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

[BuzzH]

Thanks Buzz.

I honestly don't have strong feelings about this either way. But, coming from someone who doesn't really care how this plays out, it seems that this change would mainly benefit those residents who do want to shoot two bucks. For those who only care to shoot one, they could just do 5 minutes of research and accomplish the same thing by putting down a 3rd choice that will actually be available to them.

Yes and No.

Residents are trying to draw second and third choices but so are a lot of others which means some are going without. That leaves a fair number of Residents without a buck permit.

I've applied for areas many times as a second choice and was denied even though there are tags available for second choice applicants. Its also tough to predict odds on second and third choices because the odds tables only show how many applied for the second choice tag. It doesnt show how many of those second choice applicants drew their first choices...same with third choice.

I agree that research is key, its just not predictable at all compared to 10-15 years ago.

 

[NoWiser]

Yes and No.

Residents are trying to draw second and third choices but so are a lot of others which means some are going without. That leaves a fair number of Residents without a buck permit.

I've applied for areas many times as a second choice and was denied even though there are tags available for second choice applicants. Its also tough to predict odds on second and third choices because the odds tables only show how many applied for the second choice tag. It doesnt show how many of those second choice applicants drew their first choices...same with third choice.

I agree that research is key, its just not predictable at all compared to 10-15 years ago.

That makes sense. But, a resident hunter can pretty easily look at the total quota of a unit for the previous year, figure out how many NR random tags should be issued, and then compare that with the draw report. If the number on the draw report is greater than what the random quota should be, it's a fairly safe bet that they'd draw it as a 3rd choice.

Again, I don't care what happens, but to me it looks residents either want a second buck tag, or free pass to be lazy and not do the required research before they fill out their application. I suspect it's mostly the former. Honestly, I can't say I wouldn't be pushing for the same thing if I was a Wyoming resident.

 

[Drake4]

If WY wants to continue to be so generous as to give me a shot at 20% of their pronghorn tags, I will take that deal in a heartbeat and shut up.
Who am I to care if a WY resident has 1 or 5 buck tags...their state, their antelope, their decision. I'm grateful for 20% and will hunt there as often as I can.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

You can call me one of those greedy WY residents. I love hunting antelope and enjoy getting multiple licenses. Same with elk. I would suspect most NRs would, if they were in my shoes, do the same. I also don't hunt in any other state.

 

[TOGIE]

You can call me one of those greedy WY residents. I love hunting antelope and enjoy getting multiple licenses. Same with elk. I would suspect most NRs would, if they were in my shoes, do the same. I also don't hunt in any other state.

absolutely would do the same if i lived there.

as an R in colorado, i'm already getting annoyed at the slow but certain increasing difficulty in getting buck mule deer tags second choice - i bet that will all but disappear in the next 4-5 years - and the increasing difficulty in getting a buck and a doe tag.

can i always get a deer tag? definitely. so am i really impacted? no. but i'm peeved for some reason... ahh the irony

well, actually, i'm truly fearful that in 10 years time there generally won't be a deer tag in the state that won't require at least a point as a resident if nothing changes. if that happens, i will be pissed. if cutting off NRs entirely is what it would take to get a deer tag every year i would press for it. though maybe my fear is irrational

 

[wytex]

That’s not the point. If this was a private enterprise you’d get convicted for running a Ponzi scheme. Once someone spends a dollar you shouldn’t just get to change the rules 10 years later after you’ve taken their money. That’s dishonest and completely lacks integrity....all for what a 7% increase in draw odds when for non residents this will pretty much make limited entry tags unobtainium. Just don’t see how that’s fair.

Your PP have never been a guarantee of a license, that is plainly stated on the PP page.

 

[CPAjeff]

If WY wants to continue to be so generous as to give me a shot at 20% of their pronghorn tags, I will take that deal in a heartbeat and shut up.
Who am I to care if a WY resident has 1 or 5 buck tags...their state, their antelope, their decision. I'm grateful for 20% and will hunt there as often as I can.

I couldn't agree more! I'll take my chances at those 20% and be completely happy!

My first year of applying for a Wyoming antelope tag was back in 2009. Since that time, I've drawn/bought 13x more antelope tags as a nonresident than I have drawn in my home state. I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity Wyoming gives us nonresidents. 20% seems quite generous . . .

 

[BrentD]

Population has ZERO to do with it. I'd be expecting legislation via Statute to force the Department to conduct a resident only drawing for our Statutorily promised allocations. The Commission will likely make that happen without forcing the Legislature to intervene, but they will if the Commission doesn't act.

This will be a change that is going to happen regardless of 90-10.

It has everything to do with it. Wyotes have roughly 52 federally financed acres for each and every one of them to hunt and support their game animals.

I think the only thing you would agree with is keeping all big game tags for residents in exchange for not increasing the nonres price for points. And maybe you could hold a drawing every once in a while to choose some lucky nonresidents who could come out and pack out your game for you (for an additional charge of course).

 

[Deleted member 16014]

On the bright side for those who feel WY is or is about to become unfair and discriminatory, MT is trying to nuke elk hunting opportunity for all regular folks, regardless of residency.

 

[BuzzH]

It has everything to do with it. Wyotes have roughly 52 federally financed acres for each and every one of them to hunt and support their game animals.

I think the only thing you would agree with is keeping all big game tags for residents in exchange for not increasing the nonres price for points. And maybe you could hold a drawing every once in a while to choose some lucky nonresidents who could come out and pack out your game for you (for an additional charge of course).

I've packed enough game for my NR friends that if I ever cash in on the debt I'm owed....I'll never have to pack another of the 3 elk a year I kill here until I'm dead. That's a fact.

 

[VikingsGuy]

tldr; The system is broken, time to try something different. Quibbling over the details while not changing some foundational problems gets us nowhere.

-----

This whole back and forth is pointless if we assume the status quo is the only way forward. Currently, they are WY's animals - no question about it. They can do whatever they want with them. They can give equal access to NRs, they can give NO access to NRs, they can exterminate big game to just above the ESA threshold, they can monetize the hell out of them with pricey tags, outfitter set-asides, governor tags, and One Shot events. Under this paradigm, arguing otherwise is pointless. The residents will understandably maximize their own utility from the asset they own - I don't begrudge them that - such is the nature of ownership. If they can make money with 20% NR tags they will. If they have happier citizens with 10% NR tags they will. Overlaying concepts like "greedy" doesn't really fit the conversation. As long as we accept that states should have full unmitigated rights to America's big game in the future (unlike America's waterfowl and large predators) then they will do what they will do.

I have suggested before that doing what's "right" within this framework might involve some different considerations, some that may even benefit WY and our public lands and wildlife in the long run, but have been roundly reminded that as a dirty NR my thoughts have no relevance. And as long as we accept the arbitrary continuation of the state's preeminent role then they are right.

However, like many members on this forum, I do not trust our 50 states to manage our public lands for the benefit of our people. I do not believe that the nation as a whole should write blank conservation checks to the states under the assumption they will manage these lands in the common interest. Most seem to agree with this as a core belief of public land advocates. In turn, I have learned over the years to not trust the 50 states to manage our public wildlife for the benefit of our people either. This is not so widely held, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Nothing in the NAM or the law requires that the states continue to be the unquestioned sole unit of governance/ownership in the future. We have already taken prominent and important species away from them due to their failures to protect and preserve. Maybe it is time we do the same with the big game species. Big game are a public resource, but a public resource that might be best protected and funded at a national level - paid for by all the people, accessible to all the people. Why would this not be a core tenant of a modern NAM?

I'll tell you why, because most Americans don't care enough to upset the status quo, and there is a very vocal group of incumbents that benefit from it. Some tell us to go to hell, some tell us to eat cake, some tell us to enjoy our 10% and write the check, but they clearly are defending a system they sit on top of but don't fully fund. Most of the time in America, the "favored" interests prevail, but every once in a while the people say, "enough".

So while I know this will go nowhere, I for one advocate for more federal management of wildlife and believe that is entirely consistent with the NAM and DIY public lands hunting. I do not apologize for thinking this about our public lands, and I do not apologize for thinking this about our public big game. The power of 350 million Americans to protect and preserve our public lands and our public wildlife is greater than a half dozen self-interested states and their few hundred thousand vested beneficiaries that have convinced us to subsidize their special place in the food chain.

And it doesn't necessarily have to go as far as fully substituting the fed for the state. Maybe there are some more state/fed partnerships that could still allow a heavy local hand while expanding opportunities for many.

For example, one of the bigger failings of the current state by state model is not NR tag allocation or price, but the byzantine complexity of tag allocations across many states that create barriers to entry for the average NR citizen, and hugely benefits a minority of well-informed incumbents. Big game are a finite public resource and the status quo is allowing a small group to disproportionately hoard access. Fewer 10-12 tag hunters and more 1-2 tag hunters multiplies the number of vested public land/wildlife advocates five+ fold.

Instead, how about a model that leaves the day to day management of wildlife to the states with some federal oversight (local can be better if done well) including setting science-based population targets, but that we extend the PR tax to "backpacks/canoes/etc" and use those funds to pay the states for 15% of their tags for all species at a 50% premium over current NR pricing to create a national pool of tags. NRs could then apply with just modest administrative fees (like other park access).

The national draw would be fully random, on a single date (or rolling dates by species or region) and folks could choose modified state/unit preferences/1st choice/2nd choice/3rd choice just like now (it would be great to simply say my 1st choice is central WY and my 2nd is central Montana and my 3rd is northern NM). If you drew one year then you would sit out the next for 1st choice draw of that species (but could stay in for 2nd/3rd choice and for 1st choice on other species). No state "boondoggle rules" like outfitter requirements, etc. would be allowed to apply to the national pool tags. No PP Ponzi schemes. Fair, simple, transparent. More access for more citizens. More money to the states. More flexibility for NRs while allowing the state to maintain its carte blanche control on how to manage their resident system and 85% of the tags - landowner tags or not, PP Ponzi or not, etc., etc. whatever level of complexity those residents can stand.

A state could opt entirely out if they wished but then they would get no federal funding (PR or otherwise) for big game wildlife management [added: and their residents would not be eligible to draw in the national pool]. If they want 100% control instead of 85% control, they can pay the 100% bill - no free-riding in state or out of state.

For states that opt-in, some of that extra PR money could also go to buying (or enforcing) easement/access to landlocked federal lands for R and NR. If there is enough it could also help subsidize state WMA-style access programs (also benefiting R and NR). Maybe give landowners tax breaks or breaks on lease fees if they allow DIY hunting access in states that opt-in (thereby lessening pressure for landowner and outfitter tags). All kinds of possibilities arise when a broader nation has an interest in (and $$ to fund) new approaches.

None of this gets done if we leave it to the current state-alone model. And there is no doubt there would be little support from incumbents that are used to having 10 tags a year. But I think the current system is ripe for significant meltdown and loss of public mindshare in my son's lifetime. PETA is growing support far faster than RMEF or BHA. The pie is shrinking and DIY public land hunters are fighting amongst themselves, maybe it is time to start doing things a little different even if some of the vested incumbents don't get things 100% to their liking.

 

[Washington Hunter]

The problem with the federal management idea is wildlife don't know where the property lines are, and they don't live their entire lives on federal lands. Some never set foot on federal land.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The problem with the federal management idea is wildlife don't know where the property lines are, and they don't live their entire lives on federal lands. Some never set foot on federal land.

It is not about managing them while on federal lands. It is about a federal role in their management as a public resource in 2021. A simple analogy is the ESA doesn't apply to animals that only live on federal land. Another is waterfowl don't have to live on federal lands to come under federal management. I get that each is a different circumstance - I am just saying presence on federal lands is absolutely not a requirement for federal involvement. (frankly in almost any area of federal involvement on almost any topic area)

No different than state management of animals that wander back and forth across state and private boundary lines.

And if this offends a state's federalist beliefs, then fine, opt-out and stop spending the fed's money for these activities you want them to stay out of.

 

[cur dog]

Your choice, you can stop

Yes and No.

Residents are trying to draw second and third choices but so are a lot of others which means some are going without. That leaves a fair number of Residents without a buck permit.

I've applied for areas many times as a second choice and was denied even though there are tags available for second choice applicants. Its also tough to predict odds on second and third choices because the odds tables only show how many applied for the second choice tag. It doesnt show how many of those second choice applicants drew their first choices...same with third choice.

I agree that research is key, its just not predictable at all compared to 10-15 years ago.

It is not about managing them while on federal lands. It is about a federal role in their management as a public resource in 2021. A simple analogy is the ESA doesn't apply to animals that only live on federal land. Another is waterfowl don't have to live on federal lands to come under federal management. I get that each is a different circumstance - I am just saying presence on federal lands is absolutely not a requirement for federal involvement. (frankly in almost any area of federal involvement on almost any topic area)

No different than state management of animals that wander back and forth across state and private boundary lines.

And if this offends a state's federalist beliefs, then fine, opt-out and stop spending the fed's money for these activities you want them to stay out of.

All of this talk about resident entitlements, reminds me of a nauseating NPR piece.

 

[RobertD]

if cutting off NRs entirely is what it would take to get a deer tag every year i would press for it

And you would be damn justified in feeling that way.

I think about how I relate to the large amount of NR hunters that come hunt in Georgia. (Sourh Georgia is where South Florida goes to hunt deer.) I recognize that I and others regard them as "outsiders," not in a malicious way but in a way that reflects that this is an unassailable fact. But for us, there's such an overwhelming abundance of deer to chase, no one has to feel like the "outsiders" are biting into our slice of the pie.

Now if it came a day that I was sitting at home, with no tag or some other major impediment to me going afield, while watching "outsiders" pour in and hunt? This makes it harder to feel charitable towards non-residents I'm sure. I've tried to use this thought exercise, so to speak, to gain some insight into the resident's perspective.

And generally, this is why I'm receptive to ideas like what Buzz outlined a few pages ago... taking a small L as NR hunters that translates to a significant W for resident hunters is a good thing. If residents are dissatisfied, they become a greater impediment to NR hunter opportunities through legislative pressure we don't have. Better to give ground in the name of being equitable to residents first and foremost, to maintain good relations that keep the door open for NRs. Also makes it easier to work together in the meantime towards "making a bigger pie."

 

[Wind Gypsy]

With the direction things are going politically, giving feds more control over state management of wildlife is terrifying to me. I think I'd prefer to take my chances with the ever decreasing NR opportunity.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Buzz, do resident applicants get a crack at their second and third choices before the tags get rolled over to the NR draw? Serious question that I haven't been able to figure out.

They want 2 buck tags. Can't draw two buck tags in the first draw, so they want a buck tag in the first draw then first crack at the leftover tags for a 2nd buck tag.

 

[Zarno12]

As a first time non-resident coming to hunt WY this year, this is really lovely news. Not.

 

[RobertD]

As a first time non-resident coming to hunt WY this year, this is really lovely news. Not.

A lot of the tragedy here is overstated. Hurts the guys who have a lot of points built up more than anyone, but there will still be plenty of opportunity after the changes go through

 

[Shangobango]

And you would be damn justified in feeling that way.

I think about how I relate to the large amount of NR hunters that come hunt in Georgia. (Sourh Georgia is where South Florida goes to hunt deer.) I recognize that I and others regard them as "outsiders," not in a malicious way but in a way that reflects that this is an unassailable fact. But for us, there's such an overwhelming abundance of deer to chase, no one has to feel like the "outsiders" are biting into our slice of the pie.

Now if it came a day that I was sitting at home, with no tag or some other major impediment to me going afield, while watching "outsiders" pour in and hunt? This makes it harder to feel charitable towards non-residents I'm sure. I've tried to use this thought exercise, so to speak, to gain some insight into the resident's perspective.

And generally, this is why I'm receptive to ideas like what Buzz outlined a few pages ago... taking a small L as NR hunters that translates to a significant W for resident hunters is a good thing. If residents are dissatisfied, they become a greater impediment to NR hunter opportunities through legislative pressure we don't have. Better to give ground in the name of being equitable to residents first and foremost, to maintain good relations that keep the door open for NRs. Also makes it easier to work together in the meantime towards "making a bigger pie."

I agree to a point.

It will be all good for the residents as long as the Non-resident demand holds. They can cut NR quotas and jack up NR prices as long as the demand remains with no net loss to funding.

The only constant in this world though is change…