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

[bayoublaster7527]

I am selfish i would like to draw a LE tag(never have) other than antelope! I live in a unique part of state with few general areas so i get to drive by thousands of elk to go hunting cause i cant draw a tag near my house. I want to hunt deer where i cut my christmas tree every year but as a resident i have a 2.5% odds, and NR can draw with 12 pref points. I will not even get into big4 residents inability to draw those mainly basedd on population decreases. But until i can draw a tag where i live before a NR can your crazy to think i will not fight for it...wouldnt you? 90/10 has become a standard, cost is currently unbelievable but at $2200 elk tags would sell out so stop complaining cause this is a direct result of your demand. I dont like changing rules midgame but i am still going to cheer for the home team when they do!

Currently: Sitting on my back porch typing this drinking my morning coffee glasing elk i cant hunt and looking at muleys seems i never will...

I guess the appropriate response to your issue of never drawing LQ tags where you live is the same response that any NR who complains about a 90/10 split receives from WY residents—- If you don’t like it then move there. (To WY vs move to a general unit)

 

[3darcher2]

Yes, it was nonresidents that put in place the current pp system through a survey done by the G&F. It was the support of nonresidents in that survey that pushed it through.

As far as the wilderness guide law, speak to the outfitters about that one. This has been stated a multitude of times on this forum alone, resident hunters had nothing to do with that one and it would have to be changed through legislation.

This is why I laughed at Buzz telling me to get my facts straight. At the end of the day, WY decided what to do with NRs, with input. It wasn't the NRs choice. If NR input is so important in deciding WY legislation, why not survey NRs now and see what they think. Then follow along with that survey.

 

[SC Living Outdoors]

Hey guys,
This might have already been posted bc I didn’t read though all 26 pages of comments. Seems like everyone is very opionated on this topic. Anyway, whether you’re for or against this bill here are the email addresses of the senators to email. I know I will write them. It might not matter but all I can do is try.

 

[JM77]

This is why I laughed at Buzz telling me to get my facts straight. At the end of the day, WY decided what to do with NRs, with input. It wasn't the NRs choice. If NR input is so important in deciding WY legislation, why not survey NRs now and see what they think. Then follow along with that survey.

NR points had no effect on residents, your comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Thomas11]

This guy says his suggested new fee structure is market based. I only know of NV and UT(just this yr) that have elk tags over 1k. Theirs is somewhat justified because they give out so few. Abd basically a once in a lifetime tag. To put a price of $1100 on an elk in WY and say that’s what all of the other states are charging is a crock of shit and an all out lie! Most are 600-700 dollars and yes some u have to a buy a license but it also allows you to apply for multiple species and even if u add the license u don’t come near $1100. This dude is a joke!!! And WY just recently went up very significantly on NR prices a couple yrs ago.

 

[CordelleMT]

@BuzzH how would this affect the random tag allocation for nonresident bighorn sheep? It looks like last year, 2 units had 1 random tag allocated and 2 units had 2 random tags. Assuming the same tag quotas as last year is there still a chance for a random tag in at least one of those units if this were to pass?

 

[Mallardsx2]

Big game hunting in Wyoming a $300 million industry - Powell Tribune

Southwick Associates, a private outdoor recreation and economics firm, recently concluded that those hunters contributed more than $303.5 million to the state’s economy and supported 3,100 jobs. “With the decline in energy revenue, tourism is …

www.powelltribune.com

 

[buckhorn10]

sounds like its going to get tough as a NR to get a tag in Wyoming and lots of $$$$$$$

 

[BuzzH]

This guy says his suggested new fee structure is market based. I only know of NV and UT(just this yr) that have elk tags over 1k. Theirs is somewhat justified because they give out so few. Abd basically a once in a lifetime tag. To put a price of $1100 on an elk in WY and say that’s what all of the other states are charging is a crock of shit and an all out lie! Most are 600-700 dollars and yes some u have to a buy a license but it also allows you to apply for multiple species and even if u add the license u don’t come near $1100. This dude is a joke!!! And WY just recently went up very significantly on NR prices a couple yrs ago.

Wyoming has wayyyyyy more applicants applying for elk on the special fee than are available, which is over $1100 or slightly more...including general tags that take 1 or 2 points to draw.

Tell me again that nr elk tags aren't worth 1100....

 

[VikingsGuy]

This guy says his suggested new fee structure is market based. I only know of NV and UT(just this yr) that have elk tags over 1k. Theirs is somewhat justified because they give out so few. Abd basically a once in a lifetime tag. To put a price of $1100 on an elk in WY and say that’s what all of the other states are charging is a crock of shit and an all out lie! Most are 600-700 dollars and yes some u have to a buy a license but it also allows you to apply for multiple species and even if u add the license u don’t come near $1100. This dude is a joke!!! And WY just recently went up very significantly on NR prices a couple yrs ago.

Market price is what a willing buyer pays a willing seller, not what some other person is pricing their "product" at. If they sell all their tags at that price (which I have no doubt they will) this is the market price by definition.

 

[BuzzH]

Big game hunting in Wyoming a $300 million industry - Powell Tribune

Southwick Associates, a private outdoor recreation and economics firm, recently concluded that those hunters contributed more than $303.5 million to the state’s economy and supported 3,100 jobs. “With the decline in energy revenue, tourism is …

www.powelltribune.com

And under 90-10 still would be the same.

 

[JLS]

My last post in this thread. There are false narratives at play here, and folks would do well to actually read them legislation. As per this bill, NR tags are not reduced in their totality. There isn’t overall lost opportunity, but there is lost opportunity within the LQ elk units. A lot of the back and forth here is based on false assumptions.

That said, some folks who’ve been buying points for years under a defined system are having the rules changed mid stream. It’s understandable they are frustrated and bitter. If you want them to be empathetic towards Wyoming’s generosity with LQ permits, maybe have some empathy for the folks who feel like they got duped on the point game.

 

[brocksw]

Market price is what a willing buyer pays a willing seller, not what some other person is pricing their "product" at. If they sell all their tags at that price (which I have no doubt they will) this is the market price by definition.

True words.

It's kind of worrisome though and there's a lot of nuance here. Are they just charging that much because they can? If so...then part of that market dynamic will be landowners charging 10k for a landowner tag just because someone will pay it. Then that landowner will buddy up with a legislator to get a more favorable market environment...maybe 10 LO tags instead of just 1? Then he'll no longer want to provide public access to the USFS land behind his ranch until he get's a big access easement check. Then when he gets that, the unwashed diy hunters will push all the elk down on his land, that will put him out of house and home by eating all his hay...so then he'll need tax payer of state funds to pay for the depredation and maybe some insurance money to pay for damages....And then he'll start outfitting on the side, if he's not already. Then he'll want guaranteed tags, because how could he make a living on a lottery? Wait is this Montana? or is this the direction of every western state?

I'm starting to think we need to be careful just letting "the market" dictate the future of hunting and the wildlife we cherish so much.

 

[brocksw]

Wyoming has wayyyyyy more applicants applying for elk on the special fee than are available, which is over $1100 or slightly more...including general tags that take 1 or 2 points to draw.

Tell me again that nr elk tags aren't worth 1100....

Buzz, I really think we need to stop basing the discussion around the "worth" of a tag. Charge what is necessary to maintain and manage the resource. But charging more just because they can get it....that spits in the face of DIY hunters like myself and many of the people I know and many future hunters. We can't advocate for hunting, public land, public access to that land, and the hunting heritage that the regular blue collar guy enjoys and loves and then turn around and also advocate for increasing prices just because we can get it. That's a never ending chase to tags that only the rich can afford. You're supporting pricing out regular people over time. We have enough battles to fight outside of increasing tag prices...see politics, habitat, access, etc...

I'll say this until I'm blue in the face. If the future of DIY hunting and wildlife comes down to nothing but dollars and cents....we're eff'ed.

 

[VikingsGuy]

True words.

It's kind of worrisome though and there's a lot of nuance here. Are they just charging that much because they can? If so...then part of that market dynamic will be landowners charging 10k for a landowner tag just because someone will pay it. Then that landowner will buddy up with a legislator to get a more favorable market environment...maybe 10 LO tags instead of just 1? Then he'll no longer want to provide public access to the USFS land behind his ranch until he get's a big access easement check. Then when he gets that, the unwashed diy hunters will push all the elk down on his land, that will put him out of house and home by eating all his hay...so then he'll need tax payer of state funds to pay for the depredation and maybe some insurance money to pay for damages....And then he'll start outfitting on the side, if he's not already. Then he'll want guaranteed tags, because how could he make a living on a lottery? Wait is this Montana? or is this the direction of every western state?

I'm starting to think we need to be careful just letting "the market" dictate the future of hunting and the wildlife we cherish so much.

FWIW - I was not arguing for a market pricing of shared public resources (about 20 pages ago I shared my dislike of that approach), but rather was correcting a rant by another member about what "market price is".

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I'll reiterate so I hopefully don't get flamed...I'm not really in support of this bill as drafted, I am sympathetic to NR's who typically hunt general or low point LE units because of the likely additional point creep, and if drafted this will have as much negative affect on me (NR family and friends won't draw quite as often, and funds are tough for some) as positive (I've got like 7 resident M/S points so may never draw via points anyway).

All that said, who here is writing letters, watching committee meetings, attending game commission meetings, leaning on residents, etc. in other states to lobby to get your NR percentage bumped up? Buzz made the point, it's fair, and nobody answered. Why are WY residents selfish bastards for even considering a bill that puts it in line with other state splits -- even though there is still no net loss of elk tags and you still get a boat load of antelope tags after the initial draw. I bet not many of the loudest negative voices on this have ever attended WY legislative session or commission meeting, maybe I'm wrong.

Part of the reason this is such a big hubbub, and probably had a faster post rate than any HT thread in history, is the deal for NR's here has been so good. The hunting has been good, the prices were a particularly good value for a long time, and nobody likes having the rug pulled out. I get it to the extent I can.

I've spent half the last day thinking I am way too selfish, half not selfish enough, and am trending toward "we're all screwed in the long run either way". Maybe my bar is too low, but I don't expect my legislators to vote based on garnering national support for hunting and conservation by remaining the most relatively generous (in % tags and value) in the country. It's about two degrees removed from their political reality, and not remotely on the radar of most of their constituents. You could argue it should be, but it's not the world they live in. I don't know whose fault that is supposed to be, probably no one group in particular.

I can tell you what annoys me enough to consider contacting the committee in support of this: Getting an unsolicited e-mail from SNS/Sy Gilliland about killing the bill with zero actual information in it (and how do they have my personal e-mail address), and the victim complex of the squeakiest wheels on here. Like the one hound guy that blew up the MT/hound/bear thread, the aggressiveness make you and your fellow NR's hunters look bad. I'm not talking about those expressing alternative arguments, concerns about impacts, or frustration, those make total sense.

 

[brocksw]

FWIW - I was not arguing for a market pricing of shared public resources (about 20 pages ago I shared my dislike of that approach), but rather was correcting a rant by another member about what "market price is".

I know. My apologies if I came off critical. I was trying to join in on the sarcasm so to speak.

 

[footingit]

True words.

It's kind of worrisome though and there's a lot of nuance here. Are they just charging that much because they can? If so...then part of that market dynamic will be landowners charging 10k for a landowner tag just because someone will pay it. Then that landowner will buddy up with a legislator to get a more favorable market environment...maybe 10 LO tags instead of just 1? Then he'll no longer want to provide public access to the USFS land behind his ranch until he get's a big access easement check. Then when he gets that, the unwashed diy hunters will push all the elk down on his land, that will put him out of house and home by eating all his hay...so then he'll need tax payer of state funds to pay for the depredation and maybe some insurance money to pay for damages....And then he'll start outfitting on the side, if he's not already. Then he'll want guaranteed tags, because how could he make a living on a lottery? Wait is this Montana? or is this the direction of every western state?

I'm starting to think we need to be careful just letting "the market" dictate the future of hunting and the wildlife we cherish so much.

Agreed. If we wanted fair market, then states could just auction off all their tags. Then the average Joe would be completely priced out.

 

[Buffs35]

Might be cheaper to just get 3 like minded guys to start a "ranching" LLC and purchase a section in our desired location. Guaranteed tags. Hell, do the same in Montana - they'd probably pay us to shoot pregnant cows.

 

[rwc101]

All that said, who here is writing letters, watching committee meetings, attending game commission meetings, leaning on residents, etc. in other states to lobby to get your NR percentage bumped up? Buzz made the point, it's fair, and nobody answered. Why are WY residents selfish bastards for even considering a bill that puts it in line with other state splits -- even though there is still no net loss of elk tags and you still get a boat load of antelope tags after the initial draw. I bet not many of the loudest negative voices on this have ever attended WY legislative session or commission meeting, maybe I'm wrong.

Part of the reason this is such a big hubbub, and probably had a faster post rate than any HT thread in history, is the deal for NR's here has been so good. The hunting has been good, the prices were a particularly good value for a long time, and nobody likes having the rug pulled out. I get it to the extent I can.

I've spent half the last day thinking I am way too selfish, half not selfish enough, and am trending toward "we're all screwed in the long run either way". Maybe my bar is too low, but I don't expect my legislators to vote based on garnering national support for hunting and conservation by remaining the most relatively generous (in % tags and value) in the country. It's about two degrees removed from their political reality, and not remotely on the radar of most of their constituents. You could argue it should be, but it's not the world they live in. I don't know whose fault that is supposed to be, probably no one group in particular.

I can tell you what annoys me enough to consider contacting the committee in support of this: Getting an unsolicited e-mail from SNS/Sy Gilliland about killing the bill with zero actual information in it (and how do they have my personal e-mail address), and the victim complex of the squeakiest wheels on here. Like the one hound guy that blew up the MT/hound/bear thread, the aggressiveness make you and your fellow NR's hunters look bad. I'm not talking about those expressing alternative arguments, concerns about impacts, or frustration, those make total sense.