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

[BuzzH]

Hicks suggested the bill could be bifurcated into the pricing and tag % pieces. The committee discussion will be interesting and pretty telling as to the eventual outcome I think.

I don't care that much about either, but if it's one or the other, I hope the fee increase passes.

 

[JDH]

I was planning to mail a deposit to an outfitter for a 2023 elk hunt in WY, but I think I’ll hold on to it until this thing shakes out. It sucks because I would have had enough points to hunt the LE unit, but this proposal could add who knows how many years to the wait. As vocal as WYOGA is with certain issues, I’m surprised they haven’t opposed this. It will certainly decrease their potential client base in LE units.

I received an email from them saying they opposed it.
"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."

 

[JDH]

What can residents and non-residents do about this bill? Good info on the Montana bill posts. Looking for same thing, process and contacts.

From an email I received:
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]

 

[VikingsGuy]

It would be nice if it were possible to put a sticker price on management, but I don't think you can. I would like a couple dozen more wildlife under/overpasses across the state. It would be nice to have enough small game and bird biologists to have an idea how many blue grouse are in the state and to keep a better eye on RHDV2. Maybe some range treatment and land acquisition so our sage grouse population can increase instead of wavering between dips and holding steady. Increase G&F revenue threefold and they would still have valuable research and management projects to last them decades.

Many more complex "supply chains" exist and have costs assessed to them every day. And I was not suggesting surgical precision - but if, by way of example, half the F&G dept funds are generally used for big game issues then half the big game tags should cover them. Otherwise, we are monetizing certain "valuable" wildlife to fund other unrelated matters - which may be great if you are a WY legislator, but I don't think it is a great wildlife policy.

Not to drive us too far off point, but it is like lotteries to fund schools - who could disagree with more money for schools? But studies show that state legislatures just defund schools in an amount equal to the lottery revenues. More money is not allocated to schools in fact.

 

[rwc101]

Otherwise, we are monetizing certain "valuable" wildlife to fund other unrelated matters - which may be great if you are a WY legislator, but I don't think it is a great wildlife policy.

What state doesn't fund their newt research with deer tags?

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

In all honesty, not me. I am so burnt out on writing letters and watching live meetings, calling people, writing emails, trying to drum up support amongst my hunting buddies, that I haven't even submitted any kind of opinion on this bill. It doesn't matter. As Buzz has pointed out, as a WA resident my future hunting in other states is numbered, either by restricting licenses or costs, the number of times I'll get to hunt WY or MT or ID are limited. So I'm throwing in the towel. Other states can do what they want.

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". M

This is where I'm at with all of it. Fees, tags, hunting in general... I'm just really burnt out on having to advocate for something ALL THE TIME. I'm not going to comment on CA bear bills, or MT wildlife privatization bills, I don't care if NM gives all their tags to outfitters or not. Hell, I don't really care what happens in WA anymore. Between the constant NEED to advocate and the fact the those who would oppose us can always find ways to unify around their topics while hunters cut, slice, divide, and circle the wagons into ever increasingly smaller bands of "like minded individuals" it's simply too disheartening to continue to struggle against it all. So i'll hunt where I can, when I can, and when I can't anymore... I'll fish.

aybe 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.

 

[BuzzH]

I know Buzz through BHA, I don't take it personal and I'm certainly not upset, I like Buzz. He has a reputation for getting like this sometimes and I have no problem with it....it just becomes difficult to have a conversation with him in this state. If I see him at a rendezvous it will all be fine.

Again, his point about ND, while valid...isn't apples to apples. Not long ago we barely had any moose. Our game laws and tag allocations come from a time when we had almost no moose, no elk, no sheep.... so we're starting from a much different place. In ND, we measure the numbers of sheep tags we give out on one hand, the number of elk tags in the entire state is like one unit in WY. The moose tag is a real conversation. Those populations are growing fast and landowners seem to be increasingly frustrated playing host to more moose. So that might be a legitimate conversation in the near future to open it up to non-residents...no doubt ND residents will fight that and want that opportunity for themselves. Same with elk. But that doesn't make them right. And we'd still be a long, long, long ways from the type of populations that other western states are dealing with. Sharing 10-15 thousand plus elk tags is a bit different than sharing 400.

I'm also not saying Buzz might not be right in this situation....but again....where does it stop? We have to be willing to listen to the questions and have the conversation...

I disagree with you 100% on your state wanting to keep all the moose permits and elk tags for Residents.

They absolutely should if that's what your RESIDENT hunters want to do, I have no issue with that.

Just the same as if WYOMING RESIDENTS want to keep 90% of our LQ tags.

What I don't like is a lecture from NR's on how residents of other states want to allocate their wildlife to NR's. Take what they're willing to give, say thank you, and move on...period.

The only reason I brought that up is to point out the blatant hypocrisy of someone calling me a greedy bastard Wyoming Resident for wanting 90-10 splits...when your state is 100-0 on some of theirs (which I have ZERO issue with and hope that Residents keep that way).

 

[brocksw]

It won't stop. Just like it hasn't in MT, ND, SD, IL, WA, FL, you name it. Not many other things, including median US income has went down either. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Wyoming GF is not short on funds, and this will answer another question that's been asked about, "what happens in a recession".

Wyoming GF is self funded and can also roll money into an account to save for downturns in later years or unforseen expenses. I don't want my department running on a shoe-string year to year budget. I don't run my personal finances like that and the GF has the ability to roll additional funds into accounts to be used later so they don't have to either. It makes one thing, sense.

Plus, there are literally HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of uses for additional funding. Hiring more GF employees, increasing their pay to keep good employees here, studies, migration work, habitat improvements, more over-passes that cost multi-millions each and the list is endless...you get the point, I hope.

If the stated goal of making a bigger pie in terms of wildlife, access, etc has any merit or fact, its going to take more than just an annual GF shoe-string budget to make that happen.

It's laughable to hear hunters, in general, want to "create a bigger pie", then be the tightest clowns on the planet and whine every time a fee increase is even suggested.

You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit....

No argument about the use for additional funds, even if they aren't need in the near term. Also, no argument from me about hunters being whiners when it comes to tag prices...although it's usually the residents that I hear whine about a tag/license increase that usually less than a case of beer. All while driving 70k trucks, buying 6k custom rifles, 4k sitka clothing packages, and 15 dollar a meal dehydrated food.

But you have to acknowledge Buzz... price cannot continue to go up and outpace the average joe's wallet. And it will. You have to acknowledge that would not be good for hunting...same with opportunity following that same trajectory.

And please Buzz....be reasonable. I never called you a "Greedy Bastard". It's totally different to say you're starting to sound like one.

And again, tag allocation isn't set or decided by one person, so I'm just not sure if hypocrisy is the right word here.

 

[brownbear932008]

Black face is racist! Lmao

Not in Virginia it seems we just keep them in the highest government position in the state and let the taxpayer foot the bill on idiotic bills each day.

 

[BuzzH]

No argument about the use for additional funds, even if they aren't need in the near term. Also, no argument from me about hunters being whiners when it comes to tag prices...although it's usually the residents that I hear whine about a tag/license increase that usually less than a case of beer. All while driving 70k trucks, buying 6k custom rifles, 4k sitka clothing packages, and 15 dollar a meal dehydrated food.

But you have to acknowledge Buzz... price cannot continue to go up and outpace the average joe's wallet. And it will. You have to acknowledge that would not be good for hunting.

And please Buzz....be reasonable. I never called you a "Greedy Bastard". It would really help for the sake of the subject matter to not make shit up.

Totally agree with the Resident complaining...no debate, just fact.

I don't know what to say about price going up...IMO, it has to. Simple management costs increase each year. GF employees are not going to work for 1970's salaries because you want to pay 1970's NR license fees. Ford and GM are not going to sell you a truck in 2021 for what you paid in 1985 for a truck then.

If you want license fees to stay stagnant, what is your solution to increased costs of management?

Lets not also forget, I posted a cost comparison to 1979 in regard to median US household income for Montana NR licenses...1/10th of 1 percent or a .001 increase in NR license fees between 1979 and 2021.

Hardly breaking the bank, and considering the increased and complex nature of managing wildlife, habitat, access and a litany of other increased costs...I was shocked it was that small of an increase.

I think there's a lot of misconception and hot air around the "average commoner NR hunter" being priced out...

If that's the case then it happened LONG before I every started hunting and I'm not putting that genie back in the bottle.

 

[PAhunter]

I post so infrequently here that I know no one gives a crap what I've said, but since I posted in this thread earlier and could have unintentionally come across as complaining - I'll be a NR on this thread that says yep, it has been really enjoyable hunting in Wyoming; no, I can't be too hard on Wyoming residents for wanting the tag splits to pass; and ultimately, I'll likely pay to play, at least at some level, in the future.

My two daughters have benefited from Wyoming's low NR youth license fees, and provided that point creep this year is not substantially greater than last year's creep, my son will be a beneficiary this fall. He's my youngest, so I'll count myself blessed by the timing of the proposed cost increases. (But even at the proposed prices, NR Wy youth licenses will still be an incredibly good deal!)

The only other state I've played the point game in is Utah. After 19 years, I drew LE Elk. In the 19 years between when I began applying in Ut and the time I drew, things evolved to the point where the tag allocations, costs for applications and tags, and the hunt quality were radically different than when I started. I see no reason to expect the trend in any other western state to be very different. (Please don't go getting insulted thinking I'm equating Wy to Ut here...) Anyone who begins buying points anywhere in hopes of drawing a limited quota tag (or even a general elk tag) without acknowledging that things will not be the same by the time they draw has their head in the sand.

The truth is that while PA has elk (and some monstrous bulls), there is virtually zero chance I'll ever draw a tag. Even if I do, the hunt experience here is about as similar to a western hunt as fishing in a farm pond is to fishing in Erie. If I want to experience a traditional elk hunt I need to count the cost, recognize that I'll need to do it as a 'guest' in one form or another, and mind my manners if/when I get an opportunity. And last I checked PA has zero mule deer or antelope, so same applies for those.

I don't know that I can justify (to my better half) paying for an $1100 elk tag every year anyway so why should I complain that I can't draw it that often?

 

[brocksw]

Maybe myopic but the time spent fighting for WY will now be spent fighting for land close to home. And with an attitude like Buzz who would take a third pronghorn buck tag..."all day long, and greedily" why should I worry about what happens in WY?

This goes to JLS's thread.

"How is this related to NR hunting? It's simple. The NA model relies on participation and advocacy to make it work. If no one participates, no one advocates. If no one advocates, the resource suffers unless there is a financial incentive to promote or propagate it. How do you make someone care about something they have no personal connection to?"

Look at the response to these Bills in WY and MT. States known for decent opportunity and good hunting. There's been a ton of participation on these issues from non-residents. Now cut that down to a fraction and make it so hard (draw odds or expensive) to hunt there (like UT) that guys might never get a tag...then add 10 or 20 years or a generation to the timeline. Now issues that pop up there don't garner the outside participation. No one cares.

I'm an example of this myself. UT to me is almost a lost cause. I'm just not as passionate or interested in what's going on there...I have no personal connection. MT and WY...I do and will hunt there way more often. I can draw tags there. I have a personal connection.

 

[BuzzH]

Many more complex "supply chains" exist and have costs assessed to them every day. And I was not suggesting surgical precision - but if, by way of example, half the F&G dept funds are generally used for big game issues then half the big game tags should cover them. Otherwise, we are monetizing certain "valuable" wildlife to fund other unrelated matters - which may be great if you are a WY legislator, but I don't think it is a great wildlife policy.

Not to drive us too far off point, but it is like lotteries to fund schools - who could disagree with more money for schools? But studies show that state legislatures just defund schools in an amount equal to the lottery revenues. More money is not allocated to schools in fact.

Well, the Wyoming Legislature has already defunded the GF the maximum they can...as in zero general fund dollars. Now including Wyoming GF, through hunting and fishing revenue, covering the costs of Governors sheep, moose, deer, and elk tag purchasers NR license fees. Those license fees used to be reimbursed to the Department via legislative mandate that apparently is more a suggestion, than actual law.

 

[brocksw]

Totally agree with the Resident complaining...no debate, just fact.

I don't know what to say about price going up...IMO, it has to. Simple management costs increase each year. GF employees are not going to work for 1970's salaries because you want to pay 1970's NR license fees. Ford and GM are not going to sell you a truck in 2021 for what you paid in 1985 for a truck then.

If you want license fees to stay stagnant, what is your solution to increased costs of management?

Lets not also forget, I posted a cost comparison to 1979 in regard to median US household income for Montana NR licenses...1/10th of 1 percent or a .001 increase in NR license fees between 1979 and 2021.

Hardly breaking the bank, and considering the increased and complex nature of managing wildlife, habitat, access and a litany of other increased costs...I was shocked it was that small of an increase.

I think there's a lot of misconception and hot air around the "average commoner NR hunter" being priced out...

If that's the case then it happened LONG before I every started hunting and I'm not putting that genie back in the bottle.

You might be right. But perhaps using PR funds, other forms of excise or production related taxes, are ways to offset some of these costs? Kind of like whats been done before? It seems to me states don't always do the best job utilizing available funds or opportunities to help offset those costs. Sometimes wildlife agencies are hamstrung and that's another area we could work on...much like in your example above.

I'm not saying they should stay stagnant forever...certainly prices will always go up to some degree. But when price and opportunity outpace the hunter's means for long periods of time we can't be upset when the tradition itself just kind of dies with it.

I stated in another thread that the issues we face go beyond tag price. They do, it is much more multifaceted than just tag price. But price is still part of that equation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well, the Wyoming Legislature has already defunded the GF the maximum they can...as in zero general fund dollars. Now including Wyoming GF, though hunting and fishing revenue, covering the costs of Governors sheep, moose, deer, and elk tag purchasers NR license fees. Those license fees used to be reimbursed to the Department via legislative mandate that apparently is more a suggestion, than actual law.

Not surprised - it is happening in all kinds of places on all kinds of topics. In some cases, departments end up as profit centers as the fees go to the general fund, but the department can only spend a legislatively approved amount that is less than the funds collected. This is bad government all around. Not just a WY issue, not just a F&G issue. Or democracy is broken in many ways, a bunch more serious than this, but having agencies self-fund drives all kinds of less than ideal policy in my opinion.

 

[BuzzH]

You might be right. But perhaps using PR funds, other forms of excise or production related taxes, are ways to offset some of these costs? Kind of like whats been done before? It seems to me states don't always do the best job utilizing available funds or opportunities to help offset those costs. Sometimes wildlife agencies are hamstrung and that's another area we could work on...much like in your example above.

I'm not saying they should stay stagnant forever...certainly prices will always go up to some degree. But when price and opportunity outpace the hunter's means for long periods of time we can't be upset when the tradition itself just kind of dies with it.

Well, like I said, I just haven't seen anything factual that opportunity and price is outpacing hunters means...even the "commoner average NR hunter" at least as far back as the late 70's when I started hunting.

 

[JLS]

I think there's a lot of misconception and hot air around the "average commoner NR hunter" being priced out...

Sorry you think it’s hot air Buzz. We see things from different world views I guess

 

[BuzzH]

Sorry you think it’s hot air Buzz. We see things from different world views I guess

All I can do is compare NR hunting prices in the 1970's to what they are now in regard to US median household income.

I'll concede that a NR license in Montana has increased by 1/10th of one percent of US mean household income.

You win if you also concede it was a rich mans game and out of reach for NR commoner average hunters even in the late 70's.

 

[brownbear932008]

Dam it I knew I should have hit submit on that Cheyenne post of duty posting this week! I could have had resident status before this bill becomes reality. 2022 season I'd be on tap for 6 pronghorn , 6 elk, arm loads of deer and even maybe a big 3 if I hit the jackpot. Maybe I should see if it's still open and pack up and head West.....
Not welfare tags like MT residents get to enjoy but that's okay. WY actually does excellent managing those animals and maybe I could tag one of those nice mulies in the NW units everyone loves and not have to draw that sucker. Heck I could even hunt the wilderness!

 

[CPAjeff]

After reading the bill, and listening to the proposal, I like the direction it's headed. Partly because I live in a state (Utah) that has decided to pimp out the best tags to the highest bidder and the so-called Hunt Expo draw - catering to the nonresident crowd seems to get a little old.

Regardless of the outcome, I'll still be submitting my annual applications to Wyoming.