103, a 90/10 license allocation and fee increase bill that would be devastating to your ability to draw a Wyoming big game hunting license in the future.

We need your help to contact members of the Senate Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee as soon as possible to share your opposition to the bill and how it would impact your ability to hunt in Wyoming. The bill will be heard by the committee at 8 a.m. on Thursday, March 4, 2021.

Please keep your messages focused and specific to how this appalling bill will hurt your future plans to hunt in Wyoming. Please let the senators know that you have made a financial investment in preference points and license fees and remind the Senators of the positive economic impact nonresident hunters, like yourself, brings to Wyoming.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to these Wyoming Legislators it is critical they hear from you and how a 50 percent reduction in licenses would affect your ability to hunt and Wyoming’s economy.

The Senators are listed below:

Chairwoman Affie Ellis (Cheyenne) [email protected]
Senator Mike Gierau (Jackson) [email protected]
Senator Tim Salazar (Dubois) [email protected]
Senator Bill Landen (Casper) [email protected]
Senator Wendy Schuler (Evantson) [email protected]


Sincerely,

Sy Gilliland, President
Wyoming Outfitters & Guides Association

PO Box 2650
Casper, WY 82602
[email protected]
wyoga.org
307.265.2376"
 
And yet the only dissenters were outfitters saying they'd go broke. I still remember a commissioner telling Gilliland that about 50% of nr Elk tags were going to outfitted hunts and asking if that really wasn't enough for them.
Speak of the devil. I just got my email from Sy asking me to contact the TRW committee and tell them I have a financial investment in PP's and this bill destroys that.
 
I’d like to find out the number of people from the east (or CA) that move to a western state like WY, or AZ specifically for hunting purposes. My guess is per the rule of unintended consequences these states are actually negatively impacting themselves without realizing it. Some percentage of guys, and maybe it's not a lot, might decide to move to WY or AZ or wherever, simply because while they were happy to play along and get a decent tag every 7-8 years, but if it's going to be 15 years or never, why not just move and get a tag every year plus improve their own chances at a good tag, especially retirees or people who can work from home, etc. This ultimately dilutes the resident pool with folks who maybe were on the fence at some point but decided to take the plunge, eventually having exactly the opposite impact that they intended.

I know it's probably not a huge number, but I look at these threads from any state saying that if they just cut the NR tags by X, then they'd have so much more opportunity. That may in fact be the lure to actually get more residents to come to your state, resulting in exactly the opposite.
 
I thought this was a good presentation. Hard to argue against any of it.

part one, start 54:00


after the glitch part 2

My only argument would be that the Arizona antelope example he used gets the application license charge added across all species for the full amount in his excel figures. Most folks who are applying in Arizona apply for more than just one species to get their money’s worth out of it. If each species cost 160 to apply you would see a dramatic change in applying.
 
WYOGA tried to get the commission to increase the 7250 quota a couple years ago. They were not successful. This change will get them much closer to what they wanted.
Thanks for the response. Can the commission change the regulation at any time that they collectively agree to do so? In other words, is it simply up to the commissioners to amend any regulation?
 
Thanks for the response. Can the commission change the regulation at any time that they collectively agree to do so? In other words, is it simply up to the commissioners to amend any regulation?
There are others far more savvy with this than I am but I would say that it depends on the regulation. Some regulations are written based upon statute. Some are not. The ones that are not only require the Commission to change them. I believe this is how it works. If I am wrong Buzz or JM77 will be along shortly to set the record straight.
 
I’d like to find out the number of people from the east (or CA) that move to a western state like WY, or AZ specifically for hunting purposes. My guess is per the rule of unintended consequences these states are actually negatively impacting themselves without realizing it. Some percentage of guys, and maybe it's not a lot, might decide to move to WY or AZ or wherever, simply because while they were happy to play along and get a decent tag every 7-8 years, but if it's going to be 15 years or never, why not just move and get a tag every year plus improve their own chances at a good tag, especially retirees or people who can work from home, etc. This ultimately dilutes the resident pool with folks who maybe were on the fence at some point but decided to take the plunge, eventually having exactly the opposite impact that they intended.

I know it's probably not a huge number, but I look at these threads from any state saying that if they just cut the NR tags by X, then they'd have so much more opportunity. That may in fact be the lure to actually get more residents to come to your state, resulting in exactly the opposite.

Very few. Any gains are offset by the young and the elderly deciding they want out.

  • The population of Wyoming in 2020 was 582,328, a 0.38% increase from 2019.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2019 was 580,116, a 0.18% increase from 2018.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2018 was 579,054, a 0.16% decline from 2017.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2017 was 579,994, a 0.9% decline from 2016
wyoming-population-2021-03-02-macrotrends.png
 
I completely understand them wanting to go to a 90% with a roll. And frankly I don't have an issue with it. My issue is the huge price increase. Even though they think they are matching other states it is a huge barrier.
 
In the essence of intellectual honesty, I do need to point out this bill would make me happy from the standpoint I have never liked the special/regular draw categories. It's allowing people to buy their way into better access to wildlife. On the flip side, it also subsidized lower pricing for schmucks like me who are content to play the lower odds game. I'm not so naïve as to think WY would do away with the special draw without raising tag prices. The actuarial note on that wouldn't look pretty.
 
There are others far more savvy with this than I am but I would say that it depends on the regulation. Some regulations are written based upon statute. Some are not. The ones that are not only require the Commission to change them. I believe this is how it works. If I am wrong Buzz or JM77 will be along shortly to set the record straight.
Some allocations are statutory and some regulatory -final answer.
 
As someone alluded to earlier, the North American model just may be beginning to circle the drain.
[/QUOTE]
AH remember back when we all believed we had a chance at a tag and argue if a 6.5 creedmore is an elk caliber.
 
In the essence of intellectual honesty, I do need to point out this bill would make me happy from the standpoint I have never liked the special/regular draw categories. It's allowing people to buy their way into better access to wildlife. On the flip side, it also subsidized lower pricing for schmucks like me who are content to play the lower odds game. I'm not so naïve as to think WY would do away with the special draw without raising tag prices. The actuarial note on that wouldn't look pretty.
To further the trend of intellectual honesty, I completely intend to apply in the special as long as that option remains and it helps my odds for the tag I am applying for.

I am burning my antelope points this season for sure, or going to try to. I was over a point ahead of the curve for the unit I want, until this news broke of course. It may be a big swing and a miss now.
 
Major or not is debatable. A -30% reading on GDP seems significant though. Either way, in the spring of last year, the stock market had just taken a 35% haircut in a matter of weeks, the country/world was getting half shut down and there was ENORMOUS uncertainty. And yet apps STILL went up in nearly every state.
All outdoor activates went higher by alot last year. Kids didn't have sports so what did families do? Camping fishing hunting and such as they were "safe" compared to indoor things
 
I’d like to find out the number of people from the east (or CA) that move to a western state like WY, or AZ specifically for hunting purposes. My guess is per the rule of unintended consequences these states are actually negatively impacting themselves without realizing it. Some percentage of guys, and maybe it's not a lot, might decide to move to WY or AZ or wherever, simply because while they were happy to play along and get a decent tag every 7-8 years, but if it's going to be 15 years or never, why not just move and get a tag every year plus improve their own chances at a good tag, especially retirees or people who can work from home, etc. This ultimately dilutes the resident pool with folks who maybe were on the fence at some point but decided to take the plunge, eventually having exactly the opposite impact that they intended.

I know it's probably not a huge number, but I look at these threads from any state saying that if they just cut the NR tags by X, then they'd have so much more opportunity. That may in fact be the lure to actually get more residents to come to your state, resulting in exactly the opposite.
Probably not many where that’s the ONLY reason, but likely many where it’s a top 5 reason. I changed residency to WY a year ago. First reason was no income tax. Second reason was everyone on here kept making fun of UT and the people who live there, so I was embarrassed to call it home any longer (j/k). Third reason was resident hunting opportunity and quality there vs UT (I’m in Region G). Finding a good deal on a nice place there sealed the deal.
 
Very few. Any gains are offset by the young and the elderly deciding they want out.

  • The population of Wyoming in 2020 was 582,328, a 0.38% increase from 2019.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2019 was 580,116, a 0.18% increase from 2018.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2018 was 579,054, a 0.16% decline from 2017.
  • The population of Wyoming in 2017 was 579,994, a 0.9% decline from 2016
View attachment 175988
That really doesn't address who is coming and who is going. If elderly non hunters are leaving or passing, and younger non-hunters are moving out, you're not really losing any hunters. If 10K hunters moved in to replace them, that would be significant.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,671
Messages
2,029,163
Members
36,278
Latest member
votzemt
Back
Top